Legal Challenge to North Carolina Election Rules and Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 16

Introduction

A legal challenge initiated by the Justice for All (JFA) Party is proceeding against new election regulations in North Carolina, despite the party’s failure to secure ballot access in the 2024 election. The lawsuit raises significant questions regarding the state’s commitment to Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16), which advocates for peace, justice, and strong institutions. The party’s legal team is seeking to amend a federal lawsuit to contest the constitutionality of rules that took effect on July 1, arguing they impede the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions as outlined in SDG 16.6 and hinder the inclusive, participatory decision-making called for in SDG 16.7.

Upholding SDG 16: The Core of the Legal Complaint

Alleged Violations of Institutional Transparency and Accountability (SDG 16.6)

The JFA party contends that the new election rules undermine the principles of accountable and transparent governance. The central argument is that the regulations unconstitutionally empower the State Board of Elections with excessive discretionary power, creating a system that is neither objective nor transparent. This directly challenges the aim of SDG 16.6 to develop effective and accountable institutions at all levels.

• The lawsuit alleges that the new rules constitute a “content-based prior restraint” on the core political speech of new political parties.
• It argues that the Board is vested with “unbounded discretion” to interpret a new party’s compliance with a “purpose and intent” requirement.
• According to the JFA’s legal filings, the regulatory scheme lacks the “objective, definite standards” necessary to guide the Board’s decisions, making the process facially unconstitutional.

Promoting Inclusive and Participatory Decision-Making (SDG 16.7)

The legal action asserts that the challenged rules create significant barriers to political participation for new parties, thereby conflicting with the objectives of SDG 16.7, which seeks to ensure responsive and inclusive political processes. By restricting the ability of new parties to gain ballot access, the rules are seen as limiting political inclusion, a key tenet of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

1. NC Gen. Stat. § 163-96(b): This statute requires petition circulators to inform signers of the party’s “general purpose and intent.”
2. Rule 22.0305: This rule prevents county boards from validating signatures until the State Board confirms the party has demonstrated compliance with the “purpose and intent” requirement.
3. Rule 22.0306: This rule is challenged for vesting the Board with discretion to deny certification even if a party meets all statutory requirements.
4. Rule 22.0204: This rule establishes a procedure allowing petition signers to have their signatures removed after the collection deadline has passed.

Specific Rule Challenges and Their Impact on Democratic Principles

The “Purpose and Intent” Requirement

The lawsuit specifically targets the “purpose and intent” requirement as a violation of First Amendment rights and a direct impediment to achieving the institutional integrity sought by SDG 16. The JFA argues that this allows election officials to reject a new party based on subjective disagreement with its platform or formation. The complaint cites the 2024 dispute, where the board chairman deemed 50% of JFA signatures “highly questionable” based on his personal belief about the party’s intent, and another board member suggested the JFA was a “faux party.” Such actions are presented as evidence of an arbitrary system that undermines the rule of law (SDG 16.3).

The Signature Removal Procedure

Rule 22.0204, which permits the removal of signatures after the collection period has ended, is identified as a severe burden on the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of new parties. This procedure threatens the stability and predictability required for strong institutional processes (SDG 16.6).

• The rule creates a risk that a party could fall below the required signature threshold after the deadline, with no opportunity to collect more.
• JFA’s lawyers argue this threat is substantial, citing evidence of “concerted efforts to harass and coerce petition signers” by political adversaries, a practice that this rule could legitimize and exacerbate.

Conclusion: The Pursuit of Justice and Strong Institutions

The ongoing legal battle by the Justice for All Party represents a critical test of North Carolina’s electoral framework against the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals. The case highlights a fundamental tension between state regulation and the constitutional rights essential for a participatory democracy. By challenging rules they deem discretionary and burdensome, the JFA’s lawsuit underscores the importance of establishing fair, transparent, and inclusive electoral processes. The outcome will have significant implications for the strength and accountability of the state’s political institutions, a cornerstone of SDG 16.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

This goal is central to the article, which revolves around a legal challenge to state election laws. The Justice for All Party (JFA) is using the legal system to fight for what it perceives as its right to fair ballot access. The article details the functioning and discretionary power of a state institution (the State Board of Elections) and the party’s efforts to ensure the legal and institutional framework for elections is just, non-discriminatory, and accountable. The entire narrative is about access to justice and the strength and fairness of political institutions.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

