The North Carolina State Board of Elections is asking a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit filed last year to secure the Justice for All Party’s place on the 2024 election ballot. Dismissal could help the state avoid paying a $77,000 bill for lawyers’ fees.
Three voters supporting JFA and its presidential candidate, left-of-center activist and academic Cornel West, went to federal court after the state elections board voted in July against adding the party to North Carolina’s ballot.
US District Judge Terrence Boyle issued an order in August requiring the board to certify JFA as a North Carolina political party. The board complied. West appeared on the ballot for the November election.
Lawyers working for the plaintiffs in the case filed a motion in October to collect $77,626 in fees and costs.
“The election about which Plaintiffs and Intervenor-Plaintiffs sought relief, the November 2024 general election, has come and gone, and JFA will no longer be a certified political party in this State because it did not meet the necessary minimum level of support to remain certified,” the elections board’s lawyers wrote in a court filing Thursday. “As such, regardless of whether the State Board was correct or incorrect in its initial determination to deny JFA certification as a party, all claims and relief requested arising under N.C.G.S. § 163-96(a)(1) are now moot, including a request for declaratory relief.”
“For JFA to maintain its status as a certified political party, its presidential candidate was required to get at least two percent of the votes cast for that office in the November 2024 election,” the court filing added. “JFA’s presidential candidate lost, receiving only 0.021 percent of the votes cast for that office. JFA will no longer be a certified political party in this State.”
Now the federal court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit “because it is moot,” elections board lawyers argued.
“[B]ecause the election has now passed, and JFA failed to meet the minimum level of support required under North Carolina law to remain certified as a political party, the underlying legal question before the Court, whether the State Board Defendants acted unlawfully, is no longer a live controversy. As such, the legal claims at issue are moot, no further relief remains available, and it would be a waste of resources for the parties and the Court if this litigation were to continue,” the court filing explained.
Lawyers for the three North Carolina voters who sued on behalf of JFA’s ballot access filed a motion in October seeking payment of their lawyers’ fees. The lawyers typically represent Republican groups in election-related litigation.
“Plaintiffs prevailed on the full scope of the relief sought in their Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction by obtaining an Order directing Defendants to certify JFA as a new political party under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-96(a)(2) so that qualified JFA candidates could appear on the November 2024 general election ballot,” according to a memorandum filed in federal court. “As the prevailing parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”
The elections board initially denied JFA ballot access with a party-line 3-2 vote in July. The board’s Democratic majority rejected party certification. Republican board members supported JFA’s bid.
Boyle ruled on Aug. 12 that plaintiffs representing JFA were likely to win their argument that the elections board violated the First Amendment by denying the party ballot access.
Boyle issued an injunction favoring the three voters suing on behalf of JFA. He also approved a motion from West and JFA’s party leader to intervene in the case.
“In declining to certify JFA as a new political party, the Board has categorically excluded JFA and its candidates from the ballot,” Boyle wrote in the 30-page order. “As a result, the Board has precluded those voters who wish to associate with both from exercising their First Amendment right to do so. That is a severe burden on First Amendment rights.”
The judge critiqued the elections board’s concerns about irregularities in petition signatures JFA submitted to the state. State law required new parties to submit the signatures.
“[T]he Board’s conclusion that a ‘substantial portion’ of signers advised the Board that they did not sign and that ‘many others’ were not told of JFA’s purpose does not withstand scrutiny,” Boyle wrote. “The Board relied on a survey completed by NCSBE staff that suffers from serious flaws.”
“NCSBE staff first contacted the 66 voters who submitted affidavits stating they wished to withdraw their signatures,” the judge explained. “Of these 66, only 10 responded to staff inquiries. Then staff attempted to contact 250 signers. Only 49 responded. Of those 49, 18 stated they did not sign, 3 stated they could not remember, and 28 stated they did sign.”
“Interviews of those 28 revealed that 15 of the signers … understood the purpose of the petition and that it was for the support of a new political party,” Boyle continued. “What’s more, of those 15 signers, 13 confirmed they were told the purpose and intent of the party with the other two stating they believed they were informed. To extrapolate from this survey that a ‘substantial portion’ of signers did not sign and that ‘many others’ were not informed of the purpose and intent defies reason.”
“This survey — conducted months after petitions were collected and based on an exceedingly small percentage of petition-signers — is woefully insufficient to support the Board ‘s decision as narrowly drawn,” the judge wrote.
The elections board argued that its decision represented a “narrowly tailored” application of state law. “Narrow tailoring requires a scalpel; the Board used a blunt instrument,” Boyle wrote. “The Board effectively disenfranchised over 17,000 North Carolina voters who signed petitions to certify JFA as a new political party on flawed, highly suspect grounds.”
While ruling for the plaintiffs on First Amendment grounds, Boyle rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the elections board violated their procedural due process rights.
Nonetheless, the order required certification of Justice for All under the state law governing new political parties. Boyle blocked the elections board from enforcing a July 1 filing deadline. The judge ordered the board to include on the election ballot “names of JFA candidates who comply with the terms of this order and who are qualified for the office they seek.”
