Gov. Stein Asks N.C. Supreme Court to Review 2-1 Appeals Ruling That Let the State Auditor Appoint Elections Boards
Stein's petition challenges a 2024 law that moved elections board appointments from the Democratic governor to Republican Auditor Dave Boliek; Boliek's picks gave the state board and all 100 county boards 3-2 Republican majorities.
The petition and the 3-2 boards
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, has asked the state Supreme Court to hear his lawsuit over who appoints the state's elections boards[1]. His lawyers filed the petition this week. Carolina Journal reported it on Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2026[1].
The court doesn't have to take the case. The Court of Appeals decided it, so the justices can choose whether to hear it. Stein must show the case raises a "substantial question arising under the North Carolina Constitution"[1]. That is the stated basis for review.
The request follows a 2-1 Court of Appeals ruling on Sept. 16. That ruling upheld a December 2024 law that took the appointment power from the governor and gave it to State Auditor Dave Boliek, a Republican[2][3].
What changed on May 1, 2025
The law is part of Senate Bill 382. The General Assembly passed it in December 2024[4][7]. Boliek took over the appointment power on May 1, 2025[1][11].
His appointments changed the State Board of Elections and all 100 county boards. Each had a 3-2 Democratic majority. Each now has a 3-2 Republican majority[1][11].
That matters because these boards make practical decisions. County boards set early-voting sites and hours. They also rule on ballot challenges[11]. The state board's new appointees have already replaced its executive director[7].
The case has moved fast. A split three-judge trial panel first ruled for Stein. The Court of Appeals put that ruling on hold on April 30, 2025[7][15]. In 2025, the state Supreme Court let Boliek's appointments stand while the appeals went on[12].
Is the auditor "executive" enough?
Both sides agree on the facts. They disagree on one question. Does the governor have to control the agencies that run elections? Or is it enough that some elected executive officer does?[8]
Stein's side starts with the constitution's command that the governor "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The petition presses a sharp version of the point. Suppose running elections has "in no way" to do with the auditor's main job. Could the legislature still give him "the power to control execution of the State's election laws"? Stein says it could not[1].
Judge John Arrowood, the Democrat who dissented, agreed. He wrote that taking the boards fully out of the governor's control "prevents the exercise of powers expressly reserved to the governor by the constitution"[3][8]. Stein's office has also pointed to support from all living former N.C. governors, from both parties[14].
Boliek's side answers that the auditor isn't an outsider. He is an independently elected member of the Council of State. That is the group of statewide elected executive officials, such as the treasurer and the labor commissioner. So handing him a job keeps it inside the executive branch[2][7].
His lawyers argued that Stein's reading "radically expands gubernatorial power." It treats "all North Carolina Council of State members" as "subordinate to the Governor," which they said "our Constitution does not support"[7]. After the ruling, Boliek said it "affirms the constitutional independence of the State Auditor's Office"[1][5].
Judge April Wood's majority opinion took a similar view. It said the legislature "may have stripped the governor entirely of control over the State Board." But it gave the duties "to another Council of State member in a manner that has not exerted control over, or prevented, the executive branch from performing its core constitutional duties"[2][8]. On that view, a governor's wish to control a board isn't a constitutional right to control it[2].
The pressure under the argument
Each side has a stake beyond the legal theory. Any governor, of either party, has an institutional interest in keeping control of the agencies that carry out state law. Stein also wants a precedent that limits the legislature's power to move his appointments to other officials[1][14].
Republican legislative leaders, House Speaker Destin Hall and Senate leader Phil Berger, are the named defendants. Boliek joined the case as an intervenor-defendant. That means he entered the suit to defend his own interest[8]. The leaders want to keep the legislature's power to shape executive agencies. They also want the current board majorities to stay in place[4][13].
Democratic-aligned groups see the stakes differently. They say the law matters less as a theory and more as a way to tilt election administration toward one party[9]. NC Newsline tied the May 2025 shift to the then-unresolved Riggs-Griffin Supreme Court race[11].
The partisan lines show in the courts too. At the appeals level, the two Republican judges, Wood and Zachary, formed the majority. Arrowood dissented[3][8]. The Supreme Court also has a Republican majority[16].