This goal is relevant because the article discusses the struggle of a new, smaller political party against rules that it argues create an unequal playing field. The legal challenge targets election rules that allegedly infringe upon the rights of new parties, thereby creating inequality in political participation compared to more established parties. The core of JFA’s argument is that the rules prevent their full and equal political inclusion.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   The article directly illustrates this target. The JFA party is engaging in a “federal lawsuit” to challenge state election rules. By filing court documents and seeking to amend their complaint, they are using the legal system to seek redress and ensure the law is applied fairly. Their fight for a “spot on North Carolina’s 2024 ballot” is a clear example of seeking equal access to the political process through legal means.

2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   The JFA’s lawsuit directly challenges the effectiveness and accountability of the State Board of Elections. The article states that the party’s lawyers argue the rules “vest the Board with unbounded discretion” and lack “objective, definite standards.” This critique points to a demand for a more accountable and transparent institution whose decisions are not arbitrary. The challenge to Rule 22.0306, which allegedly “vests the Board with unbounded discretion to deny certification,” is a direct effort to reform the institution for better accountability.

3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   The central conflict is about the inclusivity and participatory nature of the electoral process. The JFA, a “new political party,” is fighting against rules that act as barriers to its participation. The article highlights the “purpose and intent requirement” and the procedure for removing signatures from petitions as obstacles that prevent the political system from being fully inclusive. The lawsuit argues these rules “impermissibly infringe such parties’ ‘core political speech,’” which is fundamental to participatory decision-making.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… other status.

   The article describes the efforts of a minority political group (the JFA party) to achieve political inclusion. The party’s struggle for ballot access is a fight against systemic barriers that prevent groups outside the mainstream from participating equally in the political process. The board member’s suggestion that JFA was a “‘faux party'” demonstrates a mindset that can lead to the exclusion of non-traditional political movements, which this target aims to prevent.

2. Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

   The JFA’s legal action is a direct attempt to eliminate what it considers discriminatory policies. The lawsuit challenges the “constitutionality of these new rules,” arguing they “severely burden a new party like JFA’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.” By seeking to overturn specific state laws (NC Gen. Stat. § 163-96(b)) and administrative rules (Rule 22.0204), the party is working to reduce inequalities of outcome in the electoral system and ensure equal opportunity for ballot access.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Indicator for Target 16.3 (Access to Justice): The existence and progression of the “federal lawsuit” filed by the JFA is a direct indicator. The ability of a political party to file a legal challenge, amend its complaint, and win a court injunction are measures of its access to the justice system.
• Indicator for Target 16.6 (Accountable Institutions): The specific rules and laws being challenged serve as indicators of institutional accountability. The article mentions NC Gen. Stat. § 163-96(b) and State Board of Elections rules (22.0305, 22.0306, 22.0204). The content of these rules, particularly the level of discretion they grant the Board (described as “unbounded discretion”), can be analyzed to measure accountability and transparency.
• Indicator for Target 16.7 (Inclusive Participation): The requirements for a new party to gain ballot access are key indicators. The article mentions the need to demonstrate “compliance with the purpose and intent requirement” and the process for petition signers to “obtain removal of their signatures.” The number of parties that successfully qualify for the ballot under these rules would be a quantitative measure of inclusivity.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

• Indicator for Target 10.2 (Political Inclusion): The number of signatures required for a new party’s nomination petition and the percentage of votes needed to maintain ballot access (mentioned as “at least 2% of the vote”) are concrete indicators of the threshold for political inclusion. The article also implies an indicator through the board’s subjective judgment, such as a chairman deeming 50% of signatures “‘highly questionable'” based on perceived intent.
• Indicator for Target 10.3 (Equal Opportunity): The legal basis of the challenge, which claims the rules “violate the First Amendment facially and as applied,” serves as an indicator. The presence of laws and rules that are challenged in court as being unconstitutional or creating an undue burden on specific groups (new parties) is an indicator of potential inequality of opportunity. The outcome of such legal challenges would measure progress toward eliminating discriminatory policies.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: carolinajournal.com