✔ A federal judge has issued an injunction forcing North Carolina’s State Board of Elections to certify Justice for All as a new political party.
✔ The decision would allow North Carolina voters to select left-of-center activist and academic Cornel West in the presidential race.
✔ US District Judge Terrence Boyle rejected the elections board’s arguments for denying party certification to Justice for All last month.
A federal judge is ordering North Carolina’s State Board of Elections to certify the Justice for All Party and to add its candidates to the state’s November ballot. That means voters would have the chance to choose left-of-center activist and academic Cornel West in the race for president.
The elections board denied JFA ballot access last month in a party-line 3-2 vote. The board’s Democratic majority rejected party certification. Republican board members supported JFA’s bid.
US District Judge Terrence Boyle ruled Monday that plaintiffs representing JFA are likely to win their argument that the elections board violated the First Amendment by denying the party ballot access.
Boyle issued an injunction favoring 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 requires 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.”
Boyle held a July 30 hearing in the case, one day after West filed a motion to intervene in a lawsuit filed by three Fayetteville voters. Meanwhile, a group tied to Democratic political activist Marc Elias called Clear Choice Action filed paperwork on July 29 opposing an injunction. The North Carolina Republican Party and Republican National Committee filed a brief supporting JFA’s ballot access efforts.
West aimed to add himself and JFA Chair Italo Medelius of Durham to the case as “plaintiff-intervenors.”
“JFA was founded in 2024 by supporters of Dr. West’s campaign for President,” wrote lawyers representing West and Medelius. The legal team includes lawyers from the Center for Competitive Democracy in Washington, DC, and the More Voter Choice Fund in West Hurley, New York. “JFA seeks to elect candidates to all levels of public office in North Carolina, but it is presently unable to place its nominees on the ballot because the Board declined to certify JFA as a political party.”
“JFA is injured by the Board’s action, which prevents it from participating in North Carolina’s electoral process and hinders its ability to associate with its supporters, to engage in political speech and build support among the electorate, and to grow and develop as a political party,” West’s lawyers wrote.
State and national Republican groups support JFA’s cause. “The Board’s denial of certification to the JFA Party involves serious infringements of constitutional rights by denying North Carolina voters the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, impeding the JFA Party’s and their members’ (including Plaintiffs) associational rights, impeding the JFA Party’s and their members’ (including Plaintiffs) right to participate in the November 2024 election pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-98, and marginalizing the due process requirements in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-96,” according to a brief filed by the NCGOP and RNC.
Section 163-98 spells out the rules for “general election participation by [a] new political party.” Section 163-96 covers political parties more generally.
The case’s original plaintiffs filed additional paperwork on July 29 supporting their request for an injunction against the state elections board.
“It is undisputed that the Justice for All Party of North Carolina (‘JFA’) timely complied with all statutory requirements to be certified as a political party under North Carolina law,” wrote the plaintiff’s lawyers. The Raleigh-based lawyers often represent Republican legislative leaders in election-related lawsuits.
“First, JFA submitted petitions with 17,362 signatures validated by the County Boards of Election — 3,497 above the 13,865 threshold needed for new party certification in 2024,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers explained. “NCSBE staff confirmed that the total number of validated petition signatures was 17,141 — 3,276 over the minimum requirement. NCSBE staff confirmed that the JFA petitions were signed by at least 200 registered voters from each of three congressional districts. The petitions were timely submitted to the County Board of Elections before noon on June 1, 2024. The petitions contained the required statutory language and format. The petitions and corresponding training materials used by JFA and People Over Parties (‘POP’) informed petition signers of the general purpose and intent of the new party.”
“Defendants’ inquiry should have ended there,” the court filing continued. “Instead, Chairman [Alan] Hirsch and the Democratic majority of the NCSBE, arbitrarily and without statutory authority, decided to subjectively probe the purpose and intent of JFA based on submissions by Democratic operatives.”
The “operatives” in the plaintiffs’ court filing include Clear Choice Action, which filed its own brief in the ballot access case.
“As part of its mission, Clear Choice Action fights cynical efforts to abuse state ballot-access laws and mislead voters,” wrote CCAs lawyers, including those working with Elias Law Group. “Clear Choice Action has an interest in defending the State Board’s order, which properly rejected what the record showed was a sham petitioning effort marred by fraudulent and misleading signature gathering practices by third-party groups unaffiliated with — and politically unaligned with — the proposed party.”
Three Republican state House leaders filed paperwork supporting JFA’s case.
Speaker Tim Moore, R-Cleveland, filed court documents along with Rep. Destin Hall, R-Caldwell, and Rep. Grey Mills, R-Iredell. Hall chairs the House Rules Committee. He has declared his candidacy to succeed Moore as House speaker in 2025. Mills chairs the House Election Law and Campaign Finance Reform Committee.
“The North Carolina House of Representatives has a strong interest in this case,” lawyers for the GOP legislators wrote in a memorandum tied to a friend-of-the-court brief. “It is an important state interest to ensure that citizens of North Carolina can fully exercise their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to cast their votes effectively, to speak and associate for political purposes, and to grow and develop their political party in accordance with democratic tradition.”
