SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
election 2024
Dem to Appeal 'Deeply Misinformed Decision' Threatening Over 60,000 Voters in North Carolina
"The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight," said one state Democrat.
Apr 04, 2025
Allison Riggs, a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, vowed to continue a legal battle over her narrow November victory after a state appeals panel on Friday took a major step toward invalidating more than 60,000 votes.
Riggs' GOP challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost by 734 votes—but rather than conceding, he has sought to have select ballots thrown out. In Friday's 2-1 decision, Republican Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson gave the targeted citizens 15 days to provide documentation to election workers confirming their eligibility to vote. If they don't do so, their votes could be discarded.
"We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people," Riggs said in a statement.
"North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat, and I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law—so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people," she added.
Since Riggs has recused herself from the case, only six of the North Carolina Supreme Court's justices will hear her appeal, "raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock," The News & Observerreported Friday.
As the Raleigh newspaper detailed:
If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday's decision from the Court of Appeals could stand.
Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats' hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.
Although the court fight is far from over, Griffin spokesperson Paul Shumaker and North Carolina GOP Chair Jason Simmons cheered Friday's decision, from which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissented.
Hampson's dissent begins by pointing out that Griffin "has yet to identify a single voter—among the tens of thousands petitioner challenges in this appeal—who was, in fact, ineligible to vote in the 2024 general election under the statutes, rules, and regulations in place in November 2024 governing that election."
"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution," Hampson argued.
Democratic leaders in North Carolina and beyond also blasted the majority's decision. State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said that "Judge Tyson and Gore put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters" when they "legitimized Jefferson Griffin's unconstitutional challenge" to tens of thousands of legally cast votes.
Reminder: From my legal and partisan sources, this ultimately gets decided based on how fed courts address military and overseas voters who didn't provide photo ID (and were expressly advised before election that they didn't need to). Why it matters: andersonalerts.substack.com/p/nc-supreme...
[image or embed]
— Bryan Anderson (@bryanranderson.bsky.social) April 4, 2025 at 2:23 PM
North Carolina House of Representatives Minority Leader Robert Reives (D-54) declared: "We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight. Justice Allison Riggs won her election—full stop. Our democracy continues to be tested, but we cannot allow it to break."
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that "this partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people."
"North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice," Martin stressed. "They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."
Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights organization Common Cause North Carolina, was similarly engaged, saying: "Today's ruling is a disgrace. This poorly conceived decision is an extreme overreach and sides with a sore loser candidate over the citizens of our state. If allowed to stand, the ruling would inject chaos into North Carolina's elections in ways that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide."
Phillips continued:
Let's be clear: these North Carolina voters did absolutely nothing wrong. They followed the rules and cast ballots that should count. To say otherwise now is an affront to the rule of law and our Constitution.
If Griffin gets his way, never again will the people of North Carolina be able to have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Instead, Griffin's reckless lawsuit will open the door to an endless stream of other sore loser candidates who will attempt to throw out enough votes until they can cheat their way into office.
This fight is not over. We are confident that the courts will ultimately see Griffin's ploy for what it is: an unconstitutional attack on our freedom to vote.
"The people of North Carolina will continue to protest against Griffin's outrageous attack on our rights," he added, "as we continue our work to protect our family members, friends, and neighbors who are targeted by Griffin's disgraceful scheme."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘I Couldn’t Care Less’: Trump Reveals His True Stance on Inflation
Funny how soon after November 5 Trump stopped talking about prices “coming down fast”—and moved to policies calculated to increase the cost of living.
Apr 04, 2025
It’s the Donald Double Whammy.
Grocery price are not “coming down fast,” as U.S. President Donald Trump promised. And Trump’s tariffs are about to boost the price of everything we buy that’s imported—from cars to gasoline to clothing to shoes to computers, cellphones, toys and, yes, groceries, too. America imports one-fifth of our food from abroad, and tariffs will make fruits and vegetables more costly.
