A unanimous three-judge panel sided with Republican legislative leaders against the governor Friday, saying the ballot language for two proposed constitutional amendments is reasonable enough to go before voters.

This panel had previously told the General Assembly to rework the language, which it found too misleading. The legislature did that in a brief special session, which ended Monday.

Other WRAL Top Stories

Gov. Roy Cooper's office promised an appeal to the state Supreme Court, and the court said late Friday that briefs are due within 48 hours, and that the court would make a final decision without hearing oral arguments.

Both sides had previously agreed to skip the Court of Appeals as the state approached deadlines to finalize and print ballots so that absentee ballots can be mailed.

The two amendments would shift appointment powers from the governor to the legislature, and Cooper's side argued that the Republican majority didn't make that clear in language they plan to put before voters.

One attorney Friday called it "profoundly misleading."

After the ruling, legislative leaders called on the governor to drop his case. The State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement has said it needs to finalize ballots at the beginning of September to make a Sept. 22 deadline for absentee voting.

"I appreciate this court’s unanimous affirmation that the voters of North Carolina deserve to decide how they are governed and urge Gov. Cooper to immediately stop trying to use litigation to block the people from being heard on popular ballot referendums," House Speaker Tim Moore said in a statement.

The panel in Friday's decision is the same as earlier in the case, when the judges ruled 2-1 against the old ballot language: Superior Court judges Forrest Bridges, Thomas Lock and Jeffrey Carpenter.

Regardless of the outcome in this case, full ballots can't be printed until a federal court resolves issues surrounding North Carolina's congressional races. That issue may be near resolution, though. Plaintiffs in the case said in a filing Friday that it's too late to redraw those congressional districts this election cycle and that the court should let this November's elections happen under the current map.

As it stands now, this is the ballot language voters will vote for or against on these two constitutional amendments:

  • "Constitutional amendment to establish an eight-member Bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement in the Constitution to administer ethics and elections law."
    • "Constitutional amendment to change the process for filling judicial vacancies that occur between judicial elections from a process in which the Governor has sole appointment power to a process in which the people of the State nominate individuals to fill vacancies by way of a commission comprised of appointees made by the judicial, executive, and legislative branches charged with making recommendations to the legislature as to which nominees are deemed qualified; then the legislature will recommend at least two nominees to the Governor via legislative action not subject to gubernatorial veto; and the Governor will appoint judges from among these nominees."

      The first would replace the current nine-member elections board, where the governor has a slight advantage in the appointments, with a board evenly divided among members selected by the majority and minority parties in the legislature.

      The governor would still make these appointments, but "upon the recommendation of" the majority and minority leaders in the House and the Senate. House Elections Committee Chairman David Lewis. R-Harnett, said in a statement Friday that future enabling legislation to flesh out the way this new board would operate "could and likely would" require leadership to send the governor a range of options instead of just eight names for eight seats.

      That isn't required by the current amendment language, though, and legislators don't plan to write that enabling legislation until after voters decide on the amendment in November.

      The change would also undo a state Supreme Court decision that went against the Republican majority early this year, saying the governor had to be allowed a majority of board appointments under the current state constitution.

      Not telling voters this is unfair, Cooper's legal team argued Friday.

      The second amendment would change the way North Carolina fills judicial vacancies. Currently, the governor makes those appointments. He or she would have a more nominal role if the amendment passes, picking one of two or more nominees chosen by the General Assembly.

      The amendment would also lengthen the amount of time new appointees would serve before standing for election.

      Legislative attorneys said Friday that the judicial amendment lays out each step of the new appointments process. Cooper, they argued, is simply against the idea behind both of these amendments, and it should be up to the people, not the courts, to decide whether they go into the state constitution.

      "He does not want these amendments to see the light of day," attorney Martin Warf said Friday.

      Four other amendments will also be on the ballot this November and aren't part of Cooper's suit.

      Two of those, however, are the subject of a related lawsuit by the state NAACP. The NAACP lost the first round in that lawsuit and its arguments are sitting now before the state Court of Appeals. In addition to the amendments Cooper is fighting, the group is pushing back against a voter ID amendment and one to lower the state's income tax cap.

      The other two amendments would increase notice requirements for crime victims and enshrine the right to hunt and fish in the state constitution.