- Former Democratic congressional leaders Tom Daschle and Richard Gephardt oppose Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin's request to move his election dispute out of federal court.
- Daschle, Gephardt, and five former congressional colleagues from both major parties filed a motion Tuesday to submit a friend-of-the-court brief in Griffin's lawsuit against the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
- The former congressmen argued that a federal court is the proper venue to address legal questions surrounding the Help America Vote Act of 2002. Griffin wants the case returned to a North Carolina state court.
Two former Democratic congressional leaders lead a group of seven former congressmen opposing Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin’s attempt to move an election dispute from federal court to state court.
Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt, two additional Democrats, and three Republicans filed a motion Tuesday seeking to submit an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief in Griffin’s lawsuit against the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
Griffin filed his complaint against the elections board with North Carolina’s Supreme Court. The board removed the case the following day to federal court. Now Griffin is asking US Chief District Judge Richard Myers to remand, or send, the case back to the state court system.
Daschle, Gephardt, and their colleagues were members of Congress “who helped to pass the Help America Vote Act in 2002,” according to their brief.
“They are interested in the issue of whether this case should be remanded back to state court because they are uniquely situated to discuss Congress’s intent in passing the Act, specifically as it relates to ‘Congress’s intended division of labor between state and federal courts’ which is an essential factor for the court to consider as it determines whether to remand,” the court filing continued.
“This case presents a substantial federal question, which Congress intended to be addressed by a federal Court when it passed HAVA in 2002,” the former congressmen argued.
Griffin, who serves as a judge on the state Court of Appeals, challenges more than 60,000 ballots cast in the recent state Supreme Court election. He trails appointed incumbent Democrat Allison Riggs by 734 votes in that election, which has not yet been certified.
“Judge Griffin’s claims turn on an interpretation of federal law, namely HAVA. This matter should therefore be addressed by a federal court,” the congressmen argued.
“The fact that this case concerns a state election is immaterial. To be sure, HAVA, by its terms, only applies to federal elections. But the North Carolina General Assembly has structured its election laws to require HAVA adherence in both federal and state elections. North Carolina has a ‘unified registration system.’ This means that the State Board of Elections uses a single voter registration form, irrespective of the office on the ballot. It also maintains a single voter registration list for both state and federal elections,” the court filing continued.
“In other words, any ruling on whether the 60,000 voters in question are entitled to vote in state elections will also dictate whether they can vote in federal elections, and vice versa,” the congressmen argued.
“If HAVA is to achieve Congress’s goal of uniformity across the country, federal courts must have an opportunity to interpret the statute,” the court filing explained. “Allowing a state court to interpret HAVA could lead to the judicial creation of 50 different versions of HAVA across the United States. Allowing federal courts to decide these issues, by contrast, ensures that Congress’s ‘federal mandate for voter registration’ speaks with a single voice.”
“To be clear, it is not the position of Amici that states and their courts no longer have the authority to regulate their own election systems — HAVA clearly preserves that. Nor is it the position of the Amici that state courts may never decide cases implicating the statute — HAVA does not create exclusive jurisdiction in federal courts. However, it is the position of Amici that when Congress passed HAVA, they intended at a minimum for federal courts to have the opportunity to weigh in on disputes concerning the statute’s implementation. This is especially the case where, as here, a state election authority — the very entity charged with implementing HAVA — has sought to move the dispute to a federal court,” the congressmen argued.
Daschle represented South Dakota in the US House and Senate from 1979 to 2005, including working as Senate majority leader from 2001 to 2003. Gephardt represented Missouri from 1977 to 2005. He served as House majority leader from 1989 to 1995 and as minority leader from 1995 to 2003.
Joining the two Democratic leaders in the court filing were Republicans Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania, and Christopher Shays of Connecticut, along with Democrats Steve Israel of New York and Robert Wexler. None of the participating congressmen has served in Congress since 2017.
Myers set a Wednesday deadline for the State Board of Elections to “show cause” why Griffin’s case should not return to the state court system. Griffin seeks an injunction against the elections board by Jan. 9. Without an injunction, the board could certify Riggs as the election winner the following day.