National, state GOP seek to intervene in three federal NC election lawsuits | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the Carolina Journal. The author of this post is CJ Staff.

    The Republican National Committee, North Carolina Republican Party, and two local GOP officials are asking a federal court to allow them to intervene in three lawsuits challenging the state's new election law.

    The Democratic National Committee and North Carolina Democratic Party filed one of the suits. A group of plaintiffs working with Democratic lawyer Marc Elias' law firm filed a second. Activist group Democracy NC filed a third.

    All three challenge provisions in Senate Bill 747, enacted earlier this month over Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto. Challenged provisions include items related to same-day voter registration, party-aligned poll observers, and a new Election Day deadline for mailed-in absentee ballots.

    Republican state legislative leaders already have filed paperwork to intervene in the three cases. The RNC and state GOP filed their own motions Thursday. The two organizations are also seeking intervention from former Cumberland County Republican Party chair Brenda Eldridge and current Pasquotank County chair Virginia Ann Wasserberg. Eldridge and Wasserberg also have worked as poll observers.

    "The way to inspire confidence in American elections - and their outcomes - is to apply rules that are clear and fair to all eligible voters, candidates, and political groups," according to a memorandum filed in connection with the GOP's motion to intervene. "Toward that end, the North Carolina General Assembly recently passed S.B. 747, which revises the State's election code to provide appropriate safeguards and transparency while still offering voters ample opportunities to cast a ballot."

HbAD0

    "In ordinary political climates, this pedestrian [law] would be welcomed as part of the 'substantial regulation of elections' that is necessary 'if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes,'" the memo continued. "But as a sign of the times, S.B. 747 met immediate litigation, as eight Democratic Party-affiliated organizations and allies, represented by six law firms, filed three lawsuits in this Court, two of them the same day S.B. 747 passed."

    "Armed with hyperbole and mischaracterization, these Plaintiffs pose a long list of objections to various aspects of S.B. 747," Republican lawyers argued. "These include far-reaching assertions, such as that an election-day ballot-receipt deadline violates the Constitution and that the Voting Rights Act forbids poll-observer participation at voting places. One set of Plaintiffs has already moved for provisional relief, and similar requests may follow from the others."

    "The question before the Court today is not whether any of these challenges has merit, but whether this litigation of paramount public importance will proceed with or without the participation of one of the nation's two major political parties," Republican lawyers wrote.

    Neither the Democratic Party-aligned plaintiffs nor the State Board of Elections defendants are taking a position on GOP participation in the three cases, according to the memo.

    "There is good reason for the Court to grant this motion," Republican lawyers argued. "The State's executive branch is unlikely to vigorously defend S.B. 747, which passed over the Governor's veto. And although the State's legislative leaders have moved to intervene (as is their right), this state of affairs will (at best) place eight entity Plaintiffs represented by six law firms against one set of institutional-capacity intervenors represented by one law firm."

    "One need not doubt the superb skill of that latter firm to see that this case, as currently postured, lacks the parity necessary to ensure public confidence in the outcome," the GOP memo continued. "As the Democratic Party itself observed, 'political parties usually have good cause to intervene in disputes over election rules.' That is why, in numerous cases concerning election rules, political parties are virtually always allowed to intervene. If intervention is appropriate in any election case, this is it."

HbAD1

    SB 747 became law on Oct. 10 when the state House and Senate voted to override Cooper's veto of the election reform measure.

    In addition to a Democratic governor's veto, the Republican memo noted that Democratic state Attorney General Josh Stein "has publicly opposed" the new election law. "It is unlikely that Democratic Party officials will vigorously defend laws they have publicly opposed from challenges by eight Democratic Party-affiliated (or allied) organizations," GOP lawyers argued.

poll#215
Under the cover of Covid, and now in the shadow of the infamous Election Irregularities of that fated 2020 presidential election, with current emerging alleged election fraud in Nevada and Pennsylvania inconveniently slipping into the public discourse, there is proved a colluded ongoing Election Interference in the nomination of the Republican candidate, the likes of which has never occurred in our Constitutional Republic's history, albeit, the question remains: Do you support the plain-sight Election Interference of the Democratic Socialist party, employing its minions in their Propagandistic Media, and their Two Tiered Justice System?
  No, I do not support Election Interference; I am a patriot unto our Constitution.
  Yes, I do support Election Interference; the alternative, Donald Trump, to this mentally diminished president is far worse.
  "What, me worry" if elections are rigged?
85 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?


poll#147
Do you consider Election Integrity an issue of some real importance, or just another conspiracy theory interfering with Democratic Socialist political hegemony?
  No, complete access to everyone voting, even in a willy nilly manner, is more important than getting it right by limiting access to those that would commit Voter Fraud.
  Yes, the most inalienable right of real citizens of this Democratic Republic is the Right to Vote, and that right shall remain sacrosanct for perpetuity.
  Again, I don't vote and I don't care.
730 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




Felon voting case will return to federal courtroom on Nov. 14 Institutionalized Corruption, Carolina Journal, News Services, Editorials, Government, Op-Ed & Politics, State and Federal Home Builders oppose Cooper’s injunction request in appointments dispute

HbAD2

 
Back to Top