Newby disrobed

When a justice on the highest court in the state votes to change the rules of an election after the election has been held, you can be sure he’s not interested in justice or fairness. He’s interested in winning and he’s willing to undermine democracy to do it. That’s who Paul Newby is.

The non-profit watchdog journal ProPublica has done an extensive profile of Newby, laying out the roots of his authoritarian instincts and implies a Christian nationalism that could help upend the country’s long-time commitment to liberal democracy.

I grew up around judges. My father was one who served in both district and superior courts. For several years, we attended judicial conferences around the state, getting to know the kids and families of other judges. As a political professional, I helped elect a number of them.

The judges who are best for our state, our country, and our society are the ones who hang their partisanship at the door when they enter the courtroom. They look for fairness and justice, even if it contradicts their own political views. In this day and age, those people are hard to find and Paul Newby is certainly not one of them.

Newby sees himself as a partisan and Christian warrior, not an impartial observer. The ProPublica profile documents a man bent on politicizing the judiciary and using it to legitimize Republican control of state government. He led the charge to make judicial races partisan again and to facilitate dark money in judicial campaigns. Today, our judicial elections are ugly, expensive races with the same over-the-top partisan rhetoric that have infected our Congressional or legislative campaigns.

Newby has backed efforts to strip power from the governor in decisions he almost certainly never would have made had the governor been a Republican. He’s thrown tradition and precedent to the wind, ignoring procedural order to give Republicans wins that consolidate their hold on power. He’s appointed three-judge panels that yield the results he wants.

Newby’s also a thin-skinned and petty man. When Roy Cooper appointed Cheri Beasley Chief Justice after Republican Mark Martin resigned, Newby had a temper tantrum, releasing a statement saying the appointment put “raw partisan politics over a non-partisan judiciary.” That’s rich coming from Newby, but his argument was disingenuous.

Newby claimed Cooper was breaking a tradition of appointing the senior justice to the top post, but that’s not true. Not many chief justices have been replaced, but in 1986, Republican Governor Jim Martin replaced a retiring Democratic Chief Justice with Republican Rhoda Billings, who had only served on the court for a year and had a total of five years judicial experience. The only tradition is governors appointing chief justices of their own party.

Newby and his court have done damage to the impartiality of the judiciary in North Carolina, turning it into a vehicle to advance partisan agendas. He’s upended tradition and made radical reforms. Today, Republicans regularly support judicial candidates with little experience but strong ideological leanings.

Newby and his colleagues could rue the day. Democrats have a plan to take back the court. The first phase worked when Alison Riggs won her election to the state Supreme Court after a ruling by a federal judge virtually mocked Newby’s vote to overturn the will of the voters, writing, “You establish the rules before the game. You don’t change them after the game is done.” The second phase comes in 2026 when Democrats defend the seat held by Anita Earls. The final phase comes in 2028 when three Republican seats will be up. If Democrats win two of the three, they will hold a four-three majority.

Democrats need to make judicial races a priority because they will need to have strong election cycles to win back the court. If they do, the new court could follow Newby’s rules, not the decorum of the courts past. They could bring up gerrymandering and restore the power of the governor. They could rule unconstitutional legislative overreach that Newby and his colleagues have sanctioned.

Take time to read the ProPublica profile. It lays bare the history of a man who has put partisanship above fairness. It tells the story of a chief justice who blurs the line between church and state and leaves questions whether Newby is more influenced by his loyalty to the constitution or his narrow religious ideology.

Newby’s wife wrote to friends during a campaign, “Paul, as a believer in Christ Jesus, is clothed in the righteousness of Christ alone. Because of that, he has direct access to Almighty God to cry out for wisdom in seeking for the Court to render justice.”

In other words, Newby believes he was chosen by God. So did Jim Jones.