A political firestorm is brewing in North Carolina, 300 miles south of Washington D.C., mirroring the intensity of the national political climate. The battle centers around a controversial bill that seeks to shift control of the state’s Board of Elections from the Governor’s office to the State Auditor’s office. This maneuver, tucked within a bill ostensibly designed for Hurricane Helene relief, has ignited a furious debate, highlighting the deep partisan divisions within the state.
With Republicans holding a slim majority in the state legislature, the Senate successfully overrode outgoing Democratic Governor Roy Cooper’s veto. However, this victory was far from peaceful. The override vote was punctuated by boisterous protests from the public gallery, leading Lt. Governor Mark Robinson, presiding officer of the Senate, to clear the gallery twice. Protesters shouted accusations of voter suppression and constitutional violations, while Robinson maintained order, asserting that the disruptions were interfering with the legislative process. The clashes underscored the high stakes of this political maneuvering.
Democrats vehemently denounce the bill as a blatant power grab, particularly given that Republicans secured the auditor’s office (with Dave Boliek) but failed to win the gubernatorial election (Josh Stein defeating Mark Robinson). Governor Cooper himself labeled the legislation a “massive power grab,” highlighting its lack of substantial immediate aid for western North Carolina, which was significantly impacted by Hurricane Helene. This critique raises serious questions about the bill’s true intent beyond purported disaster relief.
Adding fuel to the fire, research associate Jim Stirling from the John Locke Foundation, a North Carolina-based think tank, points to a complex legal battle surrounding the governor’s authority over appointments. He highlights the ongoing lawsuit, arguing that the governor’s power doesn’t extend to all aspects of law execution, implying that other elected officials share this responsibility. The veto override might render parts of this lawsuit moot, potentially necessitating a complete restart of the legal proceedings.
The proposed shift in power would place the appointment and funding of the election board under the state auditor’s control, while maintaining the board’s operational independence. However, this change would effectively alter the board’s current Democratic control, giving the Republican auditor significant influence over election processes. This includes the authority to appoint chairpersons across all 100 North Carolina counties, a substantial shift in the balance of power.
Adding to the complexity, the attempted transfer of appointment power has faced numerous legal challenges in the past. The precedent-setting *Cooper v. Berger* case ruled that moving such powers to the legislature unconstitutionally infringed on executive branch authority. Similarly, *McCrory v. Berger* (involving former Republican Governor Patrick McCrory) saw the state Supreme Court rule against legislative appointments for violating the principle of separation of powers.
The Republican plan now faces a significant hurdle in the House. Three Republicans from the hard-hit western region voted against the bill, citing a lack of direct hurricane relief funds. Even if the election board appointment aspect is deemed permissible, a potential failure to override the veto in the House leaves the future of this controversial bill hanging in the balance. The outcome will profoundly impact North Carolina’s political landscape and the control of its election processes for years to come.
