NC House Democrats call for changes to protect judicial independence, balance of powers

Amid a political tug-of-war over North Carolina’s judiciary, state Democratic lawmakers put forth a series of proposals they say are needed to protect the branch’s independence.

The three amendments propose a Supreme Court code of ethics, an overhaul to the state’s Judicial Standards Commission, and greater constraints on the General Assembly’s lawmaking process, including restrictions on their ability to remove powers from the governor and transfer them between members of the Council of State.

Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Speaker Destin Hall  (R-Caldwell) did not respond to a request for comment on the amendments.

The proposals come just over a year after state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs was sworn into office following a monthslong legal battle with her Republican opponent Judge Jefferson Griffin over whether more than 68,000 ballots would be counted.

House Bill 1234 is a constitutional amendment to institute a code of ethics for state Supreme Court justices. It would require justices to recuse themselves from cases in which they have a personal or financial interest and to disclose the sales of financial assets, outside income, and sponsored travel.

“This bill is not directed at any one justice, any one case, any one political party. It is about establishing clear constitutional standards that will apply equally to every current and future member of the North Carolina Supreme Court,” said primary sponsor Rep. Deb Butler (D-New Hanover). “These are common sense. These are safeguards for us. In fact, many North Carolinians, I believe, think that this is already part of our constitutional fabric.”

Justices would be compelled to recuse themselves from cases where they have “a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in the party to a proceeding,” or where a justice, their spouse, or another close family member is a party, lawyer, witness, or has a significant interest in the proceeding. Justices would also need to recuse themselves from challenges to laws they were primary sponsors of while serving in the General Assembly.

If the amendment were law today, it would likely have the greatest impact on Justice Phil Berger Jr., the son of the Senate President Pro Tempore. It would have barred him from weighing in on dozens of challenges each year to laws passed by the General Assembly under his father’s leadership, as the Senate President Pro Tempore is a party in most of these lawsuits.

Berger Jr. has previously said his father’s involvement in a case as an ex officio defendant does not constitute a personal conflict of interest.

House Bill 1236 is a constitutional amendment to “de-weaponize” the Judicial Standards Commission, primary sponsor Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham) said on Wednesday, after Republican lawmakers gave their party a supermajority on the body in 2023 and removed seats designated for lawyers and State Bar appointees.

The commission is currently made up of 10 judges and four citizens, with six members appointed by the General Assembly, six by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, and two by the governor.

“We have seen a weaponization of the commission targeting Democrat Supreme Court Justices with frivolous complaints,” Morey said. “In October 2024, three Republican state senators sent a letter that they publicized to judicial standards, alleging that Justice Riggs should be sanctioned for speaking out about her support of reproductive freedom. Her Republican opponent immediately began running TV ads against Justice Riggs based on the senators’ complaints.”

The bill would return the commission’s composition to a balance between judges and lawyers and appointees of the Supreme Court chief justice and the governor.

Five members would be judges appointed by the chief justice, five would be attorneys appointed by the State Bar, and five would be non-lawyer, non-judge citizens appointed by the governor. None would be appointed by the General Assembly.

“This kind of weaponization is a direct result of the General Assembly making all judicial races partisan in North Carolina. We want to return to a fair, impartial justice, free of bias and political warfare,” Morey said.

Lead sponsor Phil Rubin (D-Wake) said the third amendment, House Bill 1235, is aimed at strengthening the separation of powers in North Carolina and requiring greater  legislative transparency.

It would ban lawmakers from stripping the governor of any of their executive powers. It would also prohibit them from transferring powers from one state official to another without at least 90 days’ notice to voters prior to an election.

In recent years, the General Assembly has stripped an array of powers from the governorship, which has been held by Democrats for the past decade, as well as other Democratic members of the Council of State.

“The constitution already says that executive power belongs to the governor, but when courts refuse to enforce that basic principle, the people of North Carolina need to correct them and make it unmistakable,” said Rubin.

NC legislature approves bill that shifts government power away from Democrats

Republican legislative leaders have argued, and Republican judges have agreed, that the constitution does not say that all executive power belongs to the governor — only that it rests in the executive branch, which includes other members of the Council of State.

The bill also stipulates that acts of the General Assembly must “contain but one subject” clearly expressed by its title. Rubin pointed to the Hurricane Helene relief bill passed in the wake of the 2024 election that made substantial changes to executive authority in the state, including the removal of the state Board of Elections from the governor’s authority.

“It is deeply disappointing that the majority controlling our legislature and our courts have fallen so far from these principles that correction is necessary,” Rubin said. “We’re approaching the 250th anniversary of our nation, and it’s time that we honor the principles that brought us this great country that has thrived.”

He cautioned that Republicans should seriously consider these proposals before they again lose control of the chamber.

“I would suggest that they should look at this with open eyes and open arms, because they won’t always be in the majority,” Rubin said. “And when they’re not, they’re going to suddenly think these are great rules.”