On March 14, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper said he will appoint members of the State Board of Elections this week. Once the board has members, the Green Party will be on the ballot. The election law says the Green Party belongs on the ballot because its presidential nominee was on the ballot in at least 35 states in 2016. But employees of the Election Board refused to carry out this part of the law, saying they couldn’t because the Board had no members.
What if the requirement was 49 of the 50 States ???
Internal ballot access based om external ballot access
= NO *sovereignty*
— who needs an internal legislature (for any/all laws) ???
Part of Cooper’s challenge to the law was that he could exercise enough control over the board to ensure that Democrats win (or as his lawyers phrased it – to ensure that the laws of the state be faithfully complied with).
The law passed by the legislature provided that the Executive Director who had been appointed when Republicans were in control would remain in place. Had Cooper been in control of the board, the Executive Director would have been replaced by a big donor/lackey/wise administrator.
Had the Executive Director made decisions assigned to the elections board, those decisions could have been added to the lawsuit. The legislature had combined the Elections Board and the Ethics Board. Cooper was arguing that the merger was void. Decisions made for a non-existent board would be particularly suspect.
The new law that provides for the 9th member of the board takes effect this week (after the period for a gubernatorial veto lapses). Cooper filed suit against the new law on Tuesday, but another court made a ruling that suggested a TRO would not be issued. Cooper would be in the uncomfortable position of refusing to appoint members to the board why the matter is litigated.
Last year, a lower court had refused to rule on the 2nd law, saying that they did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court had taken over and invalidated 2nd law, and remanded the case to the lower court to explain why they didn’t have jurisdiction, and how they would have ruled had they had jurisdiction. The order this week explained why the court believed that they did not have jurisdiction, and if they did have jurisdiction would have upheld the law.
Who needs election boards full of APPOINTED HACKS ???
Instead – Have armies of lawyers attacking all LAWLESS election officials (ESP. each SOS) 24/7 !!! ???