This case also isn't alone. The court has set arguments for Nov. 10 in two other Stein cases. They involve judicial vacancies and appointments to other boards and commissions[13]. Together, the cases will help decide how far the legislature can trim a governor's powers.
One ruling, several headlines
Outlets framed the Sept. 16 ruling differently. WRAL's headline said a "politically divided" panel upheld a "GOP takeover" of the board. That puts the partisan outcome first and the legal holding second[3].
Democracy Docket, which was founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias, called the law a "scheme to maintain GOP control of elections board"[9]. The word "scheme" assigns a motive. The auditor's legal theory gets little room.
The right-leaning outlets used quieter verbs. Carolina Journal, which the conservative John Locke Foundation publishes, called the change a "transfer"[2]. North State Journal wrote that the court "lets auditor keep" the appointments. "Keep" treats his control as the settled baseline, though the governor held this power for decades[10]. Courthouse News Service framed it as a win-loss contest. Its body text reports the holding and the dissent evenly[4].
Readers should watch one timing trap. Carolina Journal ran a story headlined "Boliek urges NC Supreme Court to reject Stein appeal." It describes 2025 events from an earlier round of the case[7]. It isn't a response to this week's petition. These searches found no reported response from Boliek to the new filing[1]. The petition itself is known only from news quotes.
What comes next
Boliek's appointees keep running the state board and all 100 county boards unless the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses the ruling. The court has already let the appointments stand while the appeals went on[12].
Two things are unknown. The justices haven't said whether they'll take the case. And Boliek hasn't yet answered the petition in any filing these searches could find. If the court says yes, the same question goes to a Republican-majority bench. Is an elected auditor enough to count as the executive branch?
Summary
North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, has asked the state Supreme Court to take his lawsuit over who appoints the state's elections boards[1]. Because the Court of Appeals decided the case, the Supreme Court is not required to hear it. Stein's petition must persuade the justices that the case raises a substantial question under the state constitution, which is the stated basis for review[1]. On Sept. 16, the N.C. Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold a December 2024 law. That law took the appointment power from the governor and gave it to State Auditor Dave Boliek, a Republican[2][3]. Boliek used it in May 2025. His appointments flipped the State Board of Elections and all 100 county boards from 3-2 Democratic majorities to 3-2 Republican majorities[1][11].
The two judges in the majority are Republicans, and the dissenter is a Democrat[3][4]. The Supreme Court also has a Republican majority[16]. Boliek and Republican legislative leaders say the law is valid. In their view, the auditor is also an elected member of the executive branch, so moving the job to him does not take executive power away from the executive branch[2][7]. Stein says the state constitution makes the governor responsible for carrying out the laws. He says the legislature cannot hand control of election law to an office whose job has nothing to do with elections[1][8].
The main dispute is over how to read North Carolina's separation-of-powers rules. One question is whether the governor's duty to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed' means he must control the agencies that run elections. The other is whether it is enough that some elected executive officer controls them[8]. A note on the record: Boliek has asked the Supreme Court to reject Stein's appeal before. The reporting on that request describes events from 2025, during an earlier round of this case[7]. These searches turned up no reported response from Boliek to the petition filed this week[1].
The Event
Lawyers for Gov. Josh Stein filed a petition this week asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to hear Stein v. Hall. The case challenges the part of Senate Bill 382 that moved elections board appointments to the state auditor[1]. Carolina Journal reported the filing on a Wednesday less than three weeks before the court's Nov. 10 arguments in two other Stein cases. That timing points to Oct. 21, 2026[1][13]. The petition asks the court to overturn the Court of Appeals' 2-1 decision of Sept. 16, 2026, which upheld the transfer[2][4].
Undisputed Facts
- The General Assembly passed Senate Bill 382 in December 2024. The law moved the power to appoint the State Board of Elections from the governor to the state auditor[4][7].
- Republican Auditor Dave Boliek took over the appointment power on May 1, 2025. His appointments changed the state board and all 100 county boards from 3-2 Democratic majorities to 3-2 Republican majorities[1][11].
- A split three-judge trial court panel first ruled for Stein. The Court of Appeals put that ruling on hold on April 30, 2025[7][15].
- In 2025, the N.C. Supreme Court let Boliek's appointments stand while the appeals went on[12].
- On Sept. 16, 2026, the Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold the transfer. Republican Judges April Wood and Valerie Zachary formed the majority. Democratic Judge John Arrowood dissented[3][8].
