Judge delays ruling on party labels in judicial races

A Wake County Superior Court judge on Monday refused to order lawmakers to label Supreme Court candidate Chris Anglin a Republican on November's ballots, but she did tell the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement not to finalize the ballots until another hearing can be held next Monday.

2018-08-06

Anglin changed his party affiliation shortly before the deadline to file as a candidate, then filed to run for Supreme Court as a Republican. That became legal thanks to legislation that Republicans pushed through the General Assembly last year that, among other things, led to the cancellation of this year's judicial primaries.

Judicial elections previously were nonpartisan.

Republicans accuse Anglin of running as a Republican in an attempt to siphon votes away from incumbent Republican Justice Barbara Jackson, who is facing a strong challenge from Democrat Anita Earls.

Senate Bill 3, passed in a special session last Saturday over Gov. Roy Cooper's veto, would strip party labels away from any judicial candidate who was not a party member 90 days prior to filing. The law would affect three other judicial candidates in the state, but Anglin is the only Supreme court candidate affected.

He announced immediately after the General Assembly vote that he would sue to have the law blocked. He filed the suit Monday morning, and a hearing was held Monday afternoon.

In addition, Wake County District Court candidate Rebecca Edwards has sued to retain her Democrat label on the ballot. She had previously been registered as a Republican.

There are now four lawsuits pending over the General Assembly's recent actions – Anglin's, Edwards' and two that seek to keep proposed constitutional amendments off the ballot.

Cooper is asking the courts to block two amendments. One would give state lawmakers his power to appoint members to boards and commissions. Some Democrats say the wording may even undermine the governor's veto power.

The other is a proposal to give state lawmakers control over the governor's power to appoint judges to fill vacancies on the bench between elections.

The governor says the two would distort the balance of power between the three branches of state government. State NAACP attorney Irving Joyner agrees.

"We have had now roughly eight years of a legislature that is encroaching upon the other branches of government and propose to do more," Joyner said.

The NAACP and other groups have filed their own lawsuit, asking the court to strike four of the six amendments – the two Cooper wants to block, plus two others on photo identification to vote and capping the state income tax. Joyner said that, because some districts were declared unconstitutional, the current legislature is illegally constituted. Also, he said, the descriptions of the amendments written by lawmakers are misleading and deceptive.

"The citizens should not be made to guess at what the enactment means, and in this particular instance, there are any number of these proposals that are not fully vetted not fully explained," Joyner said.

GOP legislative leaders called the lawsuits frivolous and absurd. At Saturday's session, Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, said Democrats don't trust voters to understand what the amendments do.

"It's an attempt to not let the voters be able to weigh in and speak their minds if they're for or against an amendment," Lewis said. "It's an attempt to once again use the courts to short-circuit the will of the people."