Republicans are trying to prevent a duly elected state Supreme Court justice from taking his seat. If they succeed, the refusal to vote will be institutionalized.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House on Monday has no less analysts than Martin Wolf Financial Times asking, “Will American democracy survive a second Donald Trump presidency?”
Good question.
Here’s another one: Will US democracy survive the theft of a Supreme Court seat in North Carolina?
While the Trump issue is certainly legitimate and exciting, the North Carolina issue is no less important.
In the same Nov. 5 election in which Trump narrowly defeated Democrat Kamala Harris, another Democrat, North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Alison Riggs, with a small gain a full term on the North Carolina Supreme Court. But her victory has yet to be officially certified because the Republican majority on the Supreme Court is blocking confirmation of the results — out of deference to a Republican legal strategy that seeks to disqualify tens of thousands of ballots that voters, state election officials and election experts say were legally abandoned. The attempt by defeated Supreme Court nominee Jefferson Griffin and his GOP allies to overturn the result has rattled Democrats in North Carolina and across the country.
“That the North Carolina Supreme Court will delay the certification of this election and consider Judge Griffin’s far-fetched lawsuits is a repeat of the 2020 efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election that did irreparable damage to American democracy,” said former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold, president of the American constitutional society.
Current issue
“At a time when state courts should serve as a bulwark to protect voter rights, reproductive and other health care rights, the rule of law, and democratic institutions, this attempt to undermine the will of voters serves as a warning we should heed that the conservative legal movement in states across the country.”
Riggs’ victory in the Supreme Court race is a major development for North Carolina, a swing state where Democrats have been on the rise in recent years, a fact that has Republicans increasingly concerned that their party’s ability to compete in free and fair elections weakens. Although Republicans on the floor maintained their 5-2 majority even after Riggs’ victory, Democrats won on November 5 in national competitions for the positions of governor, attorney general, secretary of state and head of public education. And while Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris didn’t win North Carolina’s electoral votes, she kept the presidential race so close that both she and Trump were barnstorming across the country in the final days before the election.
The North Carolina High Court has become a particular focus for Republicans because its conservative majority has kept the Grand Old Party in the political fray, upholding partisan gerrymandering of legislative and congressional maps that favor the GOP, and numerous attacks on voting rights. Riggs’ victory on Nov. 5 was the latest evidence of a Democratic surge and the prospect that the court could in the coming years, through additional electoral victories or appointments by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, have a Democratic majority that respects democracy and the rule of law.
So North Carolina Republicans are making a frantic anti-Democratic effort to prevent the loss of the judiciary that has so often benefited them politically.
This isn’t the first time North Carolina Republicans have caused a firestorm after losing a statewide race. It’s the party that, after losing the governorship and other statewide jobs last fall, moved into the GOP-controlled North Carolina Legislature in officially remove power Governor Stein and other Democrats.
But what’s happening now with the judicial race in North Carolina raises serious concerns about the future of judicial elections in that state and others across the country.
State court races have become increasingly contentious and expensive in recent years. why? Because they matter. The 2023 transfer of control of the officially nonpartisan Wisconsin Supreme Court from a conservative 4-3 majority to a progressive majority has already changed the state’s debate on everything from fraud to voting rights, abortion rights and labor rights. Democrats and Republicans across the country have come to realize that winning judicial contests is just as important as winning legislative and executive branch races.
popular
“Swipe to the bottom left to see more authors”Swipe →
But what happens when Trump-inspired Republicans “big lie” about the past elections and neglect of democratic norms — decided not to recognize the results of elections they don’t like, from the judicial race and other struggles? What will happen if they use any means to undermine the process, “(challenging) the rules that were in place for the election and get retroactive votes,” as Ann Webb, policy director of Common Cause North Carolina, suggests?
The answer, says the political analyst, is clear. “If there is an endless process of challenging the rules and election results after the fact,” Webb says, “our whole system could come to a standstill.”
The script is playing out now.
Even as people in the United States and around the world watch Trump’s inauguration with deep concern, they should also be wary of what’s happening in North Carolina about what it portends for democracy.
At the heart of the conflict is the fact that North Carolina had a close election. This is not uncommon in North Carolina and the rest of the country.
But what happened next is irregular and disturbing.
While Riggs won by just 734 votes, Democrats were confident her victory was secured after an official tally and two recounts — one a full analysis of machine counts, the other hand-to-hand list. ballot samples from the state’s 100 counties, and both were conducted by bipartisan monitors in accordance with official mandates. All these reviews confirmed the superiority of democratic justice. Indeed, as the Riggs campaign announced in early December, “the initial vote tally confirmed Judge Riggs’ victory … and the statewide recount confirmed her victory by the same margin. A sample of the manual vote count, which also confirms her victory, is the third and final vote count.’ Despite protests from her Republican opponent, Griffin, the North Carolina State Board of Elections ruled that there was no reason for an additional recount, concluding on December 10, “The recount showed Riggs leading by 734 votes.”
It should have ended there.
But Republican supporters refused to accept the result. On January 7, the Republican majority on the North Carolina Supreme Court voted 5 to 1 (with Riggs recusing himself) to block the state election commission from certifying the results. why? Because Griffin is trying to reject the ballots of 60,000 North Carolinians who legally voted in the 2024 election. An analysis of targeted ballots found that black voters were twice as likely to be disqualified as white voters, and that young voters were also more likely to be disqualified.
“This is very dangerous for democracy in North Carolina,” Webb says.
For democracy in North Carolina, yes, but also for democracy in America. “If Republicans succeed in nullifying fair and legal votes after this election date, it will have far-reaching consequences across the entire district.” arguing former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper.
Common Cause North Carolina, the North Carolina NAACP, the ACLU of North Carolina and other civil rights and democracy groups have all convicted the GOP move as a power grab by “a losing candidate (who) wants to throw out your ballots using desperate and outlandish legal theories, all to steal a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court.”
The analysis of ballots directed at the Raleigh-run Griffin campaign protests News and columnist found that most contested votes were cast by Democrats or people who were not affiliated with either major party. Additionally, it was clear that constituencies that have traditionally voted Democratic in North Carolina saw a disproportionately high level of protest. For example, News and columnist “It found that registered black voters were twice as likely to contest votes as white voters.” Another related finding: “Voters aged 18 to 25 were the largest age group among those who contested the election, accounting for about 23% of all protests, despite making up about 12% of the electorate.”
This is a red flag not only for North Carolina, but for the entire United States.
“The eyes of the entire country are on this race because the consequences of having a free and fair election in question and potentially overturned are devastating,” says former Gov. Cooper, who says it’s an attempt by the GOP to disenfranchise voters. , to cancel the election. the result poses a threat “not only to Judge Riggs and the millions of North Carolinians who voted for her, but to any future election.”
More from Nation
In 2020, after losing re-election to Joe Biden, Donald Trump called a crowd to the Capitol. Today, as we celebrate the peaceful transfer of power, we offer this reminder.
The political media is calling Trump a “populist.” But as Dr. King made clear in his 1965 speech, American populism was a movement against everything Trump stood for.
In Toward the Success of Our Hopeless Cause, historian Benjamin Nathans sheds light on how the protest movement reinvented itself at key moments and ultimately achieved great impact.
The non-profit organization is trying to get FDA approval of the most important methods of gender-affirming care. Her fight will become even more important during Trump’s second term.
