Stein Asks N.C. Supreme Court to Review Ruling That Let Auditor Boliek Appoint Elections Boards
Gov. Josh Stein's Oct. 21 petition challenges a 2-1 Court of Appeals decision from Sept. 16 that upheld a 2024 law moving elections-board appointments from the governor to the state auditor. Auditor Dave Boliek, a Republican, defends the ruling. No response to the petition or Supreme Court action has been reported.
A 100-year-old power and a petition
On Oct. 21, 2026, lawyers for Gov. Josh Stein filed a petition with the North Carolina Supreme Court. It's docketed as Stein v. Hall, No. 325P26 [9][11]. It asks the justices to review a Sept. 16 ruling by the state Court of Appeals. That ruling upheld a 2024 law moving the power to appoint the State Board of Elections out of the governor's hands [4][5][9].
The Supreme Court can't be forced to take the case. It must agree to hear it through what's called a petition for discretionary review. If the justices decline, the lower-court ruling stands.
As of Oct. 31, the court hadn't acted. No response from State Auditor Dave Boliek, a Republican, has been reported [3]. Boliek has defended the Court of Appeals ruling publicly since it came down.
What the law changed
Senate Bill 382 became law in December 2024. It took the power to appoint the five-member State Board of Elections, and the chairs of county elections boards, from the governor. It gave that power to the state auditor [1][2]. Governors had held it for more than 100 years [1].
Boliek began making appointments in May 2025. The State Board and all 100 county boards went from 3-2 Democratic majorities to 3-2 Republican majorities [1][4].
That majority matters. These boards set early-voting sites and hours, and they rule on election disputes [1][18]. Both parties treat the 3-2 split as the real prize [1][4].
A court that hasn't ruled on the merits
The case has been to the state Supreme Court once before. In May 2025, the justices declined to stop Boliek's appointments while the case went on. Their order was narrow. The governor's filings, it said, did "not ask this Court to decide the substantive constitutional issue, nor do we decide it here" [8].
So the question stayed open. The Court of Appeals answered it on Sept. 16, voting 2-1 for the law. Judge John Arrowood, a Democrat, dissented [4][5][13]. The majority held that the transfer didn't violate separation of powers. The power moved within the executive branch, it said, not to the legislature [12][4].
There's a timing wrinkle. The boards Boliek appointed are running the Nov. 3 election. That's true however the petition turns out [1][4].
Stein: the "take care" duty
Stein's case starts with the state constitution. It makes the governor the state's chief executive. It also requires the governor to "take care" that the laws are faithfully executed. His petition says the governor is "vested with the State's executive power and the obligation to ensure faithful execution of the law" [6][9].
Running elections, he argues, is a core executive job. Auditing isn't. An auditor checks how other agencies spend money. In Stein's view, the legislature can't hand election law to an office whose main function is something else [9].
His broadest point is about precedent. If the ruling stands, he warns, it lets the General Assembly move "any executive duty or power" from the governor to any other executive official it favors more, "at any time" [1][11]. In practice, he says, that would put the legislature in control of the executive branch.
Any governor, of either party, has an institutional interest in keeping control of the offices that carry out state law. Stein also stands to regain the appointment power. Past governors used it to give their own party a 3-2 majority, and the boards would probably flip back to Democrats [1].
Boliek and the legislature: a move within the executive
Boliek's side sees a narrower question. In 2025 filings at the stay stage, his lawyers wrote that the case presents "a straightforward constitutional question." Can the General Assembly move appointment power over the elections board "from one constitutional executive branch officer to another?" [2]
Their answer is yes. The auditor is also a statewide elected executive, chosen by voters just as the governor is. So the power never left the executive branch [12].
His Court of Appeals brief adds a textual point. Article III, Section 5(10) lets the governor appoint officers only when the law hasn't "otherwise provided for" their appointment. On that reading, the constitution leaves this choice to the legislature. They call it a "nonjusticiable political question," meaning one courts shouldn't second-guess [17].
Republican legislative leaders defend the law as an ordinary choice about how to organize state government. They note that North Carolina's constitution gives governors fewer powers than many states do. They add that the legislature has long created and reorganized state boards [17]. A win would confirm that broad power. A loss would limit it, extending earlier rulings that capped how far lawmakers can go in reshaping boards the governor controls [3][7].
Standing behind both sides is a legal rule. North Carolina courts presume a law is constitutional. They strike one down only for a clear violation, and the Court of Appeals applied that standard [12]. So Stein must show more than a plausible case.
Two ways to tell the story
Critics see a partisan pattern. Democracy Docket, founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, headlined the September ruling as approval of Republican lawmakers' "scheme" to keep GOP control of the board [6]. The Brennan Center's State Court Report called it a "partisan shift" [7]. These critics point out that the law passed after Stein won in 2024, and that the 2-1 ruling split along party lines [6]. Supporters of the law reject that reading [17].
Carolina Journal, published by the conservative John Locke Foundation, covered each filing closely. It gave Boliek's "straightforward constitutional question" framing real space. It also noted that the 2025 Supreme Court order didn't reach the merits [2][3][8]. The "power grab" critique rarely appears there. When it noted the judges' party, it did so in a way that cut against claims of partisanship, as in "All-GOP Appeals Court panel."
Others were more even. CBS 17 led with Stein's "faithfully executed" argument and labeled Boliek a Republican [1]. NC Newsline's headline was neutral, though its story gave more room to the dissent and to the shift in board majorities [4]. The Daily Tar Heel's headline named the wrong court. Stein is appealing a Court of Appeals ruling, and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the merits.
Neither framing spends much time on the question underneath. Does the governor's "take care" duty limit who can run elections? That's what the justices would take up if they grant review. They also have the option of letting the 2-1 ruling stand. A seat on the court is on the 2026 ballot, and Republicans hold a majority there [14].
Summary
Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, has asked the North Carolina Supreme Court to hear his challenge to a 2024 state law[1][9]. The Supreme Court can take such a case only if it grants a 'petition for discretionary review'. If it declines, the lower-court ruling stands. The law moved the power to appoint the five-member State Board of Elections, and the chairs of county elections boards, from the governor to the state auditor[1]. Governors had held that power for more than 100 years[1]. On Sept. 16, 2026, the state Court of Appeals upheld the law in a 2-1 decision[4][5]. Auditor Dave Boliek, a Republican, has defended the ruling publicly. No response from Boliek to the petition has been reported as of Oct. 31.
The law has already changed who runs elections. In May 2025 Boliek made appointments that turned the State Board and all 100 county boards from 3-2 Democratic majorities into 3-2 Republican majorities[1][4]. Those boards are running the Nov. 3, 2026 election. Stein argues the law lets the legislature give 'any executive duty or power' to whatever official it 'favors more at any time'[9][11]. Boliek's lawyers have argued the constitution lets the legislature decide who appoints officers whose appointment it has not otherwise assigned, and that courts should stay out of that choice[2][17].
The core dispute is how much control over carrying out election law the constitution guarantees to the governor. Stein says it guarantees enough that the power cannot be handed to another official the governor does not supervise[3][9]. Boliek and the Court of Appeals majority say the power stayed inside the executive branch. In their view it moved from one statewide elected executive to another, so it did not go to the legislature and separation of powers was not breached[4][12]. Critics, including Democracy Docket and the Brennan Center's State Court Report, see the law mainly as a partisan move by a Republican legislature against a Democratic governor[6][7]. Supporters reject that view.
The Event
Gov. Josh Stein's lawyers filed a notice of appeal and a petition for discretionary review on Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2026. The case is Stein v. Hall, N.C. Supreme Court docket No. 325P26[9][11]. The petition challenges the N.C. Court of Appeals' Sept. 16, 2026 decision in case COA25-652. That decision upheld Senate Bill 382's transfer of elections-board appointment power to the state auditor[9][4]. State Auditor Dave Boliek defended the ruling after it was issued. No filing by him in response to the petition has been reported.
Undisputed Facts
- Senate Bill 382 became law in December 2024. It moved the power to appoint the five State Board of Elections members, and county elections board chairs, from the governor to the state auditor. Governors had held that power for more than 100 years[1][2].
- Boliek began making appointments in May 2025. The State Board and all 100 county boards went from 3-2 Democratic majorities to 3-2 Republican majorities[1][4].
- In May 2025 the N.C. Supreme Court declined to stop Boliek's appointments while the case went on. Its order said the governor's filings did 'not ask this Court to decide the substantive constitutional issue, nor do we decide it here'[8].
- On Sept. 16, 2026, the N.C. Court of Appeals upheld the law 2-1. Judge John Arrowood, a Democrat, dissented[4][5][13].
- The Court of Appeals majority held that the transfer did not violate separation of powers because the power moved within the executive branch, not to the legislature[12][4].
- Stein filed a petition asking the N.C. Supreme Court to review that decision on Oct. 21, 2026, docketed as No. 325P26[9][3].
- As of the latest reports, the N.C. Supreme Court had not acted on the petition, and no response from Boliek had been reported[3].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Who controls election administration
- Whoever appoints the boards decides the 3-2 majority on the State Board and in all 100 counties. Those boards set early-voting plans and decide election disputes. Both parties treat that majority as the real prize[1][4].
- Separation of powers and how it is tested
- The state constitution separates the legislative, executive and judicial branches. It also requires the governor to 'take care' that laws are faithfully executed[9]. North Carolina courts presume a law is constitutional. They strike one down only when the violation is clear, which is the 'did not clearly violate' standard the Court of Appeals applied[12]. That standard helps whoever defends the law. Stein must show a clear violation, not just a plausible one.
- The Supreme Court's makeup and the calendar
- Republicans hold a majority on the N.C. Supreme Court. A seat on that court is on the ballot in 2026[14]. The justices can grant review or let the 2-1 ruling stand. Either way, the boards Boliek appointed are running the Nov. 3 election[1][4].
Material realityBoliek's appointees and the Republican board majorities that resulted have been in place since May 2025. They will administer the Nov. 3, 2026 election no matter how the petition comes out[1][4]. In 2025 the Supreme Court declined to pause the law, but its order said it was not deciding the constitutional question[8]. The Court of Appeals has now decided that question for Boliek, 2-1[4]. Only the Supreme Court can change that result. Its choice to hear or deny the case will settle, at least for now, whether the legislature can move this kind of power among statewide elected officials[9].
Narrative as a weaponStein's team wants readers to see a legislature taking control of the executive branch through a friendly official. They stress the 100-year history and the risk of 'any executive duty' being moved at the legislature's 'whim'[9][11]. Boliek and legislative leaders want readers to see a routine reorganization inside the executive branch, approved by two appellate courts. They stress that voters elect the auditor too[2][12]. Left-leaning outlets and legal groups frame the case as a partisan 'scheme' or 'shift' tied to election control[6][7]. The right-leaning Carolina Journal frames it through procedure and Boliek's legal theory[2][3]. The constitutional question, whether the 'take care' duty limits who can run elections, is the part both sides' framing tends to skip over.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe constitution makes the governor the state's chief executive. It requires the governor to 'take care' that the laws are faithfully executed. Stein's petition says the governor is 'vested with the State's executive power and the obligation to ensure faithful execution of the law'[6][9]. Election administration is a core executive job. Auditing is not, because an auditor checks how other agencies spend money. Stein argues the legislature cannot hand election law to an office whose central function is something else[9]. His broadest point is about precedent. If this transfer stands, he warns, the ruling 'empowers the General Assembly to transfer, at its whim, any executive duty or power from the Governor to any other executive official the legislature favors more at any time.' In practice, he argues, that would put the legislature in control of the executive branch[1][11].
WhyStein wants to win back appointment power that past governors used to give their own party a 3-2 majority on elections boards[1]. He also wants a ruling that blocks future transfers of other powers away from the governor's office.
Impact on themIf Stein loses, his office loses control over who runs North Carolina elections. The ruling would also leave room for more powers to be moved away from the governor[1][9]. If he wins, appointment power returns to him. Board majorities would probably flip back to Democrats[1].
Frames it asIn 2025 filings, Boliek said the case presents 'a straightforward constitutional question: May the General Assembly transfer appointment power over the State Board of Elections from one constitutional executive branch officer to another?'[2]. His answer is yes. The auditor is also a statewide elected executive, chosen by voters just like the governor. So the power never left the executive branch and never went to the legislature[12]. His Court of Appeals brief points to Article III, Section 5(10) of the constitution. As they read it, that section lets the governor appoint officers only when the law has not 'otherwise provided for' their appointment. On that reading the constitution gives the legislature this choice, and it is a nonjusticiable political question that courts should not second-guess[17]. After the Sept. 16 ruling he said it affirmed the constitutional independence of the auditor's office[9].
WhyBoliek wants to keep the appointment power and the boards he has put in place, and to avoid disruption in the middle of an election season[2].
Impact on themHe keeps a major new power that lies outside the auditor's usual audit work. His office has a direct role in the 2026 election that it did not have before[1][4].
Frames it asLegislative leaders defend SB 382 as an ordinary choice about how to structure the executive branch. They note that the state constitution gives North Carolina governors fewer powers than most states give theirs, and that the legislature has long set up and reorganized state boards[17]. They have defended the law in court alongside Boliek[17]. In their view, putting the elections board under an elected official other than the governor is a policy choice, not a seizure of power.
WhyLeaders want an elections-board structure that a Democratic governor does not control. They also want court precedent that broadly supports the legislature's power to reorganize boards[6][17].
Impact on themA win confirms wide power to restructure executive agencies. A loss would extend earlier rulings, such as the line of cases on board restructuring, that limited how far the legislature can go in reshaping boards the governor controls[3][7].
Frames it asThese critics include Democracy Docket and the Brennan Center's State Court Report. They see the law as one more step by a Republican legislature to move power away from Democratic governors after they win[6][7]. They point to the timing: the law passed after Stein won in 2024. They also point out that the 2-1 ruling split along party lines[6]. Their main concern is not abstract structure. It is who controls the counting and certifying of votes[7].
WhyThey want to restore the governor's control over elections boards. They also want to set limits on legislative changes to election administration[6][7].
Impact on themRepublican-majority boards now set early-voting sites and hours and rule on election disputes in all 100 counties[1][18].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.3
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC Newsline | U.S. center-left | 3 | NC Appeals Court OKs auditor appointing elections board members | The headline is neutral. The body gives relatively more weight to the dissent and to the partisan shift in board majorities. |
| CBS 17 | U.S. center | 3 | NC Gov. Stein petitions court to remove election board power from Auditor Boliek | Mostly straight reporting. It labels Boliek 'Republican' and leads with Stein's 'faithfully executed' argument. Boliek's legal theory gets less space in the petition story. |
| The Daily Tar Heel | U.S. center-left (student newspaper) | 3 | Gov. Stein appeals N.C. Supreme Court ruling transferring elections board appointment authority to State Auditor | The headline names the wrong court. Stein is appealing a Court of Appeals ruling to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court has not ruled on the merits. This is an accuracy error more than slant. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right | 4 | Stein appeals elections board appointment ruling to top NC court | The coverage is detailed and filing-by-filing. It quotes Boliek's 'straightforward constitutional question' framing at length and highlights that the 2025 Supreme Court order did not reach the merits. The 'power grab' critique is mostly absent. When judges' party labels appear, they tend to appear in a way that undercuts claims of partisanship ('All-GOP Appeals Court panel ruled against Stein'). |
| State Court Report | U.S. left (Brennan Center for Justice) | 6 | North Carolina Court Enables a Partisan Shift on State Elections Board | This is labeled analysis, but its headline calls the result 'partisan' as a description rather than as a claim made by critics. |
| Democracy Docket | U.S. left | 7 | North Carolina appellate court OKs Republican lawmakers' scheme to maintain GOP control of elections board | Words like 'scheme' and 'GOP control' put a motive in the headline. The legal question, a transfer within the executive branch, is treated as a pretext rather than reported as the court's actual holding. |
References
- Stein asks NC Supreme Court to overturn ruling on state elections board appointments — CBS 17 · Nexstar-owned local broadcast; mainstream/center
- Boliek urges NC Supreme Court to reject Stein appeal in elections board case (May 2025, on the stay request) — Carolina Journal · Published by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative/libertarian think tank
- Stein appeals elections board appointment ruling to top NC court — Carolina Journal · Published by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative/libertarian think tank
- NC Appeals Court OKs auditor appointing elections board members — NC Newsline · States Newsroom nonprofit, funded largely by progressive-leaning donors
- NC Court of Appeals rules against Stein in elections board lawsuit — WUNC · Public radio; center to center-left
- North Carolina appellate court OKs Republican lawmakers' scheme to maintain GOP control of elections board — Democracy Docket · Founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias; openly progressive
- North Carolina Court Enables a Partisan Shift on State Elections Board — State Court Report · Brennan Center for Justice project; center-left legal advocacy
- NC Supreme Court allows Auditor Boliek to maintain elections board appointments — Carolina Journal · Published by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative/libertarian think tank
- Stein asks NC Supreme Court to review elections-board appointment ruling — NC Political News · North Carolina political news site; orientation not clearly established
- NC governor files appeal to reverse law allowing state auditor to appoint election board members — Fox Carolina · Gray Media-owned local broadcast; mainstream/center
- Appeals Court upholds transfer of NC elections appointments to Boliek — Carolina Journal · Published by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative/libertarian think tank
- Stein v. Berger (case tracker) — State Court Report · Brennan Center for Justice project; center-left legal advocacy
- 2026 North Carolina judicial elections — Wikipedia · Crowd-sourced reference
- Defendant-appellant brief, No. COA 25-652 (Boliek) — N.C. Court of Appeals filing (via Courthouse News) · Primary source: party's legal brief
- A timeline of North Carolina's recent election law changes — The Daily Tar Heel · UNC-Chapel Hill independent student newspaper