- The North Carolina Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling against fired Swain County elections director Judy Allman.
- Allman had challenged the legal process she was forced to use to pursue her complaint. She also claimed that state and local elections officials violated her constitutional rights when she was fired in 2023.
- A unanimous three-judge appellate panel rejected Allman's arguments Wednesday.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s ruling against a former Swain County elections director. Judy Allman had argued that state and county elections officials violated her rights when she was fired in 2023.
A unanimous three-judge appellate panel rejected Allman’s argument that she should have been able to bring a complaint about her dismissal to the state Office of Administrative Hearings, rather than Wake County Superior Court. Appellate judges also agreed that Allman failed to make a case that the firing violated her state constitutional right to enjoy the fruits of her labor.
Allman was promoted to Swain County elections director in August 2020. In December 2022, the county elections board submitted a petition to the state elections director seeking Allman’s dismissal. The board cited “various allegations including making misrepresentations to the County Board, insubordination, and unprofessional conduct,” according to the state Appeals Court opinion.
The executive director held a virtual hearing, then granted the county board’s petition. The state elections board declined to reconsider the ruling.
Allman filed complaints with OAH and with the Wake County Superior Court. She lost her cases in both forums.
At the Appeals Court, Allman challenged a trial judge’s ruling against her challenge of NCGS § 163-22(l), the law requiring any appeal of a decision of the State Board of Elections to move through Wake County Superior Court. She also challenged the rejection of her claim that the dismissal violated her constitutional rights.
Appellate judges agreed that Allman could not pursue a complaint through OAH.
“[A] plain reading of the statute indicates a clear process: when the State Board makes a decision, a person seeking review of that decision must file a petition in the Superior Court of Wake County,” wrote Judge Toby Hampson. “The statute does not indicate the Superior Court of Wake County is to review a decision of the OAH, but the decision of the State Board. Indeed, this procedure has been implicitly recognized by our courts.”
“Beyond the plain language of the statute as implicitly recognized in our courts, there are several indicators of legislative intent at odds with Plaintiff’s interpretation,” Hampson added. “For one, although Plaintiff’s case is an employment dispute, the primary role of the State Board is to supervise the primaries and elections in the State, and it promulgates rules and regulations accordingly.”
“Accordingly, the bulk of its proceedings are likely to involve election law, including election protests which must be ‘expeditiously resolved’ so that elections may be timely certified,” the Appeals Court opinion continued. “Accordingly, our Legislature set out a process by which review of the State Board’s decisions may be completed more quickly, by advancing directly to our courts rather than first being heard in the OAH. This procedure also allows the State Board to litigate these claims in Wake County, where it is located, rather than in the county where the petitioner resides, as it would be required to for contested cases heard by the OAH.”
“Thus, under the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-22(l), petitions for review of decisions of the North Carolina Board of Elections terminating a county elections director are properly filed with the Superior Court of Wake County,” Hampson wrote.
Appellate judges also rejected Allman’s constitutional claim. “[A]s Plaintiff has not presented facts sufficient to support an alleged violation of her right to the enjoyment of the fruits of her labor, she has not established a colorable constitutional claim,” Hampson wrote.
“In order to state a direct constitutional claim grounded in the right to the fruits of one’s own labor, a plaintiff must show ‘(1) a clear, established rule or policy existed regarding the employment [termination] process that furthered a legitimate governmental interest; (2) the employer violated that policy; and (3) the plaintiff was injured as a result of that violation,’” the Appeals Court explained. “In her Complaint and on appeal, Plaintiff is unable to identify any established rule or policy violated by the County Board when submitting its recommendation to the State Board.”
Chief Judge Chris Dillon and Judge John Arrowood joined Hampson’s opinion.