- The defendants named in the case are House Speaker Destin Hall and Senate leader Phil Berger. Boliek joined the case as an intervenor-defendant, meaning a party who entered the suit to defend his own interest[8].
- The N.C. Supreme Court has set Nov. 10 to hear arguments in two separate Stein cases. Those cases involve judicial vacancies and appointments to other state boards and commissions[13].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Control of election machinery in a swing state
- The state board and the 100 county boards decide early-voting plans, staff leadership, and election protests. Whoever holds the 3-2 majority shapes those calls[11].
- Legislature vs. governor power struggle
- This case is one of several in which Stein is fighting laws that cut his appointment powers. Two related cases will be argued on Nov. 10[13].
- Partisan makeup of the courts
- Both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court have Republican majorities. At the appeals level, the judges split along party lines[3][16].
Material realityBoliek's appointees have run the state board and all 100 county boards since May 2025. They have already replaced the state board's executive director[7][11]. That arrangement stays in place unless the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses the ruling. The Supreme Court has already let the appointments stand while the appeals go on[12].
Narrative as a weaponStein's office and Democratic-aligned outlets want readers to see a partisan seizure of election administration. Their case rests on the governor's 'take care' duty and on support from former governors of both parties[9][14]. Boliek, legislative leaders, and right-leaning outlets want readers to see a routine assignment of duties among elected executive officers. Their case rests on the auditor's independence[2][5]. Readers should watch the timing. The petition was filed this week. Reporting that Boliek 'urges the court to reject the appeal' draws on a 2025 filing in an earlier round of the case, and no new response to this petition turned up in these searches[1][7].
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 asStein argues that the state constitution charges the governor with making sure the laws are 'faithfully executed.' On this reading, the legislature cannot pull control of election law away from the governor and give it to another officer at will[1][8]. His petition presses one point in particular. Even if running elections has 'in no way' to do with the auditor's main job, could the legislature still hand the auditor 'the power to control execution of the State's election laws'? Stein says it could not[1]. Judge Arrowood's dissent backs this view. He wrote that taking the boards entirely out of the governor's control 'prevents the exercise of powers expressly reserved to the governor by the constitution'[3][8]. Stein's office has also highlighted support from all living former N.C. governors, from both parties, in his separation-of-powers fights with the legislature[14].
WhyStein wants to win back control of the boards that run elections in a closely divided state. He also wants a precedent that limits the legislature's ability to move his powers to other officials[1][14].
Impact on themIf he loses, a Democratic governor will have no role in appointing the state or county elections boards. Republicans will keep 3-2 majorities that control voting procedures, the boards' staff, and how election disputes are settled[1][11].
Frames it asBoliek's core argument is that the auditor is an independently elected constitutional officer who sits on the Council of State. (The Council of State is the group of statewide elected executive officials, such as the treasurer and the labor commissioner.) So giving him a job keeps it inside the executive branch[2][7]. His lawyers wrote that the trial panel's reading 'radically expands gubernatorial power' by treating 'all North Carolina Council of State members' as 'subordinate to the Governor,' which they said 'our Constitution does not support'[7]. After the Sept. 16 ruling, Boliek said it 'affirms the constitutional independence of the State Auditor's Office'[5].
WhyBoliek wants to protect the independence of his office and keep the new election duties the legislature gave it[5][7].
Impact on themHis office now controls all appointments to the state and county elections boards. That gives a single Republican statewide official influence over how elections are run[1][11].
Frames it asThe legislative leaders argue that the constitution lets the General Assembly assign duties among executive officers. Judge Wood's majority opinion put it this way. The legislature 'may have stripped the governor entirely of control over the State Board.' But it gave the duties 'to another Council of State member in a manner that has not exerted control over, or prevented, the executive branch from performing its core constitutional duties'[2][8]. In their view, a governor's preference to control a board is not a constitutional right to control it[2].
WhyThey want to keep the legislature's power to shape executive agencies, and to keep the current Republican board majorities in place[4][13].
Impact on themThe leaders are defendants in this case and in the two Nov. 10 Stein cases. Together, these cases will decide how far the legislature can go in trimming a governor's powers[13].
