Old North News

A North Carolina Supreme Court order confirms the court is entertaining the notion of blocking two elected Republican justices from taking part in a case concerning voter photo identification and lowering the state’s income tax cap.

The order issued in September asked eight questions that were designed to clarify how the court could remove justices from a case when those justices choose not to recuse themselves.

The case, NAACP v. Moore, stems from a constitutional amendment that passed with more than 2 million votes during the 2018 election. The amendment added a voter ID requirement and contained a tax provision.

A North Carolina Superior Court struck down the law, saying it is unconstitutional because it intentionally discriminates against black voters and is a way for Republicans to remain in power. The law “was motivated at least in part by an unconstitutional intent to target African American voters,” Superior Court Judges Michael O’Foghludha and Vince Rozier wrote in their 102-page order.

The case has since been appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court where the plaintiffs have filed a motion to have two Republican justices, Tamara Barringer and Phil Berger Jr., be recused from the case for alleged conflict of interest. Barringer’s alleged conflict is she was a member of the legislature that passed the voter ID law before becoming a justice, while Berger’s alleged conflict is that his father is the current State Senate Leader.

If the Republican justices are removed a temporary 4-1 Democratic majority could erase the two constitutional amendments passed by voters in 2018.

Attorneys for the defendants filed their own motion opposing the forced removal of Barringer and Berger, pointing out the NAACP has no objection to Anita Earls, who was once an attorney for the plaintiffs.

“Plaintiff’s decision not to seek recusal of another justice with actual involvement in this case only undermines its position and calls into question Plaintiff’s real goal in bringing this Motion, which is that a vote of five justices might be better for it than all seven,” the motion read.

Dallas Woodhouse, a Carolina Journal Investigative analyst told Old North News that North Carolina’s Code of Judicial Conduct does not require or support voluntary recusals or forced removal of justices.

"The logic of saying a constitutional amendment that had to be put by a 60% supermajority on the ballot and then passed by the voters themselves would somehow be invalid while not calling into question any regular law passed is just nuts," he said. "That in itself is a very dangerous precedent that would be set. It could cause havoc for years to come."