- North Carolina voters who sued successfully to have the Justice for All Party placed on North Carolina's election ballot are now seeking more than $77,000 in lawyers' fees and costs.
- A federal judge ruled in favor of the voters in August after the State Board of Elections' initial decision to block JFA from the North Carolina ballot.
- JFA and its presidential candidate, left-of-center academic and activist Cornel West, appear on the state'e general election ballot.
North Carolina taxpayers could end up paying more than $77,000 in lawyers’ fees because of the State Board of Elections’ attempt to block the Justice for All Party from the state’s election ballot.
The party and its presidential candidate, Cornel West, appear on general election ballots this fall. The state elections board voted to approve Justice for All as a new political party in August, days after a federal judge issued an order requiring the board to take that action.
Now lawyers for the three North Carolina voters who sued on behalf of JFA’s ballot access have filed a motion seeking payment of their lawyers’ fees. Those lawyers typically represent Republican groups in election-related litigation.
“Plaintiffs prevailed on the full scope of the relief sought in their Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction by obtaining an Order directing Defendants to certify JFA as a new political party under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-96(a)(2) so that qualified JFA candidates could appear on the November 2024 general election ballot,” according to a memorandum filed Monday in federal court. “As the prevailing parties, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”
The total bill could be $77,626.
The elections board initially denied JFA ballot access with a party-line 3-2 vote in July. The board’s Democratic majority rejected party certification. Republican board members supported JFA’s bid.
US District Judge Terrence Boyle ruled on Aug. 12 that plaintiffs representing JFA were 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 required 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.”