RALEIGH – Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly handed Gov. Roy Cooper yet another override, after he vetoed Senate Bill 486 last week.
The Elections Security & Transparency Act requires criminal background checks for employees of the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement. It requires the same for county board of elections.
Of course, that’s not all that is in the bill, and Cooper found fault with another section.
The bill also solidifies partisan judicial elections – what Cooper refers to as “election meddling for partisan advantage.”
So, Cooper apparently believes letting voters know the basic political philosophy of judicial candidates by including a party registration label next to their name is ‘election meddling.’
That’s because Cooper knows that if voters knew more about those judicial candidates, like their party affiliation, Democrats may not fair as well. Previous to partisan judicial elections, judges were elected with very little reference from what they represent. In addition to being the least well known of candidates on any given ballot, there was no way to tell one from the other beyond simple differences in their name.
Also in this legislation, though, is something that should actually be of concern. It cements the monopoly of one company to print ballots and run and maintain electronic voting equipment by requiring any such vendor for the state in this area have a $10 million secured bond. That squeezes out competitors to the decades old contract holders, Printelect and ES&S, which absolutely dominate the space.
Both of those companies are owned by the Owen G. Dunn Company in New Bern, and they apparently charge considerably more than other vendors. It’s not about how much you charge, though, it’s about who you know.
Owners of Owen G. Dunn Company have been tight with former Gov. Bev Perdue and a long list of Democrats. However, when the legislature switched to Republican, the started greasing their palms to protect the business. It’s cronyism, but Cooper sure doesn’t care about that.
Nope, just opposed to voters having more info about judicial nominees. Here’s your override.