Current:Home > reviewsCharles Langston:Voter fraud case before NC Supreme Court may determine how much power state election officials have -TradeGrid
Charles Langston:Voter fraud case before NC Supreme Court may determine how much power state election officials have
Fastexy View
Date:2025-04-09 06:23:40
RALEIGH,Charles Langston N.C (AP) — North Carolina’s highest court could determine whether election officials retain special legal privileges that allow them to defame individual voters and set a precedent for how voter fraud claims are pursued.
The North Carolina Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments Thursday morning for Bouvier v. Porter — a suit that has lingered in state courts over the past seven years. The case centers around four voters from Guilford and Brunswick County who claim they were defamed by supporters of former Republican Gov. Pat McCrory in the aftermath of the 2016 election.
By a margin of 10,277 votes, Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper beat McCrory in the 2016 gubernatorial election. Afterward, McCrory supporters filed election protest petitions declaring voting irregularities had occurred, including accusations from Greensboro Republican official William Porter.
The election protests accused four people of voting twice in Guilford County, according to the plaintiffs’ 2017 lawsuit. Porter’s petition against three Guilford voters was dismissed for “lack of any evidence presented” and one protest in Brunswick County was withdrawn, according to an appeals court opinion.
The plaintiffs claimed they were defamed by Porter’s petition and sought $25,000 in damages, the complaint says.
It’s not clear if the case will be decided before the 2024 election, according to one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
More defendants were named in an amended complaint later that year, including law firm Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky and the Pat McCrory Committee Legal Defense Fund. Another plaintiff from Brunswick County was also added to the case when one of the original voters voluntarily left the case, according to the amended complaint.
But the case before the N.C. Supreme Court won’t determine if the allegations defamed the voters. Instead, it focuses on whether the defendants had a form of immunity known as absolute privilege to make those claims.
Absolute privilege is a legal term used in defamation cases to outline circumstances where someone is shielded from liability for potentially defamatory statements. The privilege is typically granted in judicial and legislative proceedings.
A North Carolina appeals court gave plaintiffs a partial victory in 2021 by ruling that McCrory’s legal fund and the law firm did not have absolute privilege. They did rule, however, that Porter was granted the privilege because he operated within a “quasi-judicial election protest proceeding.”
But the defendants are arguing to the state Supreme Court bench that they should all have immunity. By not granting absolute privilege to all those involved, it prevents people concerned about elections from speaking “freely and fearlessly,” the brief read.
Bob Hunter, an attorney for the Pat McCrory Committee Legal Defense Fund, declined The Associated Press’ request for comment.
The defendants didn’t function in a capacity that would grant them absolute privilege, as they “ghostwrote” the petitions for others to sign off on, plaintiff attorney and chief counsel for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice Jeff Loperfido said. If the N.C. Supreme Court sides with the defendants, he said voter fraud allegations may be used to deter voters or sow distrust in state electoral systems.
“It’s really about the fundamental right to vote and about whether individuals, North Carolina citizens, can be used as political pawns in this way and have their names tarnished without consequences,” said Loperfido, who joined the case in 2018.
Much has changed since the appeals ruling. One of the plaintiffs, Karen Niehans, died in early 2023, which caused her defamation claim to be dismissed, Loperfido said. The remaining plaintiffs are retirees, he said.
The N.C. Supreme Court’s makeup has also shifted since the appellate decision to comprise of five Republicans and two Democrats — both of whom had to recuse themselves after previously working as attorneys for the plaintiffs.
But a panel of all Republican judges doesn’t concern Loperfido because he views the case as nonpartisan.
“This could have been any losing candidate’s campaign effort to try to create enough smoke to delay certification or try to encourage the state board of election to review these protests in a certain way,” he said.
Now, both parties will await a decision after oral arguments conclude. Loperfido says that could take about six months, depending on whether the court wants to release an opinion after the 2024 election.
veryGood! (4326)
Related
- A South Texas lawmaker’s 15
- Scientists think they know the origin of the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs
- John Aprea, The Godfather Part II Star, Dead at 83
- Thousands of activists expected in Chicago for Democratic convention to call for Gaza ceasefire
- A Mississippi company is sentenced for mislabeling cheap seafood as premium local fish
- Pharmacist blamed for deaths in US meningitis outbreak will plead no contest in Michigan case
- Paris Hilton Speaks Out After “Heartbreaking” Fire Destroys Trailer on Music Video Set
- Greenidge Sues New York State Environmental Regulators, Seeking to Continue Operating Its Dresden Power Plant
- US appeals court rejects Nasdaq’s diversity rules for company boards
- Matthew Perry's Final Conversation With Assistant Before Fatal Dose of Ketamine Is Revealed
Ranking
- McKinsey to pay $650 million after advising opioid maker on how to 'turbocharge' sales
- Counting All the Members of the Duggars' Growing Family
- Infant dies after being discovered 'unresponsive' in hot vehicle outside Mass. day care
- Extreme heat at Colorado airshow sickens about 100 people with 10 hospitalized, officials say
- John Galliano out at Maison Margiela, capping year of fashion designer musical chairs
- RFK Jr. wants the U.S. Treasury to buy $4M worth of Bitcoin. Here's why it might be a good idea.
- Russian artist released in swap builds a new life in Germany, now free to marry her partner
- Georgia deputy killed in shooting during domestic dispute call by suspect who took his own life
Recommendation
SFO's new sensory room helps neurodivergent travelers fight flying jitters
Bird flu restrictions cause heartache for 4-H kids unable to show off livestock at fairs across US
Jonathan Bailey Has a NSFW Confession About His Prosthetic Penis for TV
Inside Mark Wahlberg's Family World as a Father of 4 Frequently Embarrassed Kids
A Mississippi company is sentenced for mislabeling cheap seafood as premium local fish
Watch: Patrick Mahomes makes behind-the-back pass after Travis Kelce messes up route
Detroit-area mall guards face trial in man’s death more than 10 years later
Save up to 50% on premier cookware this weekend at Sur La Table