Supreme Courts (State)

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares112 Views

    What to Know About the Legal Battle Over a North Carolina Supreme Court Race

    by

    The Republican challenger has embarked on an extraordinary effort to reverse his election loss that critics say is testing the boundaries of post-election litigation.In North Carolina, the Republican candidate for a State Supreme Court seat has refused to concede to the Democratic incumbent, even though two recounts by a state elections board confirmed that he lost the November election by a few hundred votes.The Republican challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, who currently sits on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, has instead embarked on an extraordinary monthslong effort to toss out scores of ballots. The race is the last in the nation to be uncertified.Judge Griffin’s challenge has ping-ponged through federal and state courts. The Democratic incumbent, Justice Allison Riggs, appealed a recent State Supreme Court decision that could lead to thousands of military and overseas ballots being tossed. On Tuesday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit temporarily blocked the ballot verification process that had been ordered by the State Supreme Court. Many of the ballots in question come from Democratic-leaning counties, so their removal could lead to the election being overturned.As the case continues through the court system, Judge Griffin and the North Carolina Republican Party have drawn criticism from democracy watchdog groups, liberals and even some conservatives who worry about a dangerous precedent being set for future elections.Here’s what to know about the case.What happened after the November election?Justice Riggs was declared the winner of the State Supreme Court race by 734 votes, an unusually small margin. Judge Griffin sought to verify that margin by requesting recounts. After the State Board of Elections reaffirmed Justice Riggs’s victory twice, Judge Griffin filed a protest with the board, which has a Democratic majority.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares107 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Governor’s 400-Year Edit Was Within Veto Authority

      by

      Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, used his veto power to increase school funding limits for four centuries longer than Republican lawmakers in the state had intended.The sentence, dull but clear, was buried 158 pages into Wisconsin’s budget.“For the limit for the 2023-24 school year and the 2024-25 school year,” the sentence read when it was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature, “add $325” to the amount school districts could generate through property taxes for each student.But by the time Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, and his veto pen were finished, it said something else entirely: “For the limit for 2023-2425, add $325.”It was clever. Creative. Perhaps even a bit subversive, extending the increase four centuries longer than lawmakers intended. But was it legal?On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said yes. In a 4-to-3 ruling in a lawsuit challenging Mr. Evers’s use of his partial veto authority, the court’s liberal majority said the governor had acted legally. The three conservative justices on the court dissented.“We uphold the 2023 partial vetoes, and in doing so we are acutely aware that a 400-year modification is both significant and attention-grabbing,” Justice Jill J. Karofsky wrote in the majority opinion. “However, our Constitution does not limit the governor’s partial veto power based on how much or how little the partial vetoes change policy, even when that change is considerable.”The proposed state budget had outlined two years of revenue limit increases, for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years. By editing out the text in red, Mr. Evers allowed increases until 2425.State of WisconsinWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      A Musk Lawsuit in Wisconsin Is the Backdrop to the State’s Supreme Court Race

      by

      A legal battle over Tesla sales in Wisconsin is the quiet backdrop to a big State Supreme Court race.I was driving from Eau Claire, Wis., to Minneapolis last week when I saw the sign.A Tesla sign.Soon after I crossed the St. Croix River, which divides Wisconsin and Minnesota, a brick-and-steel tower visible from Interstate 94 advertised the Tesla store and service center in Lake Elmo, Minn.The dealership’s proximity to the state line is probably no accident: Wisconsin law prohibits vehicle manufacturers from selling cars directly to customers there, the way Tesla usually does. Instead, companies need to work through local franchisees — think Hank’s Ford or Jimmy’s Subaru, that sort of thing.This means that, in Wisconsin, you can’t actually stroll into a dealership and leave with a Tesla. You can look at one — the company has showrooms in Madison and Milwaukee — but if you want one, you’ll generally have to buy it online and pick it up somewhere like Lake Elmo or Northern Illinois, or have it delivered.Tesla sued Wisconsin over this law in January. Now, Tesla’s owner, Elon Musk, is spending big money on the state’s Supreme Court race.The lawsuit has become a major focus for Democrats, who are accusing Musk of trying to buy a justice and swing the very court that might at some point consider his lawsuit. My colleagues Reid Epstein, who writes about national politics, and Neal Boudette, who covers the auto industry, teamed up to explore the relationship between the lawsuit and Musk’s $20 million investment — so far — in the judicial election, which will be held on April 1.The politics of Tesla’s fight with Wisconsin are, like so much involving Musk, kind of topsy-turvy. It pits car dealers, who tend to be Republican, against Musk supporters, who these days also tend to be Republican.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Kansas Voters Will Decide Whether to Hold Open Elections for State Supreme Court

