NAACP, environmentalists sue to keep constitutional amendments off the ballot
The state NAACP and an environmental non-profit plan to sue state legislative leaders Monday morning to keep four proposed constitutional amendments off the ballot this fall.
Posted — UpdatedYour browser doesn't support HTML5 video.
This leaves the legislature without the legitimate power to put amendments before the voters, the group argues. They want a Wake County Superior Court judge to slap Republican leadership in the General Assembly, and the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, with an injunction. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday morning.
The filing also argues that the much-contested ballot language voters will see on the amendments is unconstitutionally vague. In a press release, state NAACP President T. Anthony Spearman called the collection of amendments "one of the greatest threats to our state's democratic institutions since the Civil War."
Your browser doesn't support HTML5 video.
The NAACP, along with an environmental group called Clean Air Carolina, is targeting both of those amendments and two others: One to require photo identification to vote and another to lower the state's income tax cap from 10 percent to 7 percent. The suit does not seek to block two other amendments proposed this year, which would enshrine hunting and fishing rights in the state constitution and expand court notice requirements for crime victims.
In a statement Monday, Moore spokesman Joseph Kyzer described the NAACP filing as "the most frivolous lawsuit of them all."
"The NAACP is advancing a completely spurious argument already rejected by the courts simply to score points against overwhelmingly popular amendments," Kyzer said.
The current page does not support this embedded media. To view this story with fully functioning media, please visit this page on our full site.
Cooper and the NAACP's coalition both argue that the wording voters will see on ballots is purposefully vague and misleading. Saturday's veto override session saw to it that, instead of short summaries written by a commission made up of two Democrats and one Republican, the amendments will simply be titled "Constitutional Amendment" on the ballots voters see. Below that, voters will see be asked to vote for or against the following language from the four bills targeted in this latest suit:
- "Constitutional amendment to implement a nonpartisan merit-based system that relies on professional qualifications instead of political influence when nominating Justices and judges to be selected to fill vacancies that occur between judicial elections."
Currently the governor can fill judicial vacancies largely as he or she sees fit. This proposal would create a commission to vet candidates, then have the legislature forward two names to the governor, who would have to pick one of those two.
- "Constitutional amendment to establish a bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections to administer ethics and election laws, to clarify the appointment authority of the Legislative and the Judicial Branches, and to prohibit legislators from serving on boards and commissions exercising executive or judicial authority."
This would replace the current State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, which has been the subject of other lawsuits and the governor has a one-member advantage on, with a board made up of four appointees approved by the legislative majority and four by the legislative minority. It would also cement the legislature's disputed ability to take hundreds of other appointment powers from the governor and make those appointments itself.
Your browser doesn't support HTML5 video.
- "Constitutional amendment to require voters to provide photo identification before voting in person."
This would add a photo ID requirement to the state constitution, with the legislature deciding after the amendment passes what sorts of IDs would be accepted. Republican leaders have called another General Assembly session for after the November elections, but before the new General Assembly elected in November is seated, to flesh that rule out, a maneuver Democrats have criticized as unfair.
- "Constitutional amendment to reduce the income tax rate in North Carolina to a maximum allowable rate of seven percent (7%)."
The current cap in the state constitution is 10 percent. The Southern Environmental Law Center, which along with other attorneys represents the NAACP and Clean Air Carolinas in this latest case, argues that the lower cap "could limit funding for programs in support of those living in poverty, civil rights, and environmental protection programs."
• Credits
Copyright 2024 by Capitol Broadcasting Company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.