RALEIGH, N.C. – The recent decision by a bipartisan group of Superior Court judges in North Carolina has yielded mixed reactions. While Gov. Roy Cooper and his legal team have expressed strong opposition to the changes, the judges have upheld most of the new state laws regarding appointments to government boards and commissions. The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel determined that the Republican-led General Assembly had the authority to make these changes within the parameters set by state law.
The newly constituted state boards cover a range of important topics, including the environment, wildlife, building codes, the coastline, and public health. Despite the governor’s arguments that the changes violated state constitutional principles, the judges did not find the appointments to be in violation of the constitution. The court noted that facial challenges to acts of the General Assembly are rarely successful as it is the role of the legislature to balance competing interests and find compromises.
The judges upheld five of the seven targeted boards in the governor’s lawsuit. However, they did rule against the appointment of two legislative members to the Economic Investment Committee, which oversees tax-incentives programs. Additionally, the plan to fill 14 of the 20 positions on the state Board of Transportation with legislative appointments was deemed to infringe on the governor’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.
The concept of control over these boards has been a central issue in the litigation. Matthew Tilley, representing legislative leaders, argued that the boards are not mere extensions of the governor’s power and that having independent minds is crucial. Tilley pointed out that board appointments serve as a method of checking the governor’s power, ensuring that all power does not accumulate in one individual.
While Gov. Cooper has criticized these changes as detrimental to democracy, he must recognize the limitations of using the courts to achieve his goals. Unless the laws passed by the General Assembly are shown to violate the state constitution beyond reasonable doubt, they will remain intact. To bring about the desired changes, the governor may need to focus more on the political process through the ballot box than on courtroom battles.
The outcome of this judicial decision has set a precedent for the shifting balance of power in North Carolina. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the changes, it is clear that the courts have acknowledged the authority of the General Assembly to make these appointments under the existing state law. As the governor and his legal team continue to voice their opposition, the impact of this decision will likely shape future discussions and actions surrounding government board appointments in the state.