NORTH CAROLINA — Another third-party candidate will be represented on the ballot in North Carolina this election season.
READ MORE: Justice for All joins lawsuit against state election board, awaits decision on ballot access
ALSO: RFK Jr. will remain on ballot in North Carolina, judge rules
A Republican federal judge ruled Monday the Justice for All party and its candidate, activist and professor Cornel West, should be an option for voters this November.
“We fought hard against what we perceived as an unjust barrier to our participation in the democratic process, set by a partisan board,” Italo Medelius, co-chair for Justice for All, stated in a release. “Today, we celebrate not only our victory but the preservation of democracy.”
US District Judge Terrence Boyle ordered the North Carolina State Board of Elections to certify the party. The board was sued by three Fayetteville voters for infringing upon their Constitutional rights to support West and Justice for All this year.
The suit was filed and intervened upon by Justice for All after the state board of elections voted 3-2 last month to deny the party ballot access, which by proxy would affect campaigns of its presidential candidate, West, and a Winston-Salem mayoral candidate, Frankie Gist. The Democratic majority on the board of elections claimed fraudulent signatures were gathered in Justice for All party’s petition.
Boyle’s overturning comes after another judge sided with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and We the People party on Monday to maintain representation on North Carolina ballots, despite the state Democratic Party also suing the state board of elections. Some have claimed progressive third-party candidates will dilute votes from a Democratic nominee.
Port City Daily reached out to the North Carolina Stage Board of Elections Tuesday to ask if it had a response to either the Justice for All or We the People wins; a response was not received by press.
Roughly 13,800 signatures were needed for Justice for All to be represented in North Carolina. The party originally submitted 30,000 or more but almost half were discounted, found by the state board staff to be obtained in a questionable manner. At the final count, however, Justice for All met the benchmark by roughly 3,400 more signatures than what was required and in compliance with county boards’ June 1 deadline.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit thought the board abused the certification process to conclude denial of JFA. The North Carolina State Board of Elections staff is still investigating fraudulent signatures of these petitions.
BOE staff presented a sample to the board of 49 people out of 250 signees. Of those, 18 claimed they did not sign the petition, three did not recall signing and eight stated they were not informed of the petition’s purpose and intent of the party upon signing, while 28 agreed to signing. The board’s Democratic members, which hold the majority, determined it was enough to vote against the party.
Boyle disagreed in his 30-page order, stating 15 of the 28 “understood the purpose of the petition” supported a new political party; he revealed 13 believed they were appropriately 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,” the judge wrote in his ruling. “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.”
Boyle heard from attorneys Phillip Strach of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough — a firm frequently used by the Republican party for cases involving election law and gerrymandering — who represented the voters. Mary Carla Babb spoke for the state board in a July 30 hearing, with Oliver Hall representing Justice for All.
Strach explained in the hearing that the party’s verified signatures were enough reason to add them to the ballot.
“That should be the end of the story,” he told the judge.
Boyle concurred. His ruling stated the voters’ First Amendment rights were severely burdened, as the party met the state statute guidelines to be added. More so, he questioned the state board’s tactics for determining signatures were misrepresented.
“[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.”
The state board of elections delayed voting on both We the People and Justice for All by three weeks earlier this summer, stating staff needed to investigate the legitimacy of signatures to gain ballot access. The board eventually agreed to allowing We the People’s inclusion on the 2024 ballot but denied Justice for All.
Strach called the board’s nitpicking a “sloppy review.”
The state board’s attorney, Babb, contended the board did right by state statute and Justice for All did not follow the law.
During the state board of elections’ June meeting, it weighed testimony from Clear Choice Action Group, a Democratic group that works toward fighting “cynical efforts to abuse state-ballot access laws and mislead voters.” The group showed a video of Scott Presler, a conservative activist, gathering We the People signatures on a clipboard at a Trump rally in Wilmington earlier in the spring, saying: “This helps take votes away from Joseph Biden.”
Clear Choice Action Group filed a brief on the case for Judge Boyle to consider. It accused the Justice for All petitions of being “a sham”; the party is an all-volunteer effort to gather signatures for West to get on ballots nationwide. CCA claimed the party’s petitions were “marred by fraudulent and misleading signature-gathering practices by third-party groups unaffiliated with — and politically unaligned with — the proposed party.”
NBC News reported in June a GOP firm, Blitz Canvassing, had at least three Republican employees, past or present, helping the party gather signatures.
West campaign spokesperson Edwin DeJesus told the news outlet JFA had numerous people from political affiliations supporting its cause this election season. But West’s camp cited outside Democrats influenced the board’s decision to keep him off the ballot, “resulting in significant procedural failures.”
Republican lawmakers also submitted a briefing to the courts in JFA’s case, noting since lawmakers oversee state statutes, it wanted to ensure rules for adding a new party were being followed and citizens’ voting rights were not being compromised. Lawmakers thought the state board acted discriminatorily in JFA’s denial.
“From the initial delay of proceedings to the final rejection based on a questionable survey, the State Board took its cues from Clear Choice — a group openly dedicated to keeping third-party candidates off the ballot to protect Democrats,” their court filing revealed.
State board chairman Alan Hirsch and executive director Karen Brinson Bell were called before the General Assembly’s House Reform and Oversight Committee last month to answer to their thought processes in denying JFA. They claimed signature problems were brought forth by county boards, not outside influences.
Medelius and West noted in a release Tuesday that Boyle’s ruling was monumental for diverse political representation in the state.
“The court’s decision to allow our candidates on the ballot is not just a win for JFA but a victory for every North Carolinian who believes in the power of choice and the strength of democracy,” Medelius said.
Tips or comments? Email info@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
