§ 163-97. Termination of status as political party.
Overview of Statute
Section requires of all political parties to meet the test set forth in the articles herein or else fail to be a party under the general election laws.
When any political party fails to meet the test set forth in G.S. 163-96(a)(1), it shall cease to be a political party within the meaning of the primary and general election laws and all other provisions of this Subchapter.
(1901, c. 89, s. 85; Rev., s. 4292; C.S., s. 5913; 1933, c. 165, s. 1; 1949, c. 671, s. 1; 1967, c. 775, s. 1; 2006-234, s. 2; 2017-6, s. 3; 2018-146, s. 3.1(a), (b).)
1. Definition for political party
The term “political party” means any political party organized or operating in this State, whether or not that party is recognized under the provisions of G.S. 163A-950. A special definition of “political party organization” that applies only in Part 2 of this Article is set forth in G.S. 163A-1475. An affiliated party committee is deemed a political party for this Article as set forth in G.S. 163A-1416 and G.S. 163A-1417.
2. Definition for election
The term “election” means any general or special election, a first or second primary, a run-off election, or an election to fill a vacancy. The term “election” shall not include any local or statewide referendum.
3. Definition for Election
“Election” means the event in which voters cast votes in ballot items concerning proposals or candidates for office in this State or the United States. The term includes primaries, general elections, referenda, and special elections.
North Carolina Cases
Case Name: McLaughlin v. North Carolina Bd. of Elections
Citation: 65 F.3d 1215
Federal Circuit Court: 4th Circuit Court
Case Summary: Libertarian Party members brought action against the state election officials and sought to have specific North Carolina statutes declared unconstitutional. The trial court deemed only some of the requested statutes (required payment of .05 cents per each notarization) unconstitutional, but deemed the remainder of challenges constitutional. Here the court held and affirmed, the state's interest in administrative simplicity outweighed the small burden that the provision imposed on the Party's interest. Namely, the court reasoned that ballot access restrictions must be analyzed as a whole, therefore the court ruled such ballot access rules did not unconstitutionally burden rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.