      by

      A question on the ballot next year will ask voters to amend the Constitution to set open elections. Republicans said it would empower Kansans, while Democrats argued it would politicize the judiciary.The Kansas Supreme Court, made up mostly of jurists appointed by Democrats, has long served as a check on the Republican-dominated Legislature.The justices have established a statewide right to abortion. They have told Republican leaders that they were not spending enough on schools. And they have weathered repeated attempts to tip the court’s balance of power toward conservatives.But the high court, which is officially nonpartisan, could soon face major changes. Lawmakers decided on Wednesday to place a question on the primary ballot in August 2026 that would ask voters to amend the Kansas Constitution to set open elections for the court. If voters approve the change, justices would become free to campaign and hold leadership positions in political parties.The move, which follows efforts in other states to elect justices, would give Kansas Republicans a clearer path toward a conservative majority on the court and the possibility of revisiting issues like abortion. Conservative lawmakers said making the change would return power to voters.“It comes down to one thing: Do you trust the people of Kansas to select the seven people who run the third branch of our government and who have an enormous say over our government and how it’s run?” asked State Representative Bob Lewis, a Republican from western Kansas who supported placing the amendment on the ballot.Democrats criticized the effort to hold open elections, saying it would empower wealthy campaign donors and politicize the judiciary. They pointed to polarizing elections in places like North Carolina, where the results of a 2024 State Supreme Court election are still being disputed, and Wisconsin, where tens of millions of dollars have been spent ahead of a State Supreme Court election next month.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      In Crucial Judicial Race in Wisconsin, G.O.P. Now Has a Financial Edge

      by

      Two years ago, Democratic money carried a liberal jurist to victory and swung the state’s high court to the left. Now, Elon Musk and other wealthy donors have given Republicans a chance to swing it back.The last time Wisconsin held an election for the state’s Supreme Court, Republicans cried foul over the wave of money from out-of-state Democrats that overwhelmed their candidate.Two years later, Republicans have learned their lesson. It is Democrats who are grappling with a flood of outside money inundating Wisconsin.A super PAC funded by Elon Musk has in just the past week spent $2.3 million on text messages, digital advertisements and paid canvassers to remind Wisconsin Republicans about the April 1 election, which pits Brad Schimel, a judge in Waukesha County and a former Republican state attorney general, against Susan Crawford, a Dane County judge who represented Planned Parenthood and other liberal causes in her private practice.The spending by Mr. Musk, the tech billionaire who is leading President Trump’s project to eviscerate large segments of the federal government, comes as Judge Schimel and his Republican allies have spent more money on television ads than Judge Crawford and Democrats have — a remarkable turnaround in a state where Democrats have had a significant financial advantage in recent years.“When I was a little girl growing up in Chippewa Falls, I never could have imagined that I’d be fighting the world’s richest man,” Judge Crawford told a crowd over the weekend at a campaign stop in Cambridge, Wis.As of Monday, Republicans had spent or reserved $13.9 million of television advertising time for the Wisconsin court race, compared with $10.7 million for Democrats, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking firm. Because a larger chunk of Republican spending comes from super PACs, which pay a higher rate for TV ads than candidates do, the amount of advertising on Wisconsin’s airwaves has remained roughly equal. But the heavy Republican spending has eliminated what was a significant advantage for Democrats in the last such contest, in 2023.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Musk and His Millions Enter Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

      by

      Elon Musk’s super PAC has spent $1 million on canvassing operations supporting the conservative candidate in the race, his first election spending after the 2024 campaign.Elon Musk’s super PAC is back.Mr. Musk, the country’s largest donor during the 2024 election, is returning to campaigns by funding a new effort to help elect Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It is Mr. Musk’s first public political spending after Election Day.America PAC spent $1 million on canvassing operations in the state, according to a new campaign finance filing that became public Thursday. Pamphlets distributed to some Wisconsin homes read, “President Trump needs you to get out and vote,” and included a link to a website where voters could register to vote and learn about how to cast ballots early.A nonprofit organization that has historically been backed by Mr. Musk, Building America’s Future, this week began a $1.6 million-and-counting television campaign to bolster Judge Schimel, a former state attorney general who is now a judge in Waukesha County. But that group has other major donors and is not as directly tied to Mr. Musk as is America PAC, which is funded almost entirely by the billionaire.Wisconsin Supreme Court elections are officially nonpartisan, but Judge Schimel has been endorsed by the Republican Party of Wisconsin, which is allowed by state campaign finance law to transfer unlimited sums to his campaign. The liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, has been endorsed by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. Judge Crawford sits on a court in Dane County, Wisconsin’s most Democratic county, which includes Madison.The April 1 election for a 10-year term on the Wisconsin Supreme Court carries higher stakes than any election this year until the November contests for governor of New Jersey and Virginia. There is now a four-to-three liberal majority on the court, but Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal who has sat on the court since 1995, is retiring, putting the court’s majority on the ballot.The state’s abortion laws, as well as its legislative and congressional district lines, are likely to be determined by whichever faction controls the state high court in coming months.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      N.C. Elections Board Rejects G.O.P. Effort to Toss 60,000 Ballots