Two of the false promises Trump made during the election will be haunting us.
Trump did not tell inflation-afflicted voters before November that a vote for Trump was a vote for more pain.
First, he pledged to fix inflation. The economy was issue number one for most voters, and Trump attributed his victory to Americans’ anger over food prices. He promised “inflation will vanish completely,” and vowed “prices will come down... and they’ll come down fast... with everything.”
“When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day One.” Right up to election day, Trump assured us, “A vote for Trump means your groceries will be cheaper.”
Trump never revealed his plan for dealing with inflation because he had no plan. And after the election, he admitted prices were not going to come down. “It’s hard to bring things down once they’re up,” he acknowledged a few weeks later. “Very hard.”
By January, Trump confirmed that inflation was not his No. 1 issue, and by Inauguration Day, he ceased talking about it at all. Prices did not start coming down on Day One, and still haven’t on Day 75. They won’t because of his second false claim.
Trump promised that the tariffs he imposed would be paid by other countries, not by American consumers: “It’s not going to be a cost to you, it’s going to be a cost to another country.”
“I am going to put tariffs on other countries’ [goods] coming into our country and that has nothing to do with taxes to us.”
Trump knew this was wrong. As the right-leaning Tax Foundation explained, a tariff is simply “a tax on people who buy things from foreign businesses.” The conservative Cato Institute reports “overwhelming evidence that Americans bore the brunt” of Trump’s first-term tariffs and will do so again.
And now, finally, Trump admits it himself. When confronted with the fact that his 25% tariff on autos and auto parts will cause prices to surge, Trump did not dispute that tariff costs would rest on the backs of American consumers. Instead, he cheered!
“I couldn’t care less,” said Trump. “I hope they raise their prices, because if they do, people are going to buy American-made cars.”
Trump understands perfectly well that tariffs are not “a cost to another country.” He no longer says, “It’s not going to be a cost to you.” Now he says Americans will feel “some pain,” but that it’s a good thing.
Trump did not tell inflation-afflicted voters before November that a vote for Trump was a vote for more pain.
Can Trump’s tariffs increase manufacturing in the United States by forcing us to buy American-made cars? Economists are dubious. To begin, there aren’t any 100% “American-made cars.” “Almost 60% of the parts used in vehicles that are assembled in the country” are imported.
Auto manufacturers created a system based on free trade among the U.S., Mexico, and Canada in which parts made in any of the three countries may freely move among the others. Then cars assembled in one country may be sold into another.
Half of the parts in a “made-in-the-USA” Cadillac are manufactured in Mexico. Thirty percent of the parts in an Acura assembled in Mexico come from the U.S. or Canada.
Trump claims the trade agreement underlying this system is “unfair” and that Mexico and Canada “took advantage of the United States.” “Who would ever sign a thing like this?” Trump recently asked.
Donald Trump, actually. The U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) was negotiated and signed by Trump on November 30, 2018. Then, he hailed USMCA as “a colossal victory for our farmers, ranchers, energy workers, factory workers, and American workers in all 50 states.”
“An especially big win for American auto workers,” Trump bragged. “The USMCA is the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law.”
Back then it was “incredible,” “the best agreement we’ve ever made.” Now it’s a target for Trump’s irrational tariff mania. What will come of tariffs on everything we buy from abroad? Unemployment, as cars and other goods become more expensive and demand plummets. More unemployment as other countries retaliate with tariffs that bar American exports. And more inflation, with China, Canada, and Mexico tariffs alone costing the typical household $1,600 to $2,000 a year.
Trump has moved on from his false promises. And American families are left to bear the costs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They've Come to Collect': Report Details Crisis of Billionaires Buying US Elections
"The billions of dollars of donations these oligarchic clans give candidates, parties, and particularly outside spending groups drown out the voices and concerns of ordinary voters," according to the report.
