When Power Knows No Bounds: Republicans Intend to Nullify the Election of a Supreme Court Justice

The NC Supreme Court race last Tuesday between sitting justice Bob Edmunds and Mike Morgan came out with Morgan far on top. He's the Democrat.

Edmunds was the Republican backed by big corporate donors. The Overlords in the General Assembly -- Phil Berger in the Senate and Tim Moore in the House -- had tried to save Edmunds by changing the election law in that race alone to a plebiscite vote, so that Edmunds would not have to face an actual challenger. The Berger-Moore law change would have put Edmunds on the ballot by himself. Voters would be asked to choose "Yes" or "No."

That innovation got overturned as unconstitutional by a specially appointed three-judge panel, and that decision was subsequently upheld by a tied NC Supreme Court. The high court voted 3-3 to uphold the three-judge panel, mainly because Bob Edmunds had to recuse himself from the case.

Edmunds lost last Tuesday, bigly (54.45% to 45.55%). Now Berger-Moore, with the willing participation of also defeated Governor McCrory, intend to pack the Supreme Court in a special session next month with two more Republican judges before McCrory has to pack his bags and leave.

Mark our words: They will do it. Because they can. And because they do not care what anyone thinks. They only care about ensuring that the unconstitutional laws they pass will get a stamp of approval from the state's Supreme Court.

NC Supremes Bob Edmunds Must Face Challenger

BREAKING NEWS
Ruling  Stands: "Retention Elections," unconstitutional

The "retention election" law passed in 2015 -- overturned by a 3-judge panel as unconstitutional in Feb. 2016 -- will stay overturned because of a 3-3 tie today on the NC Supreme Court

Sabra Faires

Background
Last February, a special three-judge panel ruled in Sabra Faires et al. v. State Board of Elections et al. that the Berger-Moore innovation called "retention elections" was and is unconstitutional. The "retention election" law (passed quietly in 2015 to go into effect in 2016) effectively applied to only one human being, sitting Supreme Court Justice Bob Edmunds (R), up for reelection in 2016, because the retention election law mandated that any Supreme Court justice (and only a Supreme Court justice, on which, see below) up for reelection in 2016 (which would be Edmunds alone) did not have to run competitively against a known opponent but was subject to a voter plebiscite instead -- voters would vote only on whether Edmunds should be retained -- "yes" or "no" -- not on him or his known opponent. Under the Berger-Moore law, if by some fluke voters in the majority said "no," then the governor would get to appoint Edmunds' successor. Nice touch, that!

Sabra Faires, a lawyer in Raleigh who also wanted to run for Edmunds' seat, cried foul and sued on constitutional grounds: "retention elections" fundamentally violated the meaning of "election" as a choice. A special three-judge panel in Wake County agreed with her.

The State Board of Elections naturally appealed ... to the NC Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took the case. Interesting, since the retention election law, if it stood legal challenge, would eventually apply to the longevity of every last one of those justices, a clear conflict of interest. Edmunds, of course, recused himself. The remaining six justices split along partisan lines, creating an unbreakable tie of 3-3, Republicans Mark Martin, Paul Newby, and Barbara Jackson on one side, Democrats Sam Ervin IV, Cheri Beasley, and Robin Hudson on the other.

Bob Edmunds

When she spoke in Watauga on April 16, Sabra Faires said that she and the other plaintiffs did not make an issue of the conflict of interest (which plaintiffs could have, calling for a special and impartial panel). With Edmunds recused, it seemed pretty predictable that the court would tie 3-3, which would mean the lower court ruling would stand.

Bottomline
There will be an election in November between Bob Edmunds and whoever comes out on top in the primary June 7th: Sabra Faires, Daniel Robertson, or Mike Morgan. Take a guess who I'm voting for.

Footnote: Why the Retention Law Applied to Supreme Court Justices Alone
Berger Family Values
The original draft of the retention election law included all appellate level judges, meaning both NC Court of Appeals judges and Supreme Court judges. Written to include the appeals court, the law would have ruled out Phil Berger Junior's ability to challenge Linda Stephens. If she were "retained" under a new law, Junior Berger would be shit out of luck.

Phil Berger Senior, who runs Republican government in Raleigh, changed the law to apply only to the Supreme Court, and paved the way for his son.

NC Supremes Find Another GOP Law Unconstitutional

Unanimous decision! The NC Supreme Court just issued its ruling that the 2013 law passed by the new Republican majority in the General Assembly, which took away "career status" (tenure) from veteran school teachers, violated the contracts clause in the U.S. Constitution.

Republican Justice Bob Edmunds, who's up for "retention" this year -- or reelection, depending -- wrote the opinion.

NC Filings for Congressional Seats

Filing for the redrawn U.S. Congressional seats in North Carolina opened the day after the March 15 primary, and there's a lot of action across the state, with likely primaries on both Democratic and Republican sides. Here are the latest updates (including the NC Supreme Court seat currently held by Bob Edmunds, whose skin the General Assembly has tried to spare by passing the "retention election" bill, currently in litigation. Apparently, the State Board of Elections is allowing contenders to file for Edmunds' seat on the Court, though the legality of the retention election still hasn't been settled).

