Sunday Post — Fair Courts Under Threat

Democrats trying to stop downballot dropoff

State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs in her previous role as a voter protection advocate, Election Day 2018

If you’re among the nearly 3 million people in North Carolina who already voted, then first of all thank you [heart emoji], and second, I’m hoping that you enthusiastic voter types made it a point to vote the whole ballot.

There is solid evidence that what’s known as downballot dropoff has led to losses in what should be winnable races. In recent years that’s been particularly true for Democrats running in statewide judicial races.

Judicial race losses have packed the state Supreme Court and Court of Appeals with more hardline conservative justices, the kind of partisan warrior types that tend to win in GOP primaries.

By far, the most critical downballot race for Democrats to win this year is to retain Justice Allison Riggs’ seat on the Supreme Court. Riggs, an accomplished civil rights litigator, appeals court judge and fair elections advocate, is running for a full term after being appointed to a vacant seat last year by Gov. Roy Cooper.

In a departure from the usual, and often bland, judicial races, her campaign is running straight at the GOP’s playbook on abortion and for good reason.

With a legislature almost certain to still be controlled by the current leadership, there will be moves again next year to further tighten controls on access to abortion and reproductive health care

This past session featured an extensive rewrite of women’s health legislation. It passed last year after the GOP attained supermajority status thanks to Rep. Tricia Cotham’s defection to the GOP. In party line votes, the House and and Senate overrode Cooper’s veto of the bill, meeting the necessary threshold in each chamber by a single vote.

Several provisions, including a ban on mifepristone, were struck down this spring in federal court, but a shift from banning abortions after 20 weeks to after 12 weeks along with stricter restrictions on exceptions remains law.

Riggs’ campaign has sought to highlight that her opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin, is on the record in support of abortion restrictions and recently joined in an opinion that says life begins at conception, an opinion so flawed it had to be withdrawn.

In other states, “life at conception” language has been used to establish the groundwork for fetal personhood and, by extension, laws drafted to enforce the idea such as policing of fertility, tighter controls and oversight for reproductive health care and, ultimately, the subjugation of the rights of women carrying the state’s new protectees.

For pointing out her opponent’s record and for saying she would defend abortion rights, Riggs just earned an official complaint from Griffin’s supporters. This might lead to a lot of tut-tutting in legal circles, but in the world of politics it clearly means the blow landed as intended.

The next legislative session will almost certainly bring a fresh round of restrictions. How those restrictions are drawn up depends on the outcome of the election. A Democratic governor and a legislature a few votes short of a supermajority will make a huge difference as will having a voice on the court defending the essential right for women to make decisions about their health care rather than the chairman of some House or Senate committee.

It’s not hard to see what’s at stake. A bill last year that failed to get traction would have eliminated rape and incest as exceptions and mirrored the cruel requirements Texas uses in determining what’s life threatening enough. I want to believe that kind of thing won’t pass, but you can feel the ghouls that push legislation like that dragging the legislature further toward the abyss.

The Long Game

Riggs holding her seat keeps a 5-2 GOP majority. That majority was won in part in part because of downballot dropoff in key judicial races in 2022 and 2020, but also because Republicans have been running political campaigns, while for the most part Democrats have been running the same kind of old school judicial campaigns they did when the races were non-partisan.

At least this year, that appears to be changing.

The GOP also holds a solid majority on the state Court of Appeals. Three of the 15 seats on the court are up for grabs this year.

NC Board of Elections Official Voter Guide

With majorities on both high courts fairly secure for now, Chief Justice Paul Newby appears emboldened to continue to reshape both the structure of the state’s judiciary and its approach to the law. He’s used his appointment powers to shuffle court leadership and in conjunction with the legislature he’s shifted more legal decisions, especially in environmental cases, to the state’s administrative courts.

In keeping with the shameless nature of the times, the majority has also pursued thinly veiled vendettas against Democratic judges, while giving GOP justices a pass.

In short, any notion that the state’s highest courts are impartial in political matters and toward the agenda of the legislature has been thoroughly quashed by actions in the Newby era.

The path to change, toward a Democratic majority isn’t easy. It’s a long game. In addition to defending Riggs seat, Democrats have to also defend Justice Anita Earls’ seat in two years.

The Chief Justice is faced with a mandatory retirement at age 72, but there’s a chance the legislature might craft an out for him. If he’s able to run again, Newby and two GOP justices who won in 2020 are up in 2028, the first real opportunity for Democrats to regain the majority should Riggs and Earls both win.

A loss in either case, however, would be a serious setback, further empowering the court’s majority and all but cementing it into place for the next round of redistricting.

Vote the whole ballot. It’s important.

Thanks for reading and subscribing — kmr