North Carolina State Elections Board Won’t Accept Evidence that Green Party is Now Ballot-Qualified Until Legal Dispute Over Board is Settled

On December 29, officers of the North Carolina Green Party presented the State Board of Elections with evidence that the party meets the new definition of “political party”. The evidence consists of proof that Jill Stein was on the ballot in at least 35 states in 2016.

An employee of the State Board of Elections said that this evidence cannot now be accepted, because the State Board technically now has no members, and therefore it doesn’t exist. The State Board’s web page says that all the member slots are “vacant.” This is because in 2017 the state legislature passed a bill changing the makeup of the State Board, and Democratic Governor Roy Cooper sued to invalidate the new law. The lawsuit, Cooper v Berger, 52PA17-2, is pending in the State Supreme Court (the lower state court had rejected the lawsuit). Until it is settled, the employees of the Board maintain that there is no Board.


Comments

North Carolina State Elections Board Won’t Accept Evidence that Green Party is Now Ballot-Qualified Until Legal Dispute Over Board is Settled — 17 Comments

  1. Oh come on! So until the State Supreme Court make a ruling, the Green Party has no possible way to be declared ballot-qualified? Great timing, considering midterms are coming up and all.

  2. Any chain of command in the NC Executive Branch for election stuff —

    Guv ???
    SoS ???
    AG ???
    —-
    ANY receiving of legal stuff as an agent in NC ??? — ie by the MORON employee/agent of the board.

    Obviously the board exists as a matter of LAW — even if it has NO members — aka has NO quorum – min. number of members to make decisions.

  3. The lights are on, but no one’s home. Your ballot is not your own.
    Might as well face it you’re addicted to fraud.
    See Addicted to Love.

  4. Thsoe employees might have had a leg to stand on if they’d said, “Okay, we’ll take your paperwork — but the board officially doesn’t have any members right now, so it can’t get up a quorum to act on your application for ballot status yet.” Of course, either way NC Greens would still be able to claim they’ve done their best to follow the administrative process and get a decision from it. . . .

  5. The Appeals Court had rejected the case as non-judiciable saying it was a political decision, to be made by elected representatives of the people. The Supreme Court then ordered the Appeals Court to make a ruling, so it could be appealed to them, saying that the Supreme Court was an appellate court, that could only hear appeals.

    The Appeals Court then made a finding that the statute was not non-unconstitutional. The primary claim of Roy Cooper is that the statute violates separation of powers. For example he claims that the 4:4 composition of the board would deny his executive ability to control or dictate the conduct of elections. It also said that it was speculative that the board would deadlock 4:4, and that there was nothing remarkable about requiring gubernatorial appointees be made from lists submitted by third parties.

    The Supreme Court has now (as of early December) received briefs from the plaintiff (Cooper) and defendants (legislative leaders) and a reply brief from Cooper. I would assume a ruling could come anytime now, unless the court wants to hear oral arguments.

    The Supreme Court has since the 2016 election had a 4:3 Democratic majority, the result of the elections being made “non-partisan” after the Republicans kept winning partisan elections. It might take them extra time to craft a decision that has the appearance of being based on the law.

    BTW, the plaintiff’s lawyer from the legislative redistricting case, has withdrawn so she can run for the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2018.

    The term of the executive director of the state board of elections was extended by the legislature. If there were a board, they could choose a new executive director.

  6. Based on the JR report —

    Where is the New Age Union Army/Navy to liberate the NC People from its tyrants ??? —

    *** executive ability to control or dictate the conduct of elections ***

    TYRANTS love the *control or dictate* stuff — see Stalin and Hitler.

  7. Also — NO such thing as a *political question* —

    every act or omission does or does not violate the LAW — 2 x 2 = 4

    The PQ stuff is one more screwed up subject by the SCOTUS HACK morons (and State courts) since 1776-1789.

  8. 1 more amdt —

    The executive power of the People, not retained by the People, shall be in the elected and appointed executive officers in this constitution and as provided by law.

    ALL sorts of DARK AGE super-dangerous monarchy stuff in the current USA and State Consts — regardless of the killer King George III (and his gangsters) in 1761-1783.

  9. THE 2017 NC GERRYMANDER OLIGARCHS WERE BUSY —

    https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/EnactedLegislation/ELTOC.pl?sType=Law&sSessionToView=2017&sSort=sSortKey

    2017-3 H100 Restore Partisan Elections/Sup. & Dist. Court. [ HTML | RTF | PDF ]
    2017-6 S68 Bipartisan Bd of Elections and Ethics Enforce. [ HTML | RTF | PDF ]
    2017-207 S691 2017 Senate Floor Redistricting Plan – 4th Ed. [ HTML | RTF | PDF ]
    2017-208 H927 2017 House Redistricting Plan A2. [ HTML | RTF | PDF ]
    2017-214 S656 Electoral Freedom Act of 2017. [ HTML | RTF | PDF ]

    —-
    2017-6 HAS THE NC SBE MACHINATIONS.

  10. @JALP,

    Oops! Too many no-nos.

    That should have read the “Appeals Court then made a finding that the statute was not unconstitutional.”

    http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Cooper-v.-Berger-2-10.31.17-Order.pdf

    The first eight pages explain why the Appeals Court does not have jurisdiction. The ninth page explains that while the Appeals Court does not believe they have jurisdiction, how they out of respect for the Supreme Court would rule as if they did have jurisdiction.

    Pages 10 through 14 are their findings that the statute is not unconstitutional (a statute is prescriptively constitutional. A finding not unconstitutional is similar to “not guilty” not meaning “innocent”

  11. Darn . . . I was kind of hoping either the Appeals Court itself or Jim Riley had found a neat way of riffing on the tendency toward triple phrasing — still surviving among some attorneys, though I try to eschew obfuscation myself — and blending it with the obscurantism of multiple negatives.

  12. Neg x Neg = Pos

    Pos x Neg = Neg

    How many double negs in MORON constitutions and laws ???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *