Seven lawsuits in 52 days for the North Carolina State Board of Elections seemed frequent. And it was.
Considering the Republican National Committee has filed more than 130 nationwide, and only did four of those seven, a drop in the bucket might be more accurately descriptive. Democrats filed one of the seven, plus another against the We The People Party.
Election 2024 – day of decision still 11 sunrises away – is certainly the Year of the Litigator. From Florida to Alaska and Arizona to New York, lawsuits are everywhere.
And “to be clear” as a jurist might say before the bench, will it matter?
“The litigation from the Republican Party is largely about election integrity, seemingly sowing the seeds of doubt and distrust for challenges should Trump lose the election,” Steven Greene, professor of political science at N.C. State University, tells The Center Square. “They can point to these lawsuits and essentially say, ‘See, we already told you funny things were going on with the election.’
“I suspect voters aren’t really paying attention at all. It’s all about laying the groundwork so that election integrity claims after the election seem more legitimate based on lawsuits prior to the election.”
He’s not alone with his assessment. While the state’s largest voting bloc from more than 7.7 million registrations is nearly 38% unaffiliated, the leans are estimated to put only about 10% in true independent status.
“I suspect that this is largely noise to the voters who will make a difference in deciding the outcomes of elections,” Mitch Kokai, senior political analyst at the conservative-leaning John Locke Foundation, tells The Center Square. “Lawsuits might fire up some base voters, but these are the people most likely to turn out and cast ballots regardless of the litigation. When the average person hears that a Democratic group has sued Republicans – or vice versa – the most likely reaction is indifference. It would be hard to imagine that any of these lawsuits plays a significant role in the way a person casts a vote this fall.”
Kokai said the themes are expected, putting forth policy positions that inherently “split Democrats from Republicans.” In North Carolina courtrooms, Democrats have challenged election maps from the Republican majority Legislature, Republicans have challenged the Democrat-majority election board decisions.
“The suits accused Republicans of engaging in racial gerrymandering – largely because that’s the only type of legal claim state and federal courts will still consider in cases dealing with election maps,” Kokai said. “Court filings from Republicans have defended state lawmakers’ decisions when drawing the disputed maps. GOP lawyers have said that Republicans are adhering to the state and federal constitutions and previous court guidance.
“In the closing months of the election cycle, we saw a series of lawsuits filed by state and national Republican groups challenging actions from the State Board of Elections, with its 3-2 Democratic majority. The Republican suits consistently argued that the state elections board was violating state law in dealing with issues such as voter registration, voter list maintenance, and rules for mailing in absentee ballots. Democrats’ court filings have defended the State Board of Elections and accused Republicans of trying to create chaos and confusion, along with raising concerns about the integrity of the election process.”
Whether it’s posturing or true gain is up for debate.
“Honestly, it’s hard to know at this point how much of Republican legal attacks on election integrity are in good faith versus just posturing,” Greene says. “What is clear is that they are largely meritless, but Republicans have been questioning election integrity so zealously since 2020 that many of them may have come to drink the Kook-Aid on this.”
Ironically enough, with fewer middle ground voters to win, a report earlier this month from nonprofit OpenSecrets estimates a $15.9 billion election nationwide. Rest assured, the meter has been running for lawyers.
“Both parties view the courtroom as one battlefield where they must either defend their position or attack their opponent’s position, depending on who is filing suit,” Kokai said. “None of the suits I have seen is completely frivolous, but some appear to have more substance than others. The ones that carry the most weight are the ones in which facts suggest that people making the challenged decisions purposely chose to ignore the letter of the law. That’s hard to prove.”
