The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently ruled on a significant case regarding the separation of powers within the state government. The case, Stein v. Hall (Docket No. 25-652), involved a dispute between Governor Joshua H. Stein and key legislative leaders, including Speaker of the House Destin C. Hall and Senate President Pro Tempore Philip E. Berger. The court's decision could have far-reaching implications for how elections are administered in North Carolina.
The court's ruling declared several sections of a new law unconstitutional, which had transferred significant powers over the State Board of Elections from the Governor to the General Assembly. This decision is crucial as it reaffirms the Governor's authority in overseeing election administration, a role that has been historically maintained since the early 1900s.
In this case, the court's ruling highlights the ongoing tension between the executive and legislative branches of government in North Carolina. The outcome matters not only for the current administration but also sets a precedent for future governance and the balance of power within the state.
Background
The parties involved in this case include Governor Joshua H. Stein, who filed the complaint, and the Legislative Defendants, which consist of Speaker Destin C. Hall and Senate President Pro Tempore Philip E. Berger. The dispute arose after the North Carolina General Assembly passed Session Law 2023-139, which altered the structure and appointment powers of the State Board of Elections.
Historically, the Governor has had the authority to appoint members to the State Board since 1901. However, the new law sought to transfer that power to the General Assembly, effectively increasing the number of board members and changing the appointment process. This prompted Governor Stein to file a lawsuit, arguing that the changes were unconstitutional and infringed upon the executive branch's authority.
The case escalated through the legal system, ultimately reaching the North Carolina Court of Appeals after a three-judge panel in Wake County ruled in favor of the Governor in April 2025. The panel concluded that the changes made by the General Assembly violated the separation of powers doctrine outlined in the North Carolina Constitution.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals ruled that the sections of Session Law 2024-57 challenged by the Governor were unconstitutional. Judge April Wood, who authored the opinion, stated, "The constitutional provision... contemplates that the Governor will have the ability to affirmatively implement the policy decisions that executive branch agencies... are allowed to make." This ruling emphasized the Governor's essential role in ensuring that elections are conducted fairly and according to the law.
The court found that the changes made by the General Assembly significantly undermined the Governor's control over the State Board of Elections. The opinion noted that the law removed the Governor's appointment powers and restricted his ability to supervise and remove board members, which the court deemed a violation of the separation of powers principle.
Impact
This ruling has immediate implications for the administration of elections in North Carolina. By reaffirming the Governor's authority over the State Board of Elections, the court has ensured that the executive branch retains control over the enforcement of election laws. This decision is likely to impact how elections are managed in the state, particularly as the 2026 elections approach.
The ruling also sets a significant precedent regarding the limits of legislative power in restructuring executive agencies. It reinforces the notion that while the General Assembly has the authority to legislate, it cannot infringe upon the constitutional duties of the Governor. This outcome may influence future legislative attempts to alter the structure and powers of state agencies.
What's Next
The Legislative Defendants have the option to appeal this ruling to the North Carolina Supreme Court. As the legal landscape surrounding election administration continues to evolve, the implications of this case will likely be closely monitored by both lawmakers and the public.