RALEIGH, N.C. — Who gets to run key parts of North Carolina state government is now in the hands of the state Supreme Court, which heard arguments Tuesday in two cases Gov. Josh Stein brought against laws the Republican-led General Assembly passed to shrink the governor’s appointment powers.
The first case covers judicial vacancies. Under the challenged law, when a seat opens on the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the governor must choose a replacement from a list drawn up by the executive committee of the political party the departing judge belonged to, and the new judge must share that party. The governor’s side argued the state constitution gives that choice to the governor alone and noted that voters in 2018 turned down a constitutional amendment that would have changed the process. Lawyers for legislators answered that nothing in the constitution forbids lawmakers from setting up a nominating pool.
The second case targets appointments to state boards and commissions. The law trimmed the governor’s seats on four panels: the Utilities Commission, the Wildlife Resources Commission, the Coastal Resources Commission and the Environmental Management Commission. The Utilities Commission is the panel that rules on Duke Energy rate requests. Members of those commissions now elect their own chairs, and Republican State Treasurer Brad Briner gained a Utilities Commission appointment.
Both disputes grow out of a broad 2024 law passed after that year’s election results were certified. Democrats who won statewide offices that year lost duties under it, among them Stein, Lt. Gov. Rachel Hunt and Attorney General Jeff Jackson.
Legislative lawyers asked the justices, five of whom are Republicans and two Democrats, to set aside earlier rulings that went against lawmakers, arguing that members of the Council of State hold only the powers the legislature grants them and that unhappy voters can respond at the ballot box. Several Republican justices pushed back. Justice Richard Dietz questioned why the framers would create executive offices at all if lawmakers could reassign their duties after every election, and Justice Trey Allen asked whether the argument should set off separation-of-powers alarms. Justice Tamara Barringer raised the question of whether gerrymandered districts limit that ballot-box remedy.
The justices gave no timeline for a decision. A separate fight over shifting control of state elections board appointments to Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek is still in the courts and has not been set for argument before the Supreme Court, but the two rulings could shape how that case ends.
Section: More Greensboro NC politics news
Filed under: Greensboro NC Politics News
