“Court strikes down NC law giving election board control to state auditor”

court decisions, election administration

WCNC:

A three-judge panel in North Carolina ruled Wednesday that a law transferring control of the State Board of Elections from the governor to the state auditor is unconstitutional.

In a 2-1 decision, the Wake County Superior Court panel granted Gov. Josh Stein’s motion for summary judgment, declaring that the Republican-led General Assembly’s recent changes to election board appointments violate the state constitution’s separation of powers.

The lawsuit challenged Senate Bill 382, which removed the governor’s power to appoint members to the State Board of Elections and county election boards, giving that authority instead to State Auditor Dave Boliek. In February, Steined filed a separate suit against House Speaker Destin Hall and Senate leader Phil Berger, accusing the Republicans of “partisan power grabs,” he says override the will of North Carolina voters. 

“Because the duty to faithfully execute the laws has been exclusively assigned to the Governor, Senate Bill 382 cannot reassign that duty to the Auditor without violating the Constitution,” the majority wrote in its ruling.

The court’s decision can be found here.

Share this:

“Trump’s Elections Power Play and the Voting Machines”

chicanery, election administration, election subversion risk, fraudulent fraud squad

Bob Bauer at Executive Functions:

On March 25, President Trump issued a sprawling executive order on Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections. The order focuses on the “integrity” of federal elections. It repeats but does not substantiate Trump’s claims that our elections are rife with fraud, including extensive noncitizen voting. The order appears to be setting the foundation for presidential intervention in the administration of elections in 2026 (and beyond). And it does so in a plainly unlawful way by supplanting the states’ constitutional authority to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections except where Congress elects to prescribe its own rules for federal elections. The Constitution does not confer on the president any share in this rule-setting authority. Already 19 states and other plaintiffs have filed suits to challenge the order’s constitutionality.

This first in a series of posts on Trump’s voting executive order focuses on one of the likely points of attack in Trump’s elections strategy: refreshing claims from 2020 about rigged or faulty voting machines and providing him with a new argument for seizing these machines in 2026.

And it concludes:

To read this executive order as evidence of planning for an attack on the 2026 elections is not to indulge in undue alarmism. The history, context, and express terms behind this order justify concern. In any event, I have hoped to provide enough on which readers may reach their own conclusions.

This much is clear: Trump does not accept that he lost the 2020 presidential election, as he restated again in his Easter message wishes to, among others, “all of the people who CHEATED in the 2020 Presidential Election.” Trump continues to insist that he was the victim of fraud and that the voting system, including the machinery in use throughout the country, remains susceptible to rigging yet again. He tried four years ago to do something about it in a bid to remain in office. He failed because the lawyers and officials then in place in the White House and key departments and agencies stood in his way. It is far from clear that this time there is anyone there to take that stand.

Share this:

Votebeat Virtual Event: “Checking Citizenship: A conversation with two secretaries of state”

election administration, voting

Votebeat is hosting its first event on Wednesday, May 14 at 5:00 PM Eastern. You can sign up here. A description of the event follows:

Join us for a conversation with Secretaries of State Adrian Fontes of Arizona and David Scanlan of New Hamsphire. Moderated by Votebeat Arizona reporter Jen Fifield, you’ll learn about the practical realities of requiring documented proof of citizenship for elections.

Currently, there is no federal requirement to show proof of citizenship in order to vote. Instead, voters across the country must attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury.

President Donald Trump’s executive order on elections included a requirement for proof of citizenship. In Congress, the SAVE Act has a similar requirement and has passed the House. Three states have passed a proof of citizenship requirement in recent years, and several others are considering legislation.

As the United States appears to be moving closer to requiring some form of citizenship proof in order to vote, this conversation will dive into the practical reality of administering elections with this requirement in place.

Arizona has had a documented proof of citizenship requirement for state and local elections for twenty years, and officials determined in 2024 that state systems didn’t properly record the citizenship status of around 200,000 voters.

This year, New Hampshire held its first election with a documented proof of citizenship requirement. Because it’s one of the six states that are not subject to the National Voter Registration Act, the law prevents anyone without documented proof of citizenship from voting in federal elections as well as state and local ones.

