On Thursday, the composition of North Carolina’s state elections board transitioned to a Republican majority. This change followed an announcement by GOP state auditor Dave Boliek, who took action in line with a recent appeals court decision allowing a controversial law to be enforced amidst ongoing constitutional evaluations. This law, passed in December by the Republican-dominated General Assembly, shifted the appointment authority of the board from the Democratic governor. The legal wrangle continued as Governor Josh Stein and former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper contested this law, arguing it violated the state constitution.
Despite the ongoing lawsuit, Boliek proceeded with the appointments. His decision followed an intermediate Court of Appeals decision that allowed the appointment process to continue even as the broader legal disputes remain under review. Governor Stein promptly approached the state Supreme Court in an effort to suspend the appeals court’s unanimous decision and maintain the previous blockage of the law. However, as of late Thursday, the Supreme Court had not issued a ruling, permitting Boliek to make his appointments.
Under this new law, the tenure of the previous board members concluded, and new members began their four-year terms starting Thursday. Historically, the governor appointed the five board members, selecting three from his or her party, a tradition sustained under the Democratic leadership since 2017. However, the new appointments by Boliek could shift the board to a Republican majority. The responsibilities of the board are crucial, including enforcing campaign finance laws, certifying election results, and establishing voting guidelines across the state.
This development is a significant win for Republicans, who have persistently moved to restrict or remove gubernatorial control over the elections board since 2016. Courts have previously blocked four other laws undermining Cooper. Additionally, voters in 2018 voted down a constitutional amendment intended to limit the governor’s selection of board members to those recommended by legislative leaders.
Republicans argue that the governor, particularly Cooper, has wielded excessive control, leading to partisan decisions on essential electoral matters. In contrast, Democrats maintain that these legislative efforts represent power grabs intended to skew electoral advantage in favor of the GOP. In a Thursday letter to Boliek, Anderson Clayton, the state Democratic Party Chair, vehemently opposed the shift in power, labeling it an “abuse of power” that undermines North Carolinian interests.
The board’s pivotal role is highlighted by the still-unresolved contest for a state Supreme Court seat between incumbent Democrat Allison Riggs and Republican Jefferson Griffin, a Court of Appeals judge. Governor Stein expressed concerns that the Republican-aligned board could influence the outcome in favor of Griffin, even as Riggs currently holds a slight lead in the vote count.
Boliek’s Republican appointees include Stacy “Four” Eggers, a returning member, former state Senator Bob Rucho, and Francis De Luca, a leader from a conservative think tank. Republican Party Chairman Jason Simmons expressed confidence in these members’ abilities to ensure fair and transparent elections in North Carolina. Boliek also appointed Democrats Siobhan O’Duffy Millen and Jeff Carmon, who have both previously served alongside Eggers.
Stein’s legal team contends that the newly enacted law improperly encroaches on the governor’s constitutional duty to ensure law compliance. In April, two out of three trial judges ruled in Stein’s favor and temporarily blocked further power transfers, including Boliek appointing county election board chairs in June. However, the Court of Appeals recently overturned this decision.
Lawyers representing Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall assert that the state constitution permits the General Assembly to delegate executive powers to other elected state officials when necessary. While the appeals court offered no detailed explanation of its decision, it is customary for the court’s judgments to include such details after a statutory 90-day period.