Republican lawmakers in North Carolina are calling for a judge to be investigated for mentioning reproductive rights

Three North Carolina state Republican senators have called for an investigation into state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs. State Senators Buck Newton (R), Amy Galey (R) and Danny Britt (R) claim Riggs “flagrantly violated North Carolina’s code of conduct.” They called for an investigation into Riggs’ conduct by the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission.

What was Riggs’ wrongdoing? She mentioned reproductive rights in a campaign ad.

Riggs was appointed to fill a vacancy on the North Carolina Supreme Court in September 2023. It is an elected position and Riggs is now running for a full eight-year term. She is in a closely contested race against Republican Jefferson Griffin, a current member of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

In a television ad, Riggs says that “women should be responsible for our own reproductive health care.” She notes that the Republican candidate for governor, Mark Robinson, has supported a total abortion ban and that Griffin, if elected to the Supreme Court The Court of North Carolina is elected “could decide whether [Robinson’s] Prohibition becomes law.”

In one letter To colleagues who announced their request for an investigation, the Republican senators claim that the North Carolina Judicial Code of Conduct “Prohibits any judicial candidate, regardless of the office he seeks, from taking a position on any issue that may arise before the Court.” The letter was posted online this week by Billy Corriher, director of state courts at People’s Parity Project Action.

But Republican senators misinterpreted the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. This does not mean that judicial candidates are not allowed to comment on any issues that may arise before the court. The North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct states that judges “should refrain from public comment on the merits of any proceeding pending in a state or federal court involving a case or controversy in North Carolina.” Riggs’ complaint makes no comment on pending litigation.

On the contrary, the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge seeking election may engage in “constitutionally protected political activities.” Saying that you believe women should have control over their reproductive health care is undoubtedly constitutionally protected political speech.

The Republican senators’ letter reflects criticism of Griffin’s display during an Oct. 11 debate against Riggs. “We don’t need to be out there telling people how we vote on cases,” Griffin said said. “We don’t need to be out there telling people how another judge is going to vote on cases.”

But Griffin himself did it The views on abortion are very clear. Last year, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard a case “involving the termination of a mother’s parental rights because she committed a crime during her pregnancy.” Griffin joined a statement that noted that “the woman’s parental rights could be terminated – even if the child was not yet born at the time of the mother’s crimes – because ‘life begins at conception.’

The ruling signed by Griffin enshrined the concept of “fetal personality” in North Carolina law. There was widespread outrage over the verdict and its far-reaching impact on the state. In response to the criticism, Griffin and the other judges who signed on took the usual step to formally withdraw the decision. This means that “the potential precedent it had set regarding personality no longer exists.”

As he now seeks a promotion to the North Carolina Supreme Court, Griffin and his allies are trying to make any discussion of reproductive rights taboo.

This is not the first time that Democrats on the court have been the subject of investigations by the Judicial Standards Commission. In August 2023, North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls received one letter from the Commission, who informed her that she was It is being investigated on suspicion of violating the state’s code of conduct for the judiciary. The investigation focused on comments Earls, the only Black woman on the court, made about the court’s approach to racial and gender discrimination interview with the legal publication Law360.

In the interview, Earls was asked about a study that found lawyers who argued before the North Carolina Supreme Court were overwhelmingly white and male. Earls responded that she sees “gender and racial discrepancies” in the court that stem from “implicit bias.” Earls noted that she believed the court treated white male lawyers with “more respect,” and that there were certain cases in which she felt “[her] Colleagues [were] “Unjustly cutting off a lawyer.” Earls also criticized the court’s decision to end diversity and equity efforts.

Earls clarified that she doesn’t believe this is “conscious, intentional, racial hostility,” but rather “that our court system, like any other court system, is made up of people, and I think the research shows that we all implicitly have that.” are involved.” Prejudices.” Counts did not discuss any cases that had been heard in the Supreme Court.

The commission’s letter alleged that Earls’ comments “potentially constitute a violation[d] Canon 2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to “conduct at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

In response to the investigation, Earls sued the Judicial Standards Commission, arguing that the investigation violated her constitutional right to free speech. Counts asked a federal court “to dismiss any proceedings against her because she has simply ‘expressed her right to speak on matters of public concern.'” In November 2023, a federal judge rejected Earl’s ” Application for an interim injunction to block the investigation. The commission’s investigation was closed in January without any discipline against Earls. In response, Earls dropped the lawsuit.

The North Carolina legislature changed the composition of the Judicial Standards Commission in October 2023, increasing the number of members appointed by Republican politicians. According to the new rules, the heads of state in the House of Representatives and the Senate are responsible appointed four judges to the commission and replaces four lawyers selected by the public prosecutor’s office. The changes gave “Republicans have almost complete control over the enforcement of judicial ethics rules.”

The changes have been “criticized by former judges, lawyers, experts and state lawmakers for undermining the independence of the judiciary,” according to Carolina Public Press reported. North Carolina Representative Marcia Morey (D) condemned the move. Information“We are firing all the lawyers on the commission, the very ones who are in the courtroom, who know ethics, who know what judges should and should not do.” According to a 2023 reportNorth Carolina is one of only two states that does not have attorneys on the Judicial Conduct Commission.