Aug 23, 2024, 11:43 PM
Aug 23, 2024, 11:43 PM

NC Court Won't Speed Up Governor's Lawsuit Appeals

Left-Biased
Highlights
  • North Carolina's highest court has decided not to fast-track appeals in two lawsuits filed by Governor Roy Cooper.
  • The lawsuits challenge new laws that limit the governor's power to select board and commission members.
  • The court's decision means the legal process will not be expedited for these cases.
Story

RALEIGH, N.C. — The North Carolina Supreme Court has opted not to expedite appeals related to two lawsuits filed by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper, which contest new laws that diminish his authority in appointing members to various boards and commissions. In orders released on Friday, the court rejected requests from Republican legislative leaders to bypass the intermediate-level Court of Appeals, potentially prolonging the legal process surrounding the constitutionality of these changes enacted by the GOP-controlled General Assembly in late 2023. One of the lawsuits specifically targets a law that reallocates the governor's power to appoint state and local election board members to the General Assembly. A previous ruling by a three-judge panel in March deemed these changes unconstitutional, asserting they hinder the governor's ability to ensure the proper execution of election laws. Consequently, the existing election board structure remains intact, with the governor retaining the authority to appoint all five members, three of whom are Democrats. Cooper's legal team expressed concerns that bypassing the Court of Appeals could lead to "substantial harm" in managing the upcoming 2024 elections. In a separate lawsuit, Cooper seeks to challenge the composition of several boards and commissions, arguing that the changes impede his capacity to enforce state laws effectively. Additionally, the court dismissed Cooper's request for the recusal of Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr. from the cases, citing state law that mandates his involvement as a defendant in constitutional challenges related to state laws. Dissenting opinions highlighted concerns regarding the familial connection between the justices involved.

Opinions

You've reached the end