RALEIGH – The more Democrats work to contest and argue against the constitutional referenda, the more they ultimately prove why those referenda are necessary. One of those constitutional amendments that voters will weigh in on, if the courts don’t step in, is the formation of a Bipartisan Board of Elections and Ethics that actually follows through on its title. The current board just held a vote that proved exactly why the new structure is necessary.
“The N.C. elections board on Saturday, in a party-line split, acknowledged the attorney general can defend the agency against a lawsuit brought by the governor any way he sees fit, even if it means supporting the governor’s position in the suit.
The vote, taken in a special session by telephone, was in response to Attorney General Josh Stein, a Democrat, supporting the position of Gov. Roy Cooper, also a Democrat, in the lawsuit without the express approval of the elections board. Cooper is suing legislative leaders and the Bipartisan State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement in an effort to keep two proposed constitutional amendments off of the fall ballot.”
The state attorney general is charged with defending the state and its institutions against lawsuits, but Stein, just like his mentor Roy Cooper, regularly shirks his responsibilities as attorney general in order to promote the Left’s political agenda.
A glaring example of this is Stein’s decision to unilaterally withdraw North Carolina from further participation in the Voter ID case working its way up the courts hierarchy when actual client, the legislature, wanted to see the case through to the end.
But the Board’s party line vote on this issue over the amendments proves exactly why the Bipartisan Board of Election amendment is needed.
“Board member John Lewis, a Republican, said in open session that the attorney general’s office has made it clear that under the law it has the authority to represent the board any way it chooses. But that doesn’t mean the board has to officially endorse those actions, he said.
“There’s absolutely no justification for us to weigh in on this other than just partisan politics,” Lewis said. “There’s no reason to impose self-inflicted wounds on this board, on our credibility, on our ability to function further as a bipartisan board. “”
The board structure proposed by the amendment question (a structure previously passed into law by Republicans, then struck down in courts for what seem to be political reasons) would have the partisan split right down the middle at four Democrats and four Republicans. The truly ‘bipartisan’ part, though, is requiring any votes to reach a threshold of six members to pass. That insures at least two members of the other party agree with the motion, and thereby goes a long way toward eliminating partisan politics from the Board’s decisions.
Partisan politics is exactly what was on display this weekend.
If only we could somehow let the people weigh in on this issue, sidestepping the inter-branch government battles that get muddied even more in the court room. Even more, if there was a way to make sure the people’s will was enshrined in our governing documents so politicians couldn’t muck it all up again…
Read more here.