Frames it asGroups aligned with Democrats argue that the law matters less as a question of theory and more as a way to tilt election administration toward one party. Democracy Docket calls it a 'scheme to maintain GOP control of elections board'[9]. NC Newsline tied the May 2025 shift to the disputed Riggs-Griffin Supreme Court race, which was still unresolved at that time[11].
WhyThese groups want election boards that do not report to a partisan majority picked by one party's officeholder[9][11].
Impact on themCounty boards set early-voting sites and hours and rule on ballot challenges. So the makeup of those boards shapes how voters experience elections[11].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.5
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right | 3 | Stein appeals elections board appointment ruling to top NC court | The coverage is detailed and procedural, and it quotes both sides at length. It uses 'transfer' and 'shift' instead of 'takeover.' Its related story 'Boliek urges NC Supreme Court to reject Stein appeal' covers 2025 events, so later readers could mistake it for a response to the new petition. |
| Courthouse News Service | U.S. center (legal trade) | 3 | North Carolina governor loses election board appointment struggle | It frames the case as a win-loss contest, but the body reports the holding and the dissent evenly. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left | 4 | NC Appeals Court OKs auditor appointing elections board members | The headline is plain. The outlet's wider coverage connects the board shift to Republican advantage in disputed races. |
| North State Journal | U.S. right | 4 | Court lets auditor keep elections appointments | 'Keep' treats the auditor's control as the settled baseline. That plays down the fact that the governor held this power for decades. |
| WRAL | U.S. center-left | 5 | Politically divided NC court panel upholds GOP takeover of state elections board | 'GOP takeover' and 'politically divided' put the partisan outcome first. The legal holding comes second. |
| Democracy Docket | U.S. left | 8 | North Carolina appellate court OKs Republican lawmakers' scheme to maintain GOP control of elections board | Calling the law a 'scheme' assigns a motive in the headline itself. The auditor's legal theory is mostly left out. |
References
- Stein appeals elections board appointment ruling to top NC court — Carolina Journal · Conservative; published by the John Locke Foundation
- Appeals Court upholds transfer of NC elections appointments to Boliek — Carolina Journal · Conservative; published by the John Locke Foundation
- Politically divided NC court panel upholds GOP takeover of state elections board — WRAL · Commercial Raleigh broadcaster; center to center-left news framing
- North Carolina governor loses election board appointment struggle — Courthouse News Service · Nonpartisan legal-news wire, subscription-funded
- NC Court of Appeals rules against Stein in elections board lawsuit — WUNC · Public radio (NPR member station); center-left audience
- NC Appeals Court OKs auditor appointing elections board members — NC Newsline · Progressive-leaning; part of the donor-funded States Newsroom network
- Boliek urges NC Supreme Court to reject Stein appeal in elections board case — Carolina Journal · Conservative; published by the John Locke Foundation (describes 2025 events)
- Stein v. Hall, No. COA25-652 (opinion) — North Carolina Court of Appeals · Primary source; court record
- North Carolina appellate court OKs Republican lawmakers' scheme to maintain GOP control of elections board — Democracy Docket · Progressive; founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias
- Court lets auditor keep elections appointments — North State Journal · Conservative-leaning North Carolina newspaper
- GOP takes control of the NC elections board, with implications for Riggs-Griffin Supreme Court race — NC Newsline · Progressive-leaning; part of the donor-funded States Newsroom network
- NC Supreme Court allows Auditor Boliek to maintain elections board appointments — Carolina Journal · Conservative; published by the John Locke Foundation
- Stein, lawmakers offer clues about upcoming NC Supreme Court arguments — Carolina Journal · Conservative; published by the John Locke Foundation
- ICYMI: All Living NC Governors Join Constitutional Experts to Offer Bipartisan Support for Governor Stein in Protecting Separation of Powers — Office of Gov. Josh Stein · Primary source; a party to the case (Democratic governor's office)
- NC Appeals Court blocks lower court ruling favoring Stein in elections dispute — Carolina Journal · Conservative; published by the John Locke Foundation
- North Carolina Auditor can appoint elections board members, appeal rules — CBS 17 (WNCN) · Commercial broadcaster (Nexstar); mainstream local news
- No. 114P25, Supreme Court of North Carolina (Stein 2025 petition) — Courthouse News Service (hosted filing) · Primary source; court filing by a party (Gov. Stein)