by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press April 28, 2025
For the fifth time in a decade, a court has decided that the legislature cannot remove a governor’s power to appoint election board members. During a hearing last week in Wake County Superior Court, a three-judge panel ruled that a law attempting to give the governor’s elections appointment power to the state auditor would make it impossible for the chief executive to do their job as the North Carolina Constitution requires.
Currently, county election boards are comprised of five members, with two each coming from the Democratic and Republican parties. The governor gets to appoint the chair.
The governor also chooses all State Board of Elections members.
Ultimately, those appointment powers can give the governor, and by extension their political party, tremendous influence on election matters.
Since former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper won office in 2016,Republican lawmakers have made numerous attempts to take that deciding vote away.
Each time, they’ve fallen short.
In this latest attempt, the Republican defendants — Senate leader Phil Berger, House Speaker Destin Hall and State Auditor Dave Boliek — said they will appeal the ruling. While the players are different this time around, the case will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the state Supreme Court.
The state’s highest court has seen this play out before. But that was in 2017 when Democrats held the majority and narrowly struck down a separate attempt.
Eight years later, things have changed. Republicans hold a 5-2 advantage. That could make all the difference.
Appointment power and executive ‘hopscotch’
If courts ultimately side with the legislature, North Carolina will be the first state that grants any elections power to a state auditor.
Usually, that duty goes to a secretary of state, if anyone, but a Democrat won that office in the most recent election.
Ann Webb, the policy director for Common Cause North Carolina, hopes courts see through the “partisanship” of legislators.
But partisanship isn’t necessarily unconstitutional, as legislative attorney Matthew Tilley noted during arguments before the Wake County court.
In response, Wake County Superior Court Judge Lisa Hamilton said if they allowed this maneuver, there would be nothing stopping a future legislature from shifting election appointment power to another executive office, like the treasurer or agricultural commissioner, to ensure their party maintained control.
“I’m hoping that we’re not going to hopscotch around all nine members of the Council of State until we finally land on the one that would be appropriate,” Hamilton said during the hearing.
The court’s order reflected this concern.
While the General Assembly is allowed to assign duties to members of the Council of State, that right stops where the governor’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws begins, the court ruled. The faithful execution of the laws is not a shared duty among all Council of State members, they continued.
Partisanship takes center stage
The final battle is set for the NC Supreme Court.
There, the major dynamic will be “partisan perspectives and allegiance versus constitutional principles,” Catawba College political science professor Michael Bitzer said.
“I think the expectation is that partisanship will be a determinative factor,” he said. “Whether it’s clearly enunciated in an opinion, I think we’ll just have to wait and see.”
Webb agrees. The state Supreme Court has shown a willingness to act in partisan ways, particularly when it comes to giving the legislature power, she said.
“It’s going to be very interesting to watch whether the state Supreme Court is willing to overturn its own precedent or twist the interpretation of its own precedent to allow that (power shift) to happen.”
North Carolina doesn’t have a particularly powerful governor, but that position does come with some fundamental executive power, Webb continued.
“If that gets dissolved piece by piece by the legislature, then we end up with a false pretense of an executive branch, and that’s not how it’s supposed to work and that’s not how voters assume it’s going to work,” she said.
Legislative leaders haven’t exactly shied away from the partisan angle.
In a statement on social media after the Wake County ruling, Hall, the House Speaker, said the Democratic-controlled State Board runs elections like its operating in “a banana republic, making up the rules as it goes.”
Pat Gannon, a spokesman for the State Board of Elections,objected to the characterization.
“These accusations about the bipartisan-run elections in our state are unfortunate and unfounded. In accordance with state and federal law, North Carolina’s voter rolls are maintained through careful processes that protect our elections and the rights of the voters,” he said in a statement to Carolina Public Press.
If the sixth time’s not the charm, Webb hopes legislators will finally stop. Or, at least, take the Democratic route in attaining appointment power: winning gubernatorial elections.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
The content primarily reflects a Center-Left bias due to its focus on the implications of legislative actions concerning electoral processes in North Carolina, highlighting the tensions between Republican lawmakers and the Democratic governor. It emphasizes concerns about partisanship and the influence of political parties on election integrity, while featuring perspectives from advocacy groups like Common Cause, which are generally aligned with progressive values. The content presents legal arguments that defend the governor’s authority in a manner that leans towards retaining Democratic influence in election matters. Overall, the tone suggests a greater concern for maintaining checks on legislative power than for advocating any specific partisan agenda.
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
