Texans for Lawsuit Reform

Through political action, legal, academic and market research, and grassroots initiatives, TLR fights for common-sense reforms that keep Texas open for business.

  • About TLR
    • Our Mission
    • Our Team
    • Timeline of Reforms
  • Videos
  • Issues
  • Resource Center
    • Special Reports
    • In the News
    • Press Releases
    • The Advocate
    • TLR Blog: For the Record
  • Get Involved
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
    • Invite a TLR Speaker
  • Donate
  • Stay Informed
In the News

Opinion | Scorched-Earth Judging in North Carolina

Wall Street Journal, October 3, 2021

Donald Trump tried to overturn at least three state elections in 2020. But liberal groups in North Carolina are trying to overturn or sidestep four separate elections in that state from 2018 and 2020. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020, a filing last week suggests North Carolina’s Supreme Court is willing to entertain the political revanchists’ claims.

The scorched-earth politics at work are elaborate, so bear with us. The two elections immediately under fire are a 2018 state referendum capping North Carolina’s income tax at 7% and another referendum requiring photo identification for in-person voting in the state.

North Carolina’s constitutional amendment process requires a three-fifths majority of the Legislature to put a measure on the ballot, and then for the public to ratify it in a referendum. The Republican Legislature placed the tax and voting amendments on the ballot in 2018, and voters approved them by about 15 and 11 percentage points, respectively.

Liberal groups want to throw out those decisive outcomes, and their sweeping claim extends beyond the 2018 election. It’s that the entire Legislature of America’s ninth largest state was essentially illegitimate for the better part of a decade due to gerrymandering. Federal litigation forced North Carolina to redraw its 2011 legislative maps in 2017.

Therefore, the plaintiffs argue in NC NAACP v. Moore, the Republican Legislature should not have been able to put the measures on the ballot, rendering both of the voters’ verdicts void. A North Carolina lower-court judge agreed. But he was reversed by a state appellate court, which balked at the notion of retroactively stripping an elected Legislature of its powers and nullifying referenda, no matter the outcome of litigation over district boundaries.

The shenanigans don’t end there. The case is now before the seven-member North Carolina Supreme Court, which is closely divided along partisan lines. The three Republicans include Tamara Barringer and Phil Berger, who were elected in 2020. That’s where the next layer of electoral subversion comes in.

The plaintiffs this July filed a motion for the two justices elected in 2020 to be removed from the case. The pretext is that Justice Barringer served in the North Carolina state Legislature when the constitutional amendments were passed, and Justice Berger’s father is a GOP legislative leader and therefore named as a defendant as a stand-in for the state.

Yet the public and the press were well aware of this high-profile case and the justices’ backgrounds when they were elected in 2020. Past service as a legislator is not normally disqualifying from hearing cases related to legislation passed during that service, and removing a judge at a “court of last resort” requires a higher burden since that judge can’t be replaced.

One of the liberal justices, Anita Earls, litigated extensively against North Carolina’s 2011 maps before she was elected to the Supreme Court in 2018. Yet Justice Earls’ removal is not sought because a liberal majority to overturn the two constitutional amendments would depend on her vote.

Recusals at the U.S. Supreme Court are at the discretion of the Justice alone, and it might be expected that Justices Barringer and Berger would see through this political gambit. But last week the court’s liberal justices suggested that they might be considering an unprecedented effort to evict their conservative colleagues involuntarily—a stunning and destabilizing prospect.

The court delayed argument in the case and last Tuesday sent out an unusual order asking the parties a number of questions, including, “Does this Court have the authority to require the involuntary recusal of a justice who does not believe that self-recusal is appropriate?”

That suggests that Justices Barringer and Berger believe, rightly, that they do not need to recuse from the case, but at least some (perhaps a majority) of the other justices have been moved by the liberal pressure campaign to consider a vote to oust them.

It’s worth reviewing the radicalism of what may be transpiring. Democrats in North Carolina lost policy votes in 2018 around taxation and voting, and elections for the state’s highest court in 2020.

Now liberal interests are seeking to reverse their 2018 election defeats using the courts. It would be one thing to challenge policy through the normal judicial process. But because Democrats lost seats on the state Supreme Court in the 2020 elections, they want to effectively undo the impact of those elections on this case with a selective removal of justices.

What’s remarkable is that the advocates claim that their tactics in serially subverting the judgments of voters are somehow a defense of democracy. If successful, this institutional mischief will reverberate far beyond North Carolina.

