NC Court of Appeals Rules 2-1 That Elections-Board Appointments Can Stay With State Auditor; Stein Says He Will Appeal
The September 16, 2026 panel decision reversed a trial court and left Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek in control of appointments that the governor held for more than a century.
Two Elected Officials, One Election Board
For more than 100 years, North Carolina's governor appointed the people who run elections in the state. That changed in 2024. On September 16, 2026, a state appeals court said the change can stand[1][2].
The court ruled 2-1 that the state legislature acted within its power when it stripped the governor of the authority to appoint the State Board of Elections and all 100 county board chairs, and handed that power to the state auditor instead[1][5]. Republican Auditor Dave Boliek keeps the job. Democratic Gov. Josh Stein does not get it back, at least not yet. He says he will appeal to the state Supreme Court[2][5].
Here's the tension sitting underneath all of it. Both