Apr 02, 2025
The ever-growing amount of billionaire cash in elections is poisoning U.S. democracy, according to a report published Wednesday by the advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness—which found that the top 100 billionaire families spent an eye-popping $2.6 billion on federal contests in 2024.
That's more than twice the roughly $1 billion spent by individual billionaire donors in 2020, according to the group, and constitutes 160 times the amount of billionaire political spending since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. That decision paved the way for the proliferation of super political action committees (PACs), a type of committee that can accept unlimited donations to spend on political activity.
Picking apart that $2.6 billion, there's a clear partisan skew: 70% of that billionaire money went to entities supporting Republican candidates, while 23% went to entities backing Democratic candidates. The other 7% went toward independent candidates—such as presidential contender Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now a Cabinet secretary—and committees that gave to candidates from both parties who champion specific issues, such as cryptocurrency.
That skew is particularly pronounced when it comes to the competitive Senate races that determined control of the chamber in 2024.
Looking at Senate contests in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the authors of the report found that nearly 80% of the total billionaire cash in these races—which tallied $1.14 billion in outside spending—went to outside groups supporting Republican candidates, compared to 20% used to support Democratic hopefuls.
"The billions of dollars of donations these oligarchic clans give candidates, parties, and particularly outside spending groups drown out the voices and concerns of ordinary voters, endangering democracy and distorting public policy," the report states.
What's more, "this undue influence by the billionaire donor class over our government—always a concern and already present in mostly indirect ways—has found its full, frightening expression in the second Trump administration with the ascendancy of Elon Musk, the world's richest man and the biggest billionaire donor in the 2024 elections," the authors wrote.
Musk's ability to convert his extreme wealth into political influence in the Trump administration contrasts with reports that Musk pays relatively little in taxes. In 2018, for example, Musk paid nothing in federal income taxes even as his wealth soared, largely due to Tesla stock appreciation.
But Musk is just the "most notorious example of billionaires literally buying power," according to the group. ATF highlighted that billionaire Linda McMahon secured a position as President Donald Trump's education secretary after she and her ex-husband gave tens of millions to support Republican candidates, as did billionaire businessman Howard Lutnick, now the commerce secretary.
The report, titled Billionaires Buying Elections: They've Come to Collect, is the latest in ATF's "billionaires buying elections" series, and according to the group it is the most comprehensive because it covers both direct billionaire giving and "traces the indirect routes billionaire cash can take through campaign committees contributing to each other."
In its methodology section, the report gives the example of WinSenate—a super PAC that works to elect Democrats to the Senate—which did not report billionaire contributions, but received all of its funding from the Senate Majority PAC. Because the Senate Majority PAC got 19.9% of its funding from billionaires, the report counted WinSenate's share of billionaire spending at 19.9%.
According to the report, other big-name Republican megadonors in the 2024 cycle included shipping supply magnates Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein and Israeli-American billionaire Miriam Adelson.
According to the authors of the report, billionaires need to be taxed more.
"Tax policy—which has the most direct impact on billionaire wealth—is perhaps the most obviously affected by the money-for-power billionaire bargain," according to the group, which cites the current Republican push to extend parts of Trump's 2017 tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy as part of a general trend in tax policy over the past four decades to decrease taxes on the wealthiest people and most profitable businesses.
"The self-reinforcing combination of booming billionaire fortunes and weakening campaign finance laws continues to threaten our democratic form of government," according to the report. "As the outcome of the last presidential campaign amply demonstrates, until billionaires pay their fair share of taxes and we put effective curbs on their political spending, this threat will only grow."
The report calls for solutions like bolstering the estate tax and implementing a wealth tax, such as the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act, a bill that was reintroduced by multiple Democratic senators in 2024. The newer version of the legislation would place a 2% annual tax on the net worth of households and trusts between $50 million and $1 billion, and impose an 1% annual surtax—so 3% tax overall—on the net worth of families and trusts that is above $1 billion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular