RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina’s Supreme Court has declined to expedite appeals related to two significant lawsuits initiated by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper. These lawsuits challenge recent legislation that diminishes the governor’s authority to appoint members to various boards and commissions.
In orders issued on Friday, the Supreme Court denied requests from Republican legislative leaders to bypass the intermediate-level Court of Appeals, a move that could potentially prolong the legal proceedings regarding the constitutionality of board alterations enacted by the GOP-controlled General Assembly in late 2023, which were passed over Cooper’s vetoes. The court’s ruling did not provide insights into individual justices’ positions on the requests. Governor Cooper’s legal team opposed such a bypass, emphasizing the potential harm to the administration of upcoming elections.
The litigation includes a challenge to legislation that shifts the governor’s authority to appoint state and local election board members to the General Assembly. A three-judge panel previously ruled against these election board changes, stating that they interfere with the governor’s responsibilities to ensure that elections and voting laws are properly enforced. As a result, the existing election board structure remains unchanged, allowing the governor to appoint all five state board members, currently held by three Democrats.
Even prior to Friday’s decisions, the likelihood of implementing the altered board structure during this election cycle appeared slim. Nonetheless, Governor Cooper’s legal representatives asserted that bypassing the Court of Appeals could lead to significant disruptions in the execution of the 2024 elections.
In a separate lawsuit, Cooper has attempted to block the composition of various boards and commissions, arguing that these changes hinder his ability to execute state laws effectively. While a three-judge panel blocked new membership formats for two state boards focused on transportation and economic incentives, the configurations of five other commissions remain unchanged.
Additionally, the justices rejected Cooper’s request for the recusal of Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr. from the cases, citing concerns about his familial connection to Senate leader Phil Berger, a defendant in both lawsuits. The majority of justices contended that the conduct code did not violate Justice Berger’s participation, as his father is involved solely in an official capacity. Dissenting opinions from the court’s Democratic justices argued that the familial relationship warranted the younger Berger’s recusal.
