§ 163-104. Primaries governed by general election laws; authority of State Board to modify time schedule.

Case Name: States’ Rights Democratic Party v. State Bd. of Elections

Citation: 229 N.C. 179

Year: 1948

Case PDF: States’ Rights Democratic Party v. North Carolina State Board of Elections

Case Summary: The State Board of Elections refused to print names of the political party candidates on grounds that the petitioners failed to comply with its self imposed governing rules and regulations. The court found that the Board's regulations conflicted with N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 163-126, 163-123 and thus were void as they attempted to establish that voting in the primary election of an existing political party disabled qualified electors to sign a petition for the creation of a new party during the same year which the primary was held. Furthermore, notice of, and opportunity for, hearing on petition for creation of new political party are necessary to meet constitutional requirement of "due process of law," which hears before it condemns, proceeds on inquiry, and renders judgement only after trial. In conclusion the court found the State Board of Elections was acting as a legislative body, rather than a regulatory power and thus invalidated its imposed regulations.

Case Name: States’ Rights Democratic Party v. State Bd. of Elections

Citation: 49 S.E.2d 379

Year: 1948

Case PDF: States’ Rights Democratic Party v. North Carolina State Board of Elections

Case Summary: Law governing creation of new political parties is subject to restrictions that such rules must not conflict with any provisions of existing statutory law, even if such restriction is not specifically annexed by statute, as the constitution forbids the legislature to delegate power to make law to any other body. Specifically, the notice of and opportunity to petition for the creation of a new political party are necessary to meet the constitutional requirement of "due process of law." Here the State Board of Elections regulations, which require voters in support of a new political party to file an attachment which disclose the requisite number of signed supporters who have not voted in primary election(s) of any exiting party during the year in which the new political party petition is signed cannot be sustained merely as an administrative effectiveness measure on behalf of the State Board. The State Board of Elections has the authority to determine the registration for creation of a new political party by examination of registration books through the collection of the county boards as a matter of administrative routine before calling on signers to prove signature of the requisite number of qualified voters. However, the Supreme Court cannot determine whether primary election laws impose on qualified voters a moral obligation to such party and to therefore refrain from signing statutory petition for the creation of a its new political party during the year in which such elections are held. Thus, the statute providing for the creation of new political parties confers a legal right on any qualified voted the sight to sign such petition, irrespective of whether he/she has participated in the primary election of such existing political party during the same year in which the petition was signed. [Judicial Action] Where a petition for the creation of a new political party shows to have been signed by at least 10,000 voters and otherwise mets every statutory requirement, the Superior Court shall grant a writ of mandamus ordering the State Board of Elections to cause names of new party's nominees for President and Vice-President on the official ballot in the general election.

Case Name: McLean v. Durham County Bd. of Elections

Citation: 21 S.E.2d 842

Year: 1942

Case PDF: McLean v. Durham County Board of Elections

Case Summary: The Board refused to accept the candidate's party convention nomination and denied the candidate's right to have his name printed on the official ballot as they failed to comply with provisions of the State Primary Law Code § 6018 (failure to file notice of candidacy with the Board and failure to pay filing fee). The candidate then filed an application for mandamus to compel the Board to print his name on the ballot. Pursuant to state law, power to control and regulate primaries and elections rests exclusively in the legislative branch of the state government. Thus in recognizing the State Primary Law did not conflict with any provisions of the state or federal constitution, the court denied the candidates petition. In conclusion, so long as there is no unjust discrimination, the state may, by exercising its inherent police power, suppress whatever evils may be incident to a primary or convention for the designation of candidates for election to public office.

Case Name: Ponder v. Joslin

Citation: 138 S.E.2d 143

Year: 1964

Case PDF: Ponder v. Joslin

Case Summary: Where only protest before state board of election involving returns from multiple county senatorial districts related to one county, when amended returns from that county were certified in accordance with findings of fact and conclusions of law of state board, it would have legal duty to declare results of primary election and to certify nominee. Furthermore, the county board of elections is the proper agency to canvass returns in primary for selection of party nominees for county offices as well as general election to fill such offices. Although, the state board of elections is appropriate agency to canvass and judicially declare results of primary for nomination of candidate in senatorial district composed of more than one county. Nonetheless, the State Board of elections is permitted to go behind returns as its duty is not restricted to computation and tabulation of returns certified by various county boards. Nor is the State Board limited merely to investigating frauds and irregularities for the sole purpose of making report of such frauds and irregularities for further investigation. However, findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the State Board of elections may be reviewed in action instituted in the Superior Court of Wake county under statute, which such appellant action is not entitled to a jury trial.

Case Name: Rider v. Lenoir County

Citation: 73 S.E.2d 913

Year: 1953

Case PDF: Rider v. Lenoir County

Case Summary: Challenging citizens contested the bond election was invalid because it had been held within one month of a primary election and that the proposed expenditures were materially in excess of the amount approved via vote of the people. The court concluded that because the citizens had not commenced suit within 30 days of publication of the election results, they were thus precluded from challenging the election under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 153-90, -100. However, the court determined the term "regular election for county officers" does not include a party primary. Accordingly, because the county funds functioned as a material variance from the proposition submitted, the court found no support in the record for the conclusion that the citizens were barred by laches and reversed the judgment of the lower court in favor of the county and commissioners.