Courts Rule | Eastern North Carolina Now

    More and more frequently courts have become not just arbiters but de facto legislators of laws. Perhaps we can blame this on a stagnant Congress, partisan legislatures or a more litigious society, but courts on both state and federal levels have become increasingly important in all phases of our life, notably education, healthcare, personal relationships and elections. Two examples this week demonstrate that fact.

    North Carolina's legislature passed election law changes in 2013 that were immediately challenged. The complexity of the case demanded adequate preparation, so a judge determined the trial would be conducted next summer. In the interim, a lower court ruled May's primary elections would be conducted according to the new law. In August, U.S. District Judge Thomas Shroeder declared plaintiffs had not demonstrated that minorities or others were significantly disadvantaged by the new law and upheld that decision for November's elections. Last week a three-judge Circuit Court of Appeals stayed two provisions halting same-day registration and out-of-precinct provisional votes but on Wednesday, the U. S. Supreme Court intervened to negate that ruling and again affirmed November's elections will be held according to the 2013 law.

    Voters and boards of elections are rightfully scratching their heads in confusion over the off-again, on-again rulings. In times of confusion voters usually stay home and we suspect that will be the case on November 4th, making it impossible to declare whether the lower vote resulted from voter suppression, as plaintiffs contend, or over confusion over how the elections are to be conducted.

    The Supreme Court was also involved in another momentous decision Monday, this one involving the highly divisive same-sex marriage laws passed by various states. In 2012, North Carolina voters gave a 60 percent affirmation to an amendment to our Constitution proclaiming that marriage was between one man and one woman. Other states passed similar laws, all of which were challenged in court.

    U.S. Circuit Courts have unanimously ruled these laws are invalid and the Supreme Court upheld the lower court rulings. An issue so contentious, divisive and important to so many people deserved the full attention, hearing and decision by our nation'92s highest court, but instead of a clear and decisive ruling neither side of this debate is totally satisfied.

    North Carolina's legislative leadership vows to hire outside counsel (since the Attorney General has announced he won't pursue the issue further) and appeal the verdict, but most everyone agrees such an appeal would be more for show than it would be about the hope of ultimately prevailing.

    Those opposing same-sex unions need to recognize it is now legal and move on, but the reverberations of that decision will be felt in business, in religion and in government. It will decidedly shape our future, just as the North Carolina Supreme Court's Leandro decision changed public education. Last year the U. S. Supreme Court essentially affirmed Obamacare, changing our healthcare system. And many of us clearly recall the court decision that gave the 2000 presidential election to George Bush, as well as the momentous 1950's Brown vs. the Board of Education civil rights decision.

    Court rulings are unarguably playing a major role in how we live and conduct our lives. We are not sure whether that is a good thing or bad, but it is truth.

    Publisher's note: Tom Campbell is former assistant North Carolina State Treasurer and is creator/host of NC SPIN, a weekly statewide television discussion of NC issues airing Sundays at 11:00 am on WITN-TV. Contact Tom at NC Spin.