...On July 2, 2015, eleven (11) days before the Plaintiffs filed this action, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a local act, referred to in the Plaintiff’s Complaint as the “Greensboro Act.”
...Defendant Guilford County Board of Elections is required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-1 et seq. to conduct fair, impartial, and lawful elections within the county.
...The issue before this Court concerns the definition of the role of Guilford County Board of Elections as the sole defendant in this matter, and the appropriate remedy in light of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and request for temporary and permanent injunctive relief.
THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS SERVES A VITAL, BUT STATUTORILY LIMITED, ROLE TO CONDUCT ELECTIONS IN A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL MANNER AND, THUS, PERFORMS A SOLELY ADMINISTRATIVE OR MINISTERIAL FUNCTION.
...The Guilford County Board of Elections, like all local boards of elections, does not have discretionary authority in implementation of election rules, regulations, and procedures.
...The importance of public confidence that local elections are conducted in such a manner and by individuals who have no partisan agenda – in fact, whom have no agenda at all, but are fair, impartial and lawful – cannot be over-emphasized or overstated.
...To the extent that the Plaintiffs seek redress from the Guilford County Board of Elections outside election administration, it is superfluous since the Guilford County Board of Elections exercises virtually no discretion in the implementation of stated law and act only in a ministerial capacity.
Yet the City of Greensboro
wants the Guilford County Board of Elections
to pay the bill?
THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS MAY BE A NECESSARY DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY TEMPORARY AND/OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ISSUED BY THE COURT WILL ISSUE DIRECTLY TO THIS LOCAL BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN CARRYING OUT ITS MINISTERIAL DUTIES, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS CAN PROVIDE ANY REMEDY REGARDING HOUSE BILL 263 (NOW, 2015 N.C. SESS. LAWS 138).
...any mandates directed to more appropriate entities, which should be parties to this case, will derive the same effect and in a more practical manner.
...In Republican Party v. Martin, the court upheld the dismissal of the local Boards of Election (including, interestingly, the Guilford County board of Election) as “superfluous” to the matter seeking the inclusion of certain candidates on the local ballots since the local boards must merely follow the guidance and mandates established by the General Assembly and the State Board of Elections.
...local Boards of Elections are not necessary parties since they have no authority to act other than required by rule or statute (Martin) while the parties with authority, i.e., the General Assembly and the State, are not necessary parties since they lack a “special duty to enforce the challenged Session law.”
...The Guilford County Board of Elections does not opine in this Brief as to whether there are other necessary parties but does wish to state its position that it has no objection to the inclusion of any appropriate additional parties.
No objection,
meaning the Guilford County Board of Elections
is asking the court to tell the City
to sue somebody who passed and can enforce the legislation?
...The Plaintiffs, in their Complaint, challenges the Constitutionality a bill adopted by the General Assembly; however, the defendant Guilford County Board of Elections has no authority over drawing of districts, the manner of election of Greensboro council members or their terms or any other governance issues involving Greensboro council members.
It appears the City sued an entity
who can't/won't/shouldn't defend
the passage of the redistricting law,
and is expecting the Board of Elections
to pay for what it didn't do, and won't defend.
This the 20th day of July, 2015.
/s/J. Mark Payne
J. Mark Payne
Attorney for Guilford County Board of Elections"
.
.
Meanwhile, the City's attorney's doubled down on misleading information originally filed with the court;
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
filed Tuesday, July 14, 2015,
which the News and Record chose to not report.
...In the present case, the Greensboro Act’s integrated scheme unconstitutionally discriminates against Greensboro and its citizens by: ...pairing the four African-American incumbent council members against each other in two newly-drawn districts (i.e. Districts 1 and 2);
At present, the Greensboro City Council
includes four African-American members,
roughly in proportion with the racial makeup of the city’s residents,
42.34% of whom are African-American or mixed-race African-American.
...the Greensboro Act pairs all four African-American incumbents
in a district with another African-American incumbent.
Plaintiffs' July 13, 2015 Case 1:15-cv-00559 initial filed complaint
Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of July 2015.
/s/ Jim W. Phillips
Jim W. Phillips, Jr.
Julia C. Ambrose
Daniel F. E. Smith
BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON,
HUMPHREY & LEONARD, L.L.P.
Anita S. Earls
Allison J. Riggs
Southern Coalition for Social Justice
1415 West Highway 54, Suite 101
Durham, NC 27707
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Lewis A. Brandon III, Joyce Johnson, Nelson Johnson, Richard Alan Koritz, Sandra Self Koritz, and Charli Mae Sykes
.
.
Lake Jeanette would get representation,
as well as the Cardinal,
instead of slivers with the pols in the middle
getting elected and re-elected, we have a shot at something better.
The News and Record and the City's attorneys
have misled the public and the Court
by continuing to say
there are 4 African American elected officials on council
which is correct in reality,
but incorrect as Outling was appointed/not elected
within the last 45 days, replacing Zack Matheny
who is a white semi-Republican.
The News and Record and the City's attorneys
leave out at large Mike Barber
and District 4's Nancy Hoffmann's double bunking.
The News and Record and the City's attorneys
leave out Yvonne Johnson is at-large,
and Jamal Fox is in a district.