Share this:

“Trump to Host Dinner With Top Holders of His Memecoin”

bribery, campaign finance

Bloomberg:

President Donald Trump will have dinner with the top 220 holders of the Trump memecoin, the issuers of the cryptocurrency announced on Wednesday.

At the “intimate private dinner” on May 22 at his private club in Washington, Trump will talk about the future of crypto, according to the organizers. People who want to participate have to register, and a leader board of the top Trump coin holders will be kept to determine attendees. The top 25 Trump coin holders will also be invited to a reception before the dinner with the president, and will be given a tour of the White House.

“From April 23 to May 12, your average $TRUMP balance determines your spot,” according to the Website advertising the dinner. “Get $Trump Memes and climb the ranks.”

Share this:

Elon Musk’s Unsupported Claims That Protesters Against Tesla are Paid Give Insight into Musk’s Own Mindset to Use Money, Sometimes Illegally, to Try to Influence Political Outcomes and Political Actors

Uncategorized

Elon Musk has made a completely unsupported claim that protests against him and Tesla for his work trying to dismantle and hobble much of the U.S. government through DOGE are being “paid” for by those who like fraud and abuse in government:

“The actual reason is because those receiving the waste and fraud wish to continue receiving it; that is the real thing that’s going on here, obviously,” Musk told analysts during an earnings call on Tuesday. “The protests that you’ll see out there, they’re very organized. They’re paid for that.”

Musk previously accused wealthy Democratic political opponents of funding protestors.

While Musk has produced absolutely no evidence to support his claim that protesters are being paid, it does give insight into how Musk views politics. Remember, this is the guy who not only put in nearly $300 million into an attempt to influence the outcome of the 2020 election, and $20 million to influence a Wisconsin state supreme court race, he is also using questionably legal or flat illegal lotteries and other financial incentives to motivate people to vote. (This at the same time he’s pushing false voter fraud narratives via DOGE.)

Makes me wonder about this election for Musk to create his own town in Texas, highlighted in today’s NY Times.

Share this:

New Article on Democracy and Political Assembly

academic freedom, First Amendment theory, , , , , ,

At this time, when so many democratic norms and institutions of government and civil society are being challenged, I hope readers of this blog will be interested in my new article, A Right of Peaceable Assembly, forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review.

The development of an independent Assembly Clause doctrine is essential. It may once have been possible to dismiss the consequences of ignoring the textual right of assembly. This is no longer true. Our neglect of the right has significant contemporary consequences for political protests, as the campus protests since October 7, 2023, have demonstrated.

The functional absence of the Assembly Clause in First Amendment law and constitutional discourse fundamentally distorts our analysis of the proper scope of constitutional protection for political assemblies. This Symposium Piece develops a much-needed independent Assembly Clause doctrine. An independent Assembly Clause doctrine would not just be consistent with the text and original understanding of the Founders but also allow for a jurisprudence capable of distinguishing between protected and unprotected assemblies in relation to assembly’s distinct contribution to self-governance. The Piece recognizes that legal recognition of assembly as a textual right troubles the speech-conduct distinction that lies at the heart of contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence and upends existing determinations about the proper scope of constitutional protection for those who gather in public for political ends. The fact, however, is that the First Amendment explicitly protects a certain form of conduct (peaceable assembly), and it does so for good reasons (assemblies further liberal democracy in both instrumental and non-instrumental ways). This Piece, therefore, lays out a roadmap for an independent Assembly Clause doctrine capable of providing more appropriate constitutional protection, accounting for both assembly’s value and its social costs.

Share this:

Breaking: 4th Circuit, on 2-1 Vote, Halts Likely Unconstitutional “Cure” Order in North Carolina Supreme Court Election Contest. What’s Next?

election subversion risk, judicial elections
The court’s order stops what is likely an unconstitutional attempt approved by North Carolina state courts to overturn the results an election to the North Carolina Supreme Court. I’ve written about the irreparable harm from the district court’s allowing a… Continue reading