Follow us on Facebook

Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

22 hours ago

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

In case you missed it - 15 Harris County judges resolved fewer felony cases during the pandemic, and all 23 courts have more pending cases now than when the COVID epidemic began. As of March, there were over 48,000 pending active cases in Criminal District Court. Read and share: bit.ly/3yeuPc7 ... See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

'Do your job,' victim tells judge in Harris County's slowest court

bit.ly

Fifteen judges resolved fewer felony cases during the pandemic and all 23 courts have more pending cases now than when the pandemic began. Harris County Judge Ramona Franklin, of the 338th Criminal Di...
View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 0
  • Shares: 0
  • Comments: 0

Comment on Facebook

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

2 days ago

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

The Dallas County DA argued a judge’s impartiality could reasonably be questioned after she lowered a defendant’s bail considerably while his defense lawyer is one of her top campaign contributors, and then raised his bail after media reports about her rulings. Read and share: bit.ly/3lfQMzM ... See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

Dallas judge under scrutiny for bail rulings recuses herself from cases

bit.ly

Judge Chika Anyiam, of Criminal District Court 7, recused herself Monday from 10 felony cases against Julio Guerrero. A Dallas County judge who faced public scrutiny for lowering a murder suspect’s ...
View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 2
  • Shares: 0
  • Comments: 0

Comment on Facebook

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

3 days ago

Texans for Lawsuit Reform

TLR General Counsel Lee Parsley joined the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform podcast to discuss nuclear verdicts in the trucking industry and what legislators can do to ensure that excessive lawsuits don't shut down this vital industry. Listen and share: bit.ly/3wjgKJ9 ... See MoreSee Less

Link thumbnail

Nuclear Verdicts Create Litigation "Vortex" for Trucking Industry

bit.ly

In this episode of Cause for Action, Nathan Morris, senior vice president, legal reform advocacy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, is joined by Lee Parsley, the general couns...
View on Facebook
·Share

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Linked InShare by Email

  • Likes: 0
  • Shares: 1
  • Comments: 0

Comment on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter

lawsuitreform avatarTLR@lawsuitreform·
16h 1527408930703523840

Since TLR’s founding, our supporters have made their voices heard at the Capitol by phone, e-mail, & personal visits on every issue that affects a healthy civil justice system. Make your voice heard & get involved with TLR today!

Get Involved

Texans for Lawsuit Reform has thousands of supporters from across Texas who are committed to a fair and balanced civil justice system.

bit.ly

Reply on Twitter 1527408930703523840Retweet on Twitter 1527408930703523840Like on Twitter 15274089307035238401Twitter 1527408930703523840
lawsuitreform avatarTLR@lawsuitreform·
22h 1527318698804908040

#ICYMI: 15 Harris County judges resolved fewer felony cases during the pandemic & all 23 courts have more pending cases now than when the COVID epidemic began. As of March, there were over 48,000 pending active cases in Criminal District Court. Read & RT:

'Do your job,' victim tells judge in Harris County's slowest court

Fifteen judges resolved fewer felony cases during the pandemic and all 23 courts have more pending cases now than when the pandemic began. Harris Coun...

bit.ly

Reply on Twitter 1527318698804908040Retweet on Twitter 15273186988049080402Like on Twitter 15273186988049080401Twitter 1527318698804908040
lawsuitreform avatarTLR@lawsuitreform·
18 May 1527046564635721728

Want to make a difference in the fight against lawsuit abuse? Join the TLR team today! #stoplawsuitabuse

Get Involved

Texans for Lawsuit Reform has thousands of supporters from across Texas who are committed to a fair and balanced civil justice system.

bit.ly

Reply on Twitter 1527046564635721728Retweet on Twitter 1527046564635721728Like on Twitter 1527046564635721728Twitter 1527046564635721728

Texans for Lawsuit Reform
1701 Brun Street
Houston, Texas 77019

Ph. 713-963-9363
  • About TLR
  • Our Mission
  • Our Team
  • Timeline of Reforms
  • Videos
  • Issues
  • Resource Center
  • For the Record
  • Special Reports
  • In the News
  • Press Releases
  • Invite a TLR Speaker
  • Get Involved
  • Invite a TLR Speaker
  • Donate
  • Stay Informed
  • Contact TLR

Copyright © 2022 · Texans for Lawsuit Reform. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2022 · Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy