BREAKING: Democrats score VICTORY we’ve WAITED FOR

This is Democracy Watch. Mark, we don't. often get really good news, but we've. just gotten it here. Can you explain. what just happened in court? Yeah, so. this is breaking news out of the state. of North Carolina where a federal. district court has rejected the. Republican effort to steal the state. supreme court election from Allison. Riggs. You may remember this was a very. close election. Allison Riggs, the. Democratic incumbent justice, won the uh. election by just over 700 votes. There. was a recount. There was a second.

recount and Republicans launched an. audacious plan to try to change the. rules of v of of what ballots get. counted after the election was complete. Tried to throw out more than 65,000. votes. This case sort of pingponged. between the state courts and the federal. courts and the state board of elections. and a federal district court judge just. said that the federal constitution. prohibits in his words uh changing the.

rules of the game after it's over. Mark, I got to ask because I think this is an. important point. Who is the president. who appointed the judge that was. overseeing this case? So, Judge Meyers, who is the chief judge of the of the. district court, was appointed by Donald. Trump in 2019. He is a very uh. well-known conservative uh judge. Uh but. he was, you know, not going to tolerate. in very very clear terms, not going to. tolerate this idea of gamesmanship where. you vote first and then make the rules. afterwards. Is there anything that the.

judge said or that you can speak to more. broadly about the fact that it even. needed to get this far? I mean, this. this ruling really does reverse state. court rulings, both at the hands of the. North Carolina Supreme Court and the. lower court in North Carolina, the. appeals court. Both of whom kind of. sided, not in fully, but in large part. with Jefferson Griffin, whose only goal. here was to cherrypick out of four. overwhelmingly Democratic counties a. bunch of voters in an effort to erase uh. Allison Rig's margin of victory. Yeah.

Look, so Brian, the whole issue in this. case was always whether this was going. to be resolved by the state courts or by. the federal courts. I mean, the state. courts in North Carolina at the trial. court level, uh, you know, it it a. fairly even bench, probably lean. slightly Democratic, but once you get to. the court of appeals and certainly the. state supreme court, it becomes a very. Republican bench. And it is important. for people to listen to this clearly. I'm not using the words Democrat and. Republican as sort of proxies. I mean.

that in that they have partisan. elections in North Carolina and the. North Carolina Supreme Court is a. partisan court in literal terms but also. in the way in which they rule. It is a. very very partisan court. So Justice. Riggs never in my view ever really stood. a fair shake or or or a chance of. winning in the state courts. And the. question was always going to be do the. federal courts step in? Do the federal. courts say, "Look, this involves the. right to vote." And there is a lot of of.

of federal uh court precedent, including. Supreme Court precedent, which this. conservative judge cites that says you. don't get to do this. You don't get to. change the rules of the game after the. balloting is completed. And so, uh, you. know, once it was clear that the federal. courts were going to decide this, it was. only a matter of time before we got a. ruling from the district court. and then. ultimately uh uh this case could go to. the fourth circuit. Uh uh but I don't. expect the fourth circuit to disturb. this outcome. So to be clear, they do.

Jefferson Griffin does still have the. opportunity to appeal this even though. the the um the playing field on which. they have to battle this thing isn't. exactly favorable to him. Yeah. So here. is the problem for the Republicans. It. is not just that they came up with a. theory that flies in the face of. existing precedent. It is not just that. they are trying to invalidate tens of. thousands of lawful votes after the the. voting was completed after the ballots. have been counted and only after he.

decided that he was down and needed to. do this. But the fourth circuit is. actually a very pro- voting court. I. mean this is the court that in 2013. struck down a North Carolina law for. targeting African-Americans with. surgical precision. This is a fourth. circuit that time and time again in 2020. when I was litigating to make sure the. rules of voting would be fair in a. pandemic, you know, sided with the pro-. voting side. Um, it has a majority of. its members have been appointed by.

Democratic presidents. There are a. number of appointments from President. Biden, a number of appointments uh from. uh from President Obama. So, this is not. a favorable terrain for uh Jefferson. Griffin, particularly having lost before. a district court judge who, you know, is. very conservative and so there's not a. lot of runway left for him. the the the part that that that. frustrates me a lot is knowing that this. is a case that was so egregious even a.

Trumpappointed very conservative judge. uh in this in this federal district. court um shut it down as soon as it got. into his courtroom. But nonetheless, there are still all of these judges in. North Carolina, these state judges, both. in the appeals court and the Supreme. Court, who thought that this was an. acceptable remedy to try and just cast. off valid votes in deference to. Jefferson Griffin or or to give him some. method to be able to do that. And so I I. know this is kind of a a futile question.

here, but is there some recourse knowing. that we just have such overtly corrupt. judges offering up rulings from the. bench that didn't even carry weight. among Trumpappointed federal court. judges? Look, I think anyone who reads. this opinion will see the not just the. care with which the judge took these. issues, but the annoyance and the. outrage that this judge has about what. has proceeded here. I mean this reads. like a lot of the opinions we saw also. at that time from conservative judges.

after the 2020 election where the judges. could not believe what they were being. asked uh to do. Uh you know it is it is. it is reminiscent frankly of some of. what we're seeing in federal courts uh. right now where the Trump administration. is coming in with outrageous positions. But let me give you a flavor for how. this opinion ends. It ends with the. state with the federal judge saying. ordering that the state board shall not. in all capitals take any action in. furtherance of the North Carolina Court. of Appeals and Supreme Court orders. The.

state court the state board shall. certify the results of the election. Uh. Judge Griffin's motions for injunctive. relief are denied. Judge Rig's motion. for injunctive relief are granted. The. vote action fund parties, that's that's. who my law firm represented. Their. motion for summary judgement is granted. The North Carolina Democratic Party's. request for injunctive relief is. granted. The Conley plaintiffs, another. set of plaintiffs, request for permanent. injunction is granted. I mean, like the. judge just down the line basically says.

the that Griffin and the Republicans. lost. Everybody opposing them won and. that the state of North Carolina needs. to ignore what the state courts have. said and needs to certify this election. Moving forward, Mark, we we know that. the North Carolina election board, the. state election board, looks differently. today than it did even just a couple of. weeks ago. um it is more Republican now. by virtue of of them adding another. Republican member onto that board. Does.

that change things moving forward? Does. that does that allow them to subvert the. process that is playing out right now. either in this case or subsequent cases? Yeah. So, it's not going to give them. any ability to do it in this case. I. mean, in this case, a federal district. court judge has issued an order that is. binding on the state of North Carolina. He is applying the federal constitution. and there is simply no wiggle room. The. he is he has issued this injunction and. I read you part of it just to give you a.

sense he he is not leaving there any. opportunity for the state of North. Carolina to claim there is more process. in their state courts or for their state. board of elections to do anything. But. you raise a really important issue, Brian, and it is a big uh issue for the. future and it's one that democracy. docket has covered uh extensively which. is the change of how the state board of. election is composed. It's not just that. there is an additional Republican, but.

the state of North Carolina's. legislature enacted a law that stripped. the governor of the ability to appoint. the majority of the state board of. election and moved it to the state. auditor. That's right. Not the secretary. of state, who's also a Democrat, not the. attorney general, who's also a Democrat, but they found the one state officer who. is a Republican, which happens to be the. auditor. And so now the partisan. Republican auditor appoints the the.

members of this board including a. Republican majority. So going forward. when a lot of these issues are fought in. the trenches of what guidance does the. state board give, how are the forms. printed, you know, what are they what. are the counties being told to do or not. to do? I worry about the future of free. and fair elections in North Carolina. It's one of the reasons why my law firm. uh and I will are, you know, are paying. such close attention. It's part of the. reason why we got involved representing. the good nonpartisan uh plaintiffs we.

represented here because these these. rules that get established in these. states can have remarkable impacts down. the line. Mark, I got to ask because in. the event that that some of these upper. courts would have would have handed down. rulings that were preferable to the. Republican candidate, Jefferson Griffin, it would have established precedent that. other Republicans in other states could. have pointed to. Once you have. president, you can say, "Okay, now now. in in Texas, in Florida, in in Michigan, wherever it is where Republicans are in. control, they can say, "Well, we're also.

going to cherrypick a bunch of. Democratic counties and challenge all of. these votes and basically determine the. winner of of all of our elections that. way." So, does the fact that we got a. resounding no from this case establish a. different kind of precedent where now if. Republicans try this in other states in. Florida, in Texas, wherever it may be, we can actually point to the president. established here in North Carolina and. and make an affirmative case for them to. be able to not do. this. Yes and no. So, here is the good.

news. The good news is yes, this is a. precedent that will be cited in future. cases. This will join a long list of. cases that we regularly cite to say that. the what the. Republicans basic thesis is, their wish. list, Donald Trump's playbook, is simply. unconstitutional. So that's the good. news. Yes. The bad news, Brian, is they. are hunting for their first win. Yeah. And they're still hunting for it, right? And they only have to win one, right? To. be able to create this sense that the.

law is unsettled. And we always have to. win. And so, you know, when I talk about. the fact that in 2020, you know, we won. 64 or 65 cases and the one case we lost. didn't really matter. It affected no. votes and it was in a Pennsylvania lower. court. What I'm really saying is not boy. look what great lawyers or what I'm. really saying is we had to win. everything otherwise Donald Trump would. be able to cherrypick, as you say, a. precedent here to to then argue. someplace else. And then we had to do it. again in 2022. We had to do it again in.

2024. We've had to do it here in the. post-election now here in North Carolina. and frankly in cases that are still. pending all around the country including. some arguments that Republicans have. brought to the US Supreme Court. And so. it is a very very fragile time for. voting rights because the Republican. theories are so extreme and so u would. so disorient and undermine democracy. that they just have to win one of those.

cases and we are in real trouble. And. unfortunately, those of us on the side. of litigating for the pro-democracy. side, we have to win all of them just to. add them to the list of president. Well, look, I I I would say that there is. nobody better situated to be able to do. exactly that, to be able to bat 100%. than you and your team. Um, I would also. ask, look, we we've just talked about an. entire case that really was at the. forefront of our fight for democracy. talked about an entire case where you. and your team were pivotal in terms of. litigating on on um the voters's behalf.

to make sure that their votes would be. counted in this North Carolina race. So. for everybody watching right now, I'm. going to offer up something different. Usually we talk about Democracy Docket. and still want you to support Democracy. Docket, which is the news outlet Mark. founded to focus on everything voting. elections. But Mark has a YouTube. channel called Democracy Docket. I'm. going to put the link right here on the. screen and also in the post description. of this video. If you are subscribed to. this channel, if you're watching this. video, click that button. Make sure to. hit the subscribe button and hit the. bell so that you get all of the updates. whenever Mark comes on and does videos.

of his own. This is important because we. have to support this entire growing left. of center progressive media ecosystem. And and nobody is more deserving than. than Mark who is fighting, you know, on. the front lines of all of these battles. So again, I'll put the link to his. YouTube channel, Democracy Docket, right. here on the screen, also in the post. description of this video. Make sure to. subscribe and make sure to support. Independent Media. I'm Brian Taylor. Cohen. I'm Mark Elias. This is Democracy. Watch. [Music].