More NC Elections Shenanigans

Politics & Elections
1

North Carolina’s general assembly has become infamous for its dirty tricks and extremism over the past 8 years. Phil Berger has led the Republicans through this time, and his grip on power seemed so strong that he didn’t even face a Democratic rival in the last election cycle.

That’s changing. Jennifer Mangrum was a Republican and a third grade teacher* who was outraged by her party’s careening voyage to the hard right. She switched her party affiliation and declared her candidacy against Berger.

Berger announced he was up for a principled battle of ideas and declared that he would campaign honorably, and let the best ideas win.

KIDDING! The NCGA announced new district lines, and mysteriously, Mangrum’s house was suddenly outside of Berger’s district.

Mangrum didn’t stop, though. When she and her husband separated, she moved into Berger’s new district, renting a house, changing her driver’s license, paying local taxes, and so on–doing everything you do when you move.

So THAT was the point where Berger said, “Okay, fair enough; we’ll be fighting it out along partisan lines, and we’ll let the voters decide.”

KIDDING! A Republican activist in Berger’s district got recruited by the party to file a challenge to Mangrum’s residency, based on little more than gossip (“I heard scuttlebutt that she didn’t really stay at that house, but I have no evidence”) and supposition (“I bet she’s gonna move back in with her husband after the campaign ends, although I have no evidence.”)

It went to a hearing–three Republicans and two Democrats–to decide whether the challenge was good. Fortunately, the Republicans on the elections board recognized this as the transparent partisan ploy it was and threw out the challenge.

KIDDING! On a 3-2 vote they upheld the challenge and told Mangrum she couldn’t run in the district she lived in, because what if she reconciles with her husband?

She’s challenging this decision. I can’t see any way she loses her challenge.

KIDDING! North Carolina is supremely fucked by partisan politics, and it’s totally plausible to me that Republican minions will continue denying her appeal based on nothing more than a desire to keep Berger happy.

This looks profoundly corrupt to me. Can anyone justify this sort of nonsense?

  • yeah yeah, I may feel a little affinity :slight_smile:
2

The GOP is waging a procedural war on America. If they can’t win on ideas, they’ll win by using the rules, is their strategy.

3

Uh, while I share your opinion of the NC Republican Party LHOD, can you state with no fear of being shown wrong that she didn’t “separate” simply to make the move? Was there evidence stronger than that you cite that would tend to show it was a ploy on her part to continue the challenge? My first thought would certainly be that the separation was for show…

4

What difference does it make?

She lived in the district before they gerrymandered her out.

5

At this rate, she should be preemptive an move next door to Berger. See what they do with THAT.

6

They feel when you have a veto proof majority you can do anything you want . Sadly all the Dems hope for now is to reduce it to just a regular majority where vetos might stand up.

7

For now, I’ll stipulate that that’s the entire reason for her separation, and that she’s written emails to her bestie stating that’s why she moved. With that stipulation, can you show me where in the law she’s ineligible to run in that district?

8

I’m not going to look up the legal code behind it, but North Carolina’s FAQ on residency, Fact 4 says:

That would certainly appear to make her intentions and long-term residency plans relevant.

9

I would, personally, be suspicious and mildly disapproving of someone moving to a district for reasons of political advantage. But suppose her temporary status evolved to a sincere desire for permanent residency? She not allowed to change her mind? And who’s going to judge that, based on what evidence?

Someone came to Minnesota to visit and decided to stay, or even run for office, I might question their sanity, but not their sincerity. Probably weren’t here for the annual Festival of the Blood Sucking Insects.

10

She did NOT “move to a district for reasons of political advantage.” She had been living in that district for years. They moved the district out from under her by political shenanigans.

11

That wasn’t the question. The question was whether she’d separated in order to make the move. Even if she did, absent evidence that she intends the move to be temporary, that’s irrelevant.

So let’s say she wrote her bestie, “Hey, Joanie! Just so you know, I’m separating from my husband because I really want to beat Berger, and he doesn’t want to move with me.” That’s irrelevant.

If she wrote, “I plan to move back to my old house in December,” okay, that calls into question what you quoted.

But if she says, “I fully intend to win this race, which means I’m staying here indefinitely,” then read on:

That’d count as an indefinite stay, with an intention to make that election district her place of residence. So she’d lose her place of residence in the old district. While this quote doesn’t explicitly say she’d thereby gain a place of residence in the new district, I believe the constitutional right to vote implies that.

Her supposed intentions were she to lose are 100% not implicated by this line.

12

Exactly. She’d had Berger as her rep for years, and she was sick to death of that bullshit. She said she’d run against him. Hey presto: Berger’s party redrew district lines to make that impossible!

She moved a short ways such that she was back in the district she’d been in for years, back in the district where she’d spent months and considerable energy preparing for her campaign.

Flip it around. Suppose that the Republican party weren’t a bunch of crazy assholes, and that when they redrew district lines, they did so on a fair basis. Suppose that resulted in, oops, Berger suddenly being out of district. If he rented a new house in the district he’d represented for years, who here thinks he’d have been declared ineligible to run?

13

The fact that the district borders were changed is a whole different kettle of fish. Once those borders were changed, if her move was temporary, designed only to try and facially meet the requirements, then the reviewing elections board is certainly entitled to say, “nope, not gonna allow that.”

Unless you have specific citations to indicate that they DON’T have that authority? After all, the burden is on you; you’re making the assertion, right?

14

But what if it was permanent, and designed only to try to facially meet the requirements? Is there any rule against that? I mean, she wouldn’t be running if she didn’t intend to win, and if she won, she’d have to stay in the district. So the fact that she was moving for the sake of political advantage is actually evidence that it was not intended to be temporary.

15

Do they question people who register to vote in a district as to their intent on staying there permanently? I rather doubt it. You are free to move to any location you want and don’t need to give anyone an estimate of how long you intend to stay. I don’t see a legal basis to disallow someone the opportunity to run for office in the district of their residency based on whether we imagine the move to be permanent or temporary. So Republicans pull an underhanded stunt to keep her from running and then complain that a more legitimate tactic is used against them. Sad!

16

In North Carolina they do. Especially if you’re black.

Link

17

The legal basis is right here in North Carolina G.S. § 163A-842:

Someone’s “district of their residency” is determined by whether their move was permanent or temporary.

18

And this intent is determined how?

19

Think you’re missing the point there, HD.
.

20

Apparently by an elections board, if I’m understanding the OP correctly.