by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press April 15, 2025
RALEIGH — Lawyer Jim Phillips Jr. feels like Bill Murray in “Groundhog Day.” The Wake County Superior Court judges do, too. On Monday, a three-judge panel heard the latest arguments over a contested law that would shift elections appointment power from Democratic Gov. Josh Stein to Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek, with a focus on whether the action would be allowed under the state Constitution.
The judges said a ruling would be issued soon, but didn’t elaborate further.
But time is of the essence. Under the contested law, state elections board members would be appointed in May. For county members, it’s June.
Since 2016, Phillips has litigated six iterations of this same case — all involving the Republican-controlled legislature trying to shift some or all election board appointment power away from the governor.
The methods have varied. First, the General Assembly tried to siphon off half of the appointment power to themselves. That didn’t get far.
Next, they attempted to create a board with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. The state Supreme Court wasn’t a fan, but that didn’t stop legislators from later putting a similar question to voters through a constitutional amendment. It failed by a wide margin.
Most recently, the legislature has taken a different approach — handing off the governor’s appointment power to Republican executives. In 2023, they tried to shift administrative power to the Secretary of State while granting themselves appointment power. But in the middle of court proceedings in that case, a Democrat won that office.
Shortly after the election, the legislature pivoted, passing a law that would give the newly-elected Republican state auditor appointment power.
At stake is which political party holds majorities in the state’s five-member election boards. Currently, the governor has to appoint at least two Democrats and Republicans, but can choose their preferred party for the final seat.
It’s like “whack-a-mole,” Phillips said during Monday’s court hearing.
“As the record over the past eight years shows,” he said, “the General Assembly is on a mission to both enact and execute the state’s elections.”
The Wake County Superior Court has to decide, once again, whether the state Constitution allows such a power shift.
NC Constitution and politics
North Carolina has never been a fan of all-powerful executives. That certainly applied to governors back in colonial times and the state Constitution reflects that.
“Our Constitution has never placed all power in the governor,” legislative attorney Matthew Tilley said during Monday’s hearing.
He argued that there is nothing in the state Constitution explicitly banning the legislature from shifting appointment powers and so they have implied permission to do it.
However, Phillips cited two sections of the Constitution he believes would limit the General Assembly’s power. First, the “vesting” clause, which states: “The executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor.” Second, the “take care” clause, which states: “The governor shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Phillips argued that these sections are clear: Executive power belongs solely to the governor. If the governor loses appointment power, then they have no control over whether the people on those executive bodies, like the State Board of Elections, are faithfully executing the law, Phillips said.
Tilley, on the other hand, thinks there’s room for everybody — or, at least, the other Council of State officers. He argued that although the governor is in charge of faithfully executing their duties, that doesn’t mean they have to be given every duty.
The state Constitution gives the General Assembly the power to prescribe the duties of Council of State members, he said.
‘Glaring reason’
During Monday’s hearing, Judge Edwin Wilson pushed back on the idea that the case doesn’t involve separation of powers issues. If the legislative branch can give a power traditionally held by the governor to an executive they favor under the Constitution, doesn’t the executive branch effectively serve at the pleasure of the legislative branch?
There’s a pretty “glaring reason” why the legislature chose the state auditor for this job, Judge Lori Hamilton commented. Boliek is a Republican while Secretary of State Elaine Marshall — perhaps a more natural fit for the job — is a Democrat.
But playing politics doesn’t violate the Constitution, Tilley countered. And politics is what would theoretically stop the legislature from shifting all executive power from Democrats to Republicans, he added. At some point, legislative leaders would have to make a political calculation.
And, maybe, placing appointment power in the auditor’s office would take off some “partisan pressure,” Tilley said.
Hamilton disagreed.
“It’s not less partisan,” she said. “It’s perhaps less public. It’s perhaps less well funded … but it’s going to start if these powers start being shifted.”
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.
