Editorial: N.C. Supreme Court opens door to rigged elections

We might suspect, given the twisted logic, the decision written by state Chief Justice Paul Newby might have been ghostwritten by George Orwell. But alas Orwell’s been dead for 73 years. Maybe Orwell was mere inspiration?

Perhaps it is because one justice who voted for the majority decision has a conflict of interest: Justice Phil Berger Jr.’s father is a named party in the case. But what’s a decision that may or may not assure a dad says in power got to do with justice?

Perhaps it is because two Republican candidates for the state Supreme Court in 2022 won election and believed their partisan affiliation empowered them to issue decisions they know will permanently entrench Republican power in the state legislature?

By declaring there’s no role for the courts in determining the constitutionality of a scheme to assure one party controls the state legislature, it absolves itself of its primary duty. Even Newby acknowledged in his opinion that “the judicial branch is designed to resolve legal disputes and to ensure that the other branches do not violate the constitution.

By such a twisted notion would Newby say laws prohibiting vote-buying or manipulating absentee ballots aren’t constitutional because there’s no explicit promise of “fair” elections?

In her dissent, Justice Anita Earls put it directly: “Jarring in its irreverence to democracy, Rep. Lewis simply admitted what all of the evidence subsequently showed about redistricting maps enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly in recent years: They stifle the will of North Carolina voters by rigging the system against one party in favor of another.”

Newby twists logic to contend there’s no role for the courts since the state constitution’s declaration that political power resides in the people and the exercise of that power is through the legislative branch. “We have recognized that our constitution allows the General Assembly to enact laws unless expressly prohibited by the constitutional text,” Newby says in his opinion. “This Court will no longer change the time-honored meaning of various portions of our constitution by interpreting the text with the singular aim of reaching a desired outcome.”

If that’s the case, why does the constitution provide for separation of powers? Why does the state constitution, as even Newby says, have a judicial branch “to ensure that the other branches do not violate the constitution.”

Assigning congressional and legislative redistricting duties to the legislative branch of government doesn’t give legislators carte blanche to enact anything they want – particularly schemes that permanently entrench one political party in power -- without any check or balance from other branches of government.

The super majorities in the state House of Representatives and state Senate are no accident. They are reflective of hyper-partisan gerrymandering. They do not reflect the true will of the voters.

Should this court’s decision stand, it will silence millions of voters and permanently entrench the power of a political party that comprises less than a third of the state’s 7.2 million voters.

One more time, just to be clear. The court says it makes no difference how the districts are drawn by the legislature. A map that favors one political party in all districts is not prohibited by our constitution.

That position could only come from a group of partisan judges voting as they were instructed by their funders and are neglecting their duty to our constitution and the voting rights of our citizens.