North Carolina's election board faces federal scrutiny led by GOP over parties' ballot access

WASHINGTON, DC: The United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), is looking into the actions of the state Board of Elections in North Carolina, according to the New York Post.

Notably, this comes after the board refused to allow three political parties to appear on the ballot, even though each party had more signatures than necessary to be eligible.

Jim Jordan looks into actions of state Board of Elections in North Carolina

The House Administration Committee and the Judiciary Committee, which are also looking into the decision, wrote in a letter that they are looking for further 'documents and information' about it.

Jordan and Rep Bryan Steil, R-Wisconsin wrote, "The Committee on House Administration and the Committee on the Judiciary are concerned that the NCSBE’s decision was politically motivated and may have been done to influence the 2024 presidential election by limiting the candidates for which voters may cast their ballots."

Notably, Steil is the committee chairman for House Administration. In the 2024 presidential contest, the three parties back Randall Terry, Cornel West, and Robert F Kennedy Jr.

Moreover, recorded by the state's Board of Elections, each party filed more votes than the 13,865 needed to be included on the ballot. The committee stated that they will reevaluate the matter in July, even though they were first refused access to the vote last week, even before the federal probe was even launched.

Furthermore, the three Democrats on the board all voted against the petition requests, according to the federal committees' letter, which claims that the decision was taken due to the "political motivations" of the board members.

The letter says, "For example. In its denial of one petition, the Democrat members voted to block the petition simply because the address of the party’s chairman was not up to date on the petition sheets."

The petition was approved by a vote of the board members who are Republicans. Not all federal committees were the first to express disapproval of the board's decision, which was met with strong opposition.

In a statement, the Libertarian Party of North Carolina referred to the ruling as 'election interference' and backed the applications submitted by the other three marginal parties.

It posted on X, "The Libertarian Party of North Carolina (@LPNC) is deeply disappointed, though hardly surprised, with the North Carolina State Board of Elections (@NCSBE) decision yesterday to limit the choices of the people of North Carolina in keeping the We the People Party, the Constitution Party, and the Justice for All Party off the ballot in North Carolina. We resoundingly reject this partisan and anti-American decision that mocks the concept of democracy and destroys any pretense of representative government."

Internet reacts to federal investigation of North Carolina election board's handling of parties' ballot access

Several internet users voiced their views as the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary scrutinized the actions of North Carolina's Board of Elections.

Some online comments read "Ironically enough, it is the Democrats that claim Trump is a fascist and wants to restrict people's freedoms, and yet it's the democrats keeping candidates off the ballot," and "I believe it's time these crooked politicians pay for their crimes. If they're held accountable & visit jails, perhaps they'll think twice before trying to cheat."

Another comment read, "Gym Jordan should be sharing a cell with Bannon for ignoring a subpoena," while one stated, "I want to meet the Cornpop/nell west for President donors!"

A user wrote on X, "This is a travesty. More options will more accurately represent the will of the people," while one added, "In another time there would be tar and feathers waiting for these board members."

Another added, "This is not a democracy."

 

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.