March 2010 at NCICL

Litigation Updates

The case addresses the burdens placed on emerging political parties and their constitutional rights to participate in the election process. The appeal was filed by the plaintiffs, seeking review of the trial court’s ruling on a case in which the plaintiffs alleged that the state statutes governing the recognition of political parties violate the North Carolina Constitution. The trial court ruled that plaintiff’s claims did not surmount the presumption that North Carolina’s ballot access scheme is constitutional. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that statutes were constitutional under articles of the North Carolina Constitution that address the rights to free association, free speech, and equal protection of the laws.

While the Court of Appeals panel unanimously held that the statutes infringed on fundamental constitutional rights and, therefore, the statutes must survive strict scrutiny, a majority of the panel took the position that the legislature had met this high constitutional burden, holding that the infringing statutes were narrowly tailored to achieve only the alleged compelling state interest.

To read the Amicus Curiae Brief, click here.

Baxter v. Nicholson, Inc.

On March 12th, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in this case. The case presented the question of whether the term of an appointed public officer ends immediately upon the appointment by the governor of his or her successor or when the successor takes the oath of office.  The Court concluded that the authority of an appointed officer continues until the date on which his or her successor takes the oath of the office in question and thereby becomes duly qualified to begin performing the duties of that office.

NCICL Executive Director Robert Orr and Senior Staff Attorney Jeanette Doran filed a friend of the court brief in December of last year at the North Carolina Supreme Court in this case.

To learn more about the case, click here.
To read the Opinion, click here.

Munger, et al., v. State, et al. (Google)

On March 23, attorneys Robert Orr and Jeanette Doran filed a Petition for Discretionary Review of Constitutional Issues at the N.C. Supreme Court in the Google case. The issue at hand concerns whether the taxpaying citizens of this state have the right to challenge an act of the General Assembly when it has granted substantial tax breaks to a handpicked corporation. Last month, the Court of Appeals determined that Plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the legislation.

NCICL attorneys with Plaintiffs are now asking the N.C. Supreme Court to make a final decision about whether the Appellate Court was correct in determining that the plaintiffs are not allowed to have their day in court, even when fundamental constitutional guarantees of equality are violated.  Plaintiffs urge the Supreme Court to take into account that this question has significant public interest, that the cause involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of the State, and that the decision of the Supreme Court appears to be in conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court. Plaintiffs now wait for a decision from the Court on whether they will review the case.

To read about this case, click here.

Goldston v. State

NCICL was contacted by Boyce & Isley following last fall’s Court of Appeals decision and asked to join in the Supreme Court appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled that the State Constitution prohibits the Governor from transferring money from the Highway Trust Fund to the State’s General Fund in an effort to balance the budget, but also ruled that the General Assembly could make such transfers and that “trust fund” principles were not applicable even though the money had been placed in the “Highway Trust Fund.”

This case has captured the attention of a number of North Carolina citizens.  This month, a Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amici Curiae was filed by N.C. Speaker of the House Joe Hackney, Representative Harold J. Brubaker, Representative Holliman, Representative Paul Stam, President Pro Tempore of the Senate Marc Basnight, Senator Dan Blue, Senator Daniel G. Clodfelter, Senator Fletcher l Hartsell, Jr., and the National Conference of State Legislators in support of the Plaintiffs-Appellees. They intend to urge the Court to affirm the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals, which declared the Governor’s 2001 transfers of monies from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund for budget balancing purposes unconstitutional.

For more information, click here.

Saine, et al., v. State, et al. (Johnson and Wales)  

On March 31st, Attorneys Robert Orr and Jeanette Doran filed a Notice of Appeal in this case.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the State of North Carolina’s appropriations to Johnson and Wales University, a private cooking and hospitality school in Charlotte that has received and will continue to receive a millions of dollars without any contract to give anything in return to the State. The lawsuit sought to stop any future payments and to have the millions already given to Johnson and Wales returned to the State treasury.

To read more about the case, click here.

• Justice Orr on WPTF's Carolina Newsmakers with Don Curtis
• Brian Irving, N.C. Supreme Court will hear historic Libertarian ballot access lawsuit, www.examiner.com
• Kevin Austin, Austin answers critic on taxpayer-funded legal fees, Yadkin Ripple
• Britt Combs, Incentives: Do they really work?, The McDowell News
• Robert Boyer, Sutton: Incentive ban 'long overdue', www.thetimesnews.com
• Marta Mossburg, Incentives no answer, The Frederick News Post