RALEIGH, N.C. — Following significant electoral victories in North Carolina, particularly in the gubernatorial race and other key statewide positions, Democrats found themselves celebrating brief successes. However, their political triumphs rapidly dimmed as Republican legislators began to enact a series of sweeping changes aimed at diminishing the powers of the newly-elected officials. This shift appears to be a preemptive strike in anticipation of a state legislative race that, once decided, could end the Republicans’ veto-proof majority in the upcoming year. Critics of these moves argue that they undermine the democratic process and disenfranchise voters, yet find themselves with limited recourse.
Critics have condemned the maneuvers, labeling them a “desperate power grab.” Courtney Patterson, a prominent figure in the NAACP’s North Carolina chapter, articulates this sentiment, suggesting that the legislative changes reflect an alarming trend towards undemocratic behavior. The legislation, which also encompasses provisions for Hurricane Helene relief, involves significant alterations, such as removing the governor’s right to appoint members to the state elections board and transferring that responsibility to the state auditor, a position recently secured by a Republican. Additionally, the changes impede the governor’s capabilities to fill vacancies in both the state court of appeals and the state supreme court, while limiting the attorney general’s ability to oppose legislative decisions legally.
Democratic Governor Roy Cooper, along with Attorney General Josh Stein, has actively opposed the changes by filing a lawsuit against Republican leaders. They assert that numerous elements of Senate Bill 382 breach the state constitution. The actions taken by the Republicans are viewed as part of a larger trend observed in various states, where majority parties have employed creative strategies like gerrymandering to solidify control over elections and diminish the impact of political adversaries. Political science professor Steven Greene notes that actions aimed at altering rules post-election are counterproductive to the foundations of democracy, emphasizing that it’s not the way a healthy democracy should operate.
Drawing on historical context, Greene recalls a similar situation in 2016 when protests erupted after Republican legislators curtailed the powers of incoming administration officials. Republicans, however, counter that the Democratic leadership previously implemented strategies to weaken executive positions after their initial success in the 20th century. Senate leader Phil Berger has criticized the Democrats for their partisanship, justifying the need for these legislative changes as a means of ensuring that North Carolina government remains on a progressive path without interference from the opposition party.
Despite recent Democratic wins, the Republican party continues to maintain significant control over both state legislative branches and the state Supreme Court, where any legal challenges to the newly adopted laws are likely to be examined. Since they secured a legislative majority in 2010, Republicans have meticulously crafted voting districts in their favor, repeating strategies once employed by Democrats. Studies indicate that the current districts favor Republican candidates, contributing to a stable hold on legislative power while inciting prolonged disputes over districting maps.
Melissa Price Kromm, executive director of North Carolina for the People Action, highlights the discrepancies within the state’s political landscape, characterizing it as a purple state that feels the weight of gerrymandering designed to sustain a Republican supermajority. This manipulation has led to a systematic effort to obstruct democratic processes.
In addition to these legislative disputes, a close race for a state Supreme Court seat has led to legal challenges concerning the validity of numerous ballots. The Republican candidate’s objection relates primarily to ballots from individuals whose registrations do not include a driver’s license or Social Security number, arguing that these registrations are incomplete, thus questioning the legitimacy of the votes cast.
Julia Hawes, from Democracy North Carolina, raises concerns that the same individuals attempting to influence the Supreme Court’s results are also focused on redefining electoral processes and governmental powers. Therefore, public sentiment appears to grow increasingly frustrated with these perceived power grabs that challenge the electorate’s will.
Similar patterns have also emerged in other states, where Republicans are moving to reverse voter-approved measures, such as in Missouri, where they are pushing to restrict abortion rights. In Massachusetts, Democrats are examining possible amendments to the auditing processes in response to voter decisions.
As tensions escalated during a recent veto override session in North Carolina, demonstrators voiced their dissent. Criticism of the rushed legislative process has also emerged from within, as Rep. Cynthia Ball pointed out the lack of transparency, public input, and the troubling consolidation of power into a bill that included disaster relief provisions.
Individuals, such as 64-year-old Della Hann, have engaged in activism against what they view as an affront to democracy, traveling significant distances to voice opposition. Her perspective underscores a sentiment that these laws cater not to the welfare of the citizens of North Carolina but to the interests of those presently wielding power.
Kromm expressed optimism regarding public engagement, noting that the turnout at protests indicates widespread concern for legislative affairs among North Carolinians. The assertion is that representatives must be held accountable amid an atmosphere where complacency could pave the way for authoritarianism. “We must unite and push back against these threats to democracy,” she urged.