North Carolina law does not permit anyone to serve on the State Board of Elections, or a county board, unless that voter is a registered member of one of the two largest parties in the state. On June 7, Michael Crowell, an independent voter and an attorney, sued on his own behalf to overturn that law. Crowell v North Carolina, m.d., 1:17cv-515. Here is the Complaint. Thanks to Brian Irving for the news.
lets hope that law gets struck down.
Any mention of belonging to a organization as part of the criteria for a position should be an immediate red flag that its unconstitutional
The question now is whether the judge hearing his case is independent enough to make the right decision (declare the law unconstitutional).
Interesting timing.
Last December, the legislature changed the composition of the State and County Boards to be an even number of members. There was a challenge based on separation of powers since it would let the General Assembly to appoint half of the members of the board. Governor Cooper challenged it on the basis that it would diminish his control over elections. The legislature then passed a new bill which gives the appointment power to the governor, but continues the bipartisan nature of the board. Cooper vetoed that bill (SB 68), and the veto was then overridden. Cooper then legally challenged SB 68, but was rejected by a court on June 1. It is unclear whether Cooper has appealed that decision or not.
The risk in having “independent” members on a board deliberately designed to be bipartisan is that they will be sleeper agents. Is Michael Crowell acting independently in this case, or is he a proxy for Roy Cooper?
Another attempt to shut out Libertarians and fans. Shared at Libertarian poll data workgroup: https://www.facebook.com/groups/736882696414329/
The jury concept can be applied to the administration of elections. The jury concept can be applied up to the state level differing in the increasing length of the jury term from Precinct to County to State. A jury empaneled to conduct the election at the precinct level would serve for one election. A jury empaneled at the county level would serve only two years and at the state level for four years. The jury pool would be all persons eligible to serve on any type of jury. Even if there were no state-sanctioned political parties elections could be administered directly by citizens.
With a jury system, is there a need for elections at all? Couldn’t juries directly administer all government functions?
Jim, that would make jurors full-time government employees. Do you really want to go there? 🙂
They could hire people. It would be like a school board that hires a superintendent, or a city with a city manager. One problem with the government now is that congressmen and legislators are full-time government employees.
Your original proposal has some merit at least at the precinct level. My understanding is that system is used in Germany, where clerks for elections are chosen randomly from citizens. Sadly, elections in the US have become so complicated that ordinary Americans might not be capable of running them.
I’m not sure how your proposal for county or state juries for elections would work. Would the county jury arrange for voting sites, voting machines, ballot printing, etc. That sounds like full-time work at least in large counties.
There are a lot of positions in Michigan which are legally limited to Ds and Rs — either by name or as long as they’re the top two finishers for President (or sometimes governor or SOS, I think). So I will be watching with considerable interest to see not only which way this case is decided, but also how broad the ruling is. Will the courts make a ruling only covering directly election-related positions? (Would that include redistricting bodies? How about result- and/or petition-canvassing bodies?)
The timing of this lawsuit is quite interesting. In the past, state and county boards of elections in North Carolina had an odd-number of members, which would result in one party (that of the governor) controlling the board (for the five-member SBOE, no party could have more than three members).
The legislation changing to a an even number on the boards was passed in a special session in December, a couple of weeks before Roy Cooper(D) became governor. That bill provided that some members would be appointed by legislative leaders, and a North Carolina court overturned that on the basis of separation of powers. The legislature then passed a new version which lets the governor appoint all members but maintains a 4:4 split on the state board, and 2:2 on the county boards. The governor vetoed the bill, but was overridden by the legislature. The governor filed suit, but this time the court upheld the decision (on June 1).
So the timing of this latest lawsuit a few days later is more than a bit interesting. It also appears that the governor is trying to mess with the litigation over redistricting, similar to what Terry McAuliffe did in Virginia.
There can be interesting effects of laws that provide for partisan representation. In Alaska, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee withdrew, and the Democratic Party was unable to provide a replacement (or at least did not). The Libertarian nominee finished second among partisan candidates (with 3.2% of the vote, behind an independent and the Republican nominee). This entitles the Libertarian Party to two members on the Alaska Public Offices Commission, which regulates campaign practices. As of 2017, two Libertarians have been appointed as the Democratic Party terms have expired.