“These interests are implicated in this case, as the dispute concerns the ability of a new political party to access the ballot box, and correlatively, the right of citizens to vote for their preferred candidates,” the court filing continued.
“Because several North Carolina statutes are implicated in this case, including N.C. GEN. STAT. §§ 163-96 and 163-98, which govern procedures for qualifying new political parties and placing candidates on the ballot, the Legislators also have an interest in the proper interpretation of these statutes insofar as they are relevant to the analysis of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.” GOP legislators’ lawyers wrote.
Lawmakers accused the State Board of Elections of applying the state law for new political parties “discriminatorily.”
“‘No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined,’” lawmakers’ lawyers wrote, citing a 1968 US Supreme Court precedent, Williams v. Rhodes. “This right is being undermined today for voters who wish to support the Justice For All Party of North Carolina in the upcoming November 2024 elections.”
“Following an organized campaign by out-of-state political operatives, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and a partisan front group specifically formed to ‘coordinate attacks on third-party candidates,’ the North Carolina State Board of Elections refused to certify the Justice For All Party of North Carolina as a new political party,” GOP lawmakers argued. “In doing so, Defendants excluded the Justice For All Party’s candidates, including presidential nominee Dr. Cornel West, from North Carolina’s 2024 general election ballot. And they deprived plaintiffs of their right to cast ballots for him this November.”
The State Board of Elections submitted legal arguments defending its decision. “State law requires parties seeking certification to file with the State Board petitions signed by registered and qualified voters in this State equal in number to one-quarter of one percent (0.25%) of the total number of voters who voted in the most recent general election for Governor,” state government lawyers wrote. “After undertaking an investigation, the State Board was unable to conclude that JFA had established the party’s compliance with this state-law requirement. For that reason, the State Board denied certification. This decision was lawful — and indeed was the only one permissible under state law, given JFA’s failure to substantiate the requisite number of signatures.”
The lawsuit targeted the North Carolina State Board of Elections and director Karen Brinson Bell.
“The Justice for All Party of North Carolina (‘JFA’) timely complied with all requirements under state law to qualify as a new political party and place its candidates on North Carolina’s November 5, 2024 general election ballot,” according to the complaint filed in US District Court in the Eastern District. “Nevertheless, by a divided 3-2 vote, Defendant North Carolina State Board of Elections (‘NCSBE’) declined to certify JFA as a new political party.”
“NCSBE cited no legal authority for its action,” the complaint alleges. “NCSBE claimed to be investigating allegations of ‘fraud’ with respect to JFA’s petitions, but NCSBE conceded that JFA submitted more than enough valid signatures than required under state law.”
The board rejected Justice for All’s bid during the same July 16 meeting when it voted, 4-1, to approve ballot access for the We the People Party linked to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The state elections board also rejected JFA’s ballot access requests on June 28 and July 9.
Plaintiffs Johnny Thomas Ortiz II, Jimmie Gregory Rogers Jr., and Weldon Murphy are Fayetteville residents. They are “voters and petition signers who supported JFA’s effort to become a ballot-qualified party in 2024,” the complaint explained. “Plaintiffs want to vote for JFA’s nominee in the November 2024 general election. The NCSBE’s failure to certify JFA as a new party makes it impossible for them to do so.”
“Plaintiffs therefore bring this action against the NCSBE for the violation of their rights to cast their votes effectively, to speak and associate for political purposes, to grow and develop their political party, to petition, and of their right to due process, as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments,” JFA’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court declare the NCSBE’s failure to certify JFA as a political party unconstitutional and enter an order directing the NCSBE to certify JFA and place its nominee on North Carolina’s 2024 general election ballot.”
The lawsuit explained the process the party used to secure ballot access. “Under N.C. GEN. STAT. § 163-96(a)(2), JFA was required to submit petitions with 13,865 valid signatures. According to NCSBE, JFA timely submitted petitions containing a total of 30,719 signatures to county boards of elections, and the county boards of elections found that 17,362 of those signatures were checked and determined to be valid.”
JFA’s complaint highlighted efforts from the Democratic Party and Clear Choice Action to keep the new party off the ballot.
“Clear Choice Action was created by Democrats to limit the voices of North Carolina voters in order to protect and advance their own political agenda,” the complaint alleged, quoting a March 2024 Washington Post article: “Allies of President Biden have formed a super PAC called Clear Choice, aimed at stopping any third-party or independent candidates from gaining traction before the November Election.”
“A review of the documents posted on the NCSBE’s website regarding this matter indicates that the basis of the NCSBE’s request for information from JFA on June 21, 2024 was based upon the allegations contained in the correspondences submitted by Democratic operatives,” JFA’s lawyers wrote.
“During the course of JFA’s petition drives, tens of thousands of voters signed JFA’s petitions, and JFA petition circulators spoke with tens of thousands more North Carolinians in addition to the petition signers. On information and belief, not one of those citizens filed a complaint with NCSBE or any county board of elections regarding JFA’s petitioning efforts. On information and belief, only Clear Choice Action, represented by Elias Law Group, has filed such a complaint,” the lawsuit continued.
JFA urges the federal court to declare that the state elections board’s decision to reject the party’s ballot access “is an unreasonable interpretation that is not justified by any legitimate or compelling state interest that severely burdens Plaintiffs’ rights in violation the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”