2nd District (Renee Ellmers’ seat): Incumbent Republicans Renee Ellmers and George Holding, who will face off as a result of their districts being dramatically changed

3rd District (Walter Jones’ seat): Republican Phil Law

4th District (David Price’s seat): Incumbent Democrat David Price, Republicans Sue Googe and Teiji Kimball

5th District (Virginia Foxx’s seat): Republican Pattie Curran and Democrat Jim Roberts

7th District (David Rouzer’s seat): Democrat J. Wesley Casteen

8th District (Richard Hudson’s seat): Republican Tim D’Annunzio

9th District (Robert Pittenger’s seat): Republican Robert Pittenger, Republican Todd Johnson and Democrat Christian Cano

10th District (Patrick McHenry’s seat): Republican Patrick McHenry and Democrat Andy Millard

11th District (Mark Meadows’ seat): Democrat Tom Hill

12th District (Alma Adams' seat): Democrats Alma Adams, Tricia Cotham, Rodney Moore, and Malcolm Graham and Republican Leon Threatt

13th District (George Holding’s seat): Republican John Blust and Democrat Bruce Davis

N.C. Supreme Court: Incumbent Bob Edmunds and Sabra Faires (Sabra Faires is the chief plaintiff in the suit to void the retention election innovation)

LATE BREAKING NEWS
Dr. Greg Brannon, who just lost his primary bid against incumbent U.S. Senator Dick Burr and in 2014 lost his primary bid against eventual U.S. Senator Thom Tillis, has filed to run in the 2nd Congressional District. Headline: "Brannon Lowers Sights."

"Retention" Elections for Judges: Case Will Be Heard Today

Last fall, the Republicans in the General Assembly changed the way judges on the state's Supreme Court run for reelection, and they did it to protect the one conservative judge -- Bob Edmunds -- whose term is up this year.

Judge Bob Edmunds

Judge Bob Edmunds is now running unopposed because the General Assembly decided the only way we can get a different judge on the Supreme Court is to vote no confidence in Bob Edmunds first, at which point Governor Squishy would get to replace him on the bench. The political maneuvering of this new law screams FRAUD like a drag queen at a Baptist picnic.

A law suit challenging the constitutionality of "retention elections" filed by attorney Sabra Faires in Wake County will be heard by a special three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals in Raleigh this afternoon.

Faires is "arguing that the switch from contested elections to up-or-down votes for Supreme Court slots was a change that required a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution – something that did not happen."

According to reporter Sharon McCloskey, Republican House Speaker Pro Tem Skip Stam warned his fellow law-makers that what they were doing was unconstitutional, but they did it anyway (with Skip Stam abstaining on the final vote).

According to McCloskey, "Because Faires challenged the retention law as unconstitutional on its face, a finding in her favor would send any appeal directly to the Supreme Court." And because every single member of the Supreme Court has an interest in the case, how could they legitimately hear an appeal?

Another mess created by the most politically self-interested and operationally inept state legislature in the country!

NC Supreme Court: "Extortion of Public Employees Is Fine With Us!"

Justice Edmunds

The North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling that any county sheriff can demand a political donation from deputies and fire those deputies if they fail to pony up. No kidding! The court declared that "deputies work directly for the sheriff and do not have the same protections as county government workers when it comes to political activity."

Deputies (and sheriffs, for that matter) also work for the citizens in their jurisdiction, who might also want to believe that law enforcement is not about who's swinging the biggest political stick.

The sheriff in this particular case, incidentally, was a Democrat. Power fiefdoms, especially ones that feature the extortion of money from employees, are abhorrent to my notions of democracy.

The only sitting justice up for election in 2016 is Bob Edmunds, but the Republicans have made it impossible to vote for someone else. By the rules of the new "retention elections" for Supreme Court justices, we can only vote to "retain" Edmunds, or not retain him. We will have no choice to vote for someone else ... unless a constitutional challenge to "retention elections" gets heard favorably by a special three-judge panel.

I will not be voting to "retain" Justice Edmunds. I can barely retain my breakfast, thinking about this particular ruling.

General Assembly Took Away Our Ability To Vote for a New Supreme Court Justice

Justice Edmunds

You do know that last year the General Assembly rigged our Supreme Court elections. No longer will you have a choice between candidates. You may only vote to retain Republican Justice Bob Edmunds, or not retain him, and if you vote not, then Governor Squishy gets to appoint a replacement.

Sabre Faires has filed a lawsuit challenging this new innovation -- called a "retention election" -- as violating our Constitution. Yesterday her lawyers filed a motion for a summary judgment in the case.

Seems like a strong argument in our opinion. Our state constitution calls for elections of Supreme Court judges, not referenda on whether we want to retain them or not. The General Assembly essentially changed the constitution without bothering to tell the rest of us.

Another NC Republican Innovation Prompts Another Lawsuit

Judge Bob Edmunds
"Just Say No!"

Perhaps you don't remember, or you never knew, that the NC General Assembly took away your ability to choose one Supreme Court candidate over another. House Bill 222 decreed that North Carolina voters no longer get a choice between two candidates. We now only have a choice between retaining a current justice or not, and if we should choose "NOT," then Governor Squishy gets to appoint a replacement.

Does that sound like democracy to you? No, it sounds like a naked political ploy to insure that Bob Edmunds, the only Supreme Court justice up for reelection in 2016, gets to keep warming his square footage of upholstered leather. Allowing Judge Edmunds to appear on the 2016 ballot unopposed is a baroque twisting of fair elections, but what else is new with this Raleigh bunch?

The state constitution specifies that judges to the Supreme Court shall be elected by the people. A "retention election," as the new innovation is called, offers nothing that resembles a regular election, and the lawmakers are counting on the public not knowing enough to say "HELL NO!"

House Bill 222 is now being challenged in court as an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of voters. Lead plaintiff Sabra Faires, an attorney, a past judicial candidate, and an independent voter, said in a press release about the lawsuit, “I am qualified to run for the Supreme Court and want to serve, but even more important is stopping the legislature from rewriting the constitution without the consent of the people.”

“If election of a Supreme Court justice means nothing more than a retention referendum," Faires added, "with no choice between candidates, then the General Assembly would be free to say that’s enough for all those other offices as well.” 

I bet that's occurred to them.

R

ead more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/under-the-dome/article47307515.html#storylink=cpy