      by

      The ruling comes in a dispute over a State Supreme Court race that the Democratic incumbent won by 734 votes.The North Carolina State Board of Elections rejected on Wednesday a Republican bid to throw out more than 60,000 votes in a closely contested election for a State Supreme Court seat that an incumbent Democrat won by 734 votes.Two recounts showed that Associate Justice Allison Riggs, the incumbent, had eked out a slim victory out of some 5.5 million ballots that were cast. The losing judge, Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, argued that the state’s failure to enforce technical aspects of registration and election laws should disqualify scores of thousands of voters, most or all of whom cast otherwise legal ballots.The Democrat-controlled elections board disagreed, in a series of votes that went largely along party lines. Republicans on the board called for further hearings to gather more evidence on the issues.“The idea that someone could have been registered to vote, came to vote and then has their vote discarded is anathema to the democratic system,” the board’s Democratic chairman, Allan Hirsch, said at the meeting.The chairman of the state Republican Party denounced the decision, saying that “the board’s continued efforts to engineer political outcomes for Democrats is shameful.”Judge Griffin, who currently sits on the State Court of Appeals, could appeal the ruling to a State Superior Court, kicking off a legal process that could end at the same State Supreme Court where Justice Riggs sits. Republicans hold a 5-to-2 majority on the court, which has been bitterly divided along partisan lines in recent years.The ruling on Wednesday also rejected attempts by three Republican state legislators to overturn their narrow losses on the same grounds.In a protest against the election results filed last month, Judge Griffin argued that upward of 60,000 voters should be disqualified because the state failed to enact one part of a 2004 law requiring new voters to provide a driver’s license or Social Security number when applying to vote. Voters who failed to list numbers should be ineligible, he said, even if they were unaware of the requirement.His complaint also sought to disqualify overseas voters who failed to submit a photo ID with their ballots in accordance with a new voter ID law. Those overseas voters also were not told of the requirement.Lawyers for Justice Riggs, as well as the state Democratic Party, argued that federal law bars throwing out votes for lack of a driver’s license or Social Security numbers. They also said that state law setting out the rules for overseas votes does not require a photo ID. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Mississippi Supreme Court District 1, Position 3 Runoff Election Results 2024

      by

      Source: Election results are from The Associated Press.By The New York Times election results team: Michael Andre, Emma Baker, Neil Berg, Andrew Chavez, Michael Beswetherick, Matthew Bloch, Lily Boyce, Irineo Cabreros, Nico Chilla, Nate Cohn, Alastair Coote, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Leo Dominguez, Tiff Fehr, Andrew Fischer, Martín González Gómez, Joyce Ho, Will Houp, Jon Huang, Junghye Kim, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Jasmine C. Lee, Joey K. Lee, Vivian Li, Alex Lemonides, Ilana Marcus, Alicia Parlapiano, Jaymin Patel, Dan Simmons-Ritchie, Charlie Smart, Jonah Smith, Urvashi Uberoy, Isaac White and Christine Zhang
      Additional contributions by Grace Ashford, Luke Broadwater, Mathew Brownstein, Amanda Cordero Kenan Davis, Karoun Demirjian, Robert Draper, Catie Edmondson, Nick Fandos, Lalena Fisher, Patrick Hays, Robert Jimison, Annie Karni, Maya Miller, Julie Walton Shaver, Tracey Tully, Lisa Waananen Jones and Jessica White
      Edited by Wilson Andrews, Lindsey Rogers Cook, William P. Davis, Jonathan Ellis, Thomas Gaffney, Amy Hughes, Ben Koski, Allison McCartney and Rachel Shorey
      Source: Election results are from The Associated Press. More

    • 63 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Mississippi Runoff Election Results 2024

      by

      Source: Election results and race calls are from The Associated Press.By The New York Times election results team: Michael Andre, Emma Baker, Neil Berg, Andrew Chavez, Michael Beswetherick, Matthew Bloch, Lily Boyce, Irineo Cabreros, Nico Chilla, Nate Cohn, Alastair Coote, Annie Daniel, Saurabh Datar, Leo Dominguez, Tiff Fehr, Andrew Fischer, Martín González Gómez, Joyce Ho, Will Houp, Jon Huang, Junghye Kim, K.K. Rebecca Lai, Jasmine C. Lee, Joey K. Lee, Vivian Li, Alex Lemonides, Ilana Marcus, Alicia Parlapiano, Jaymin Patel, Dan Simmons-Ritchie, Charlie Smart, Jonah Smith, Urvashi Uberoy, Isaac White and Christine Zhang
      Additional contributions by Grace Ashford, Luke Broadwater, Mathew Brownstein, Amanda Cordero Kenan Davis, Karoun Demirjian, Robert Draper, Catie Edmondson, Nick Fandos, Lalena Fisher, Patrick Hays, Robert Jimison, Annie Karni, Maya Miller, Julie Walton Shaver, Tracey Tully, Lisa Waananen Jones and Jessica White
      Edited by Wilson Andrews, Lindsey Rogers Cook, William P. Davis, Jonathan Ellis, Thomas Gaffney, Amy Hughes, Ben Koski, Allison McCartney and Rachel Shorey
      Source: Election results and race calls are from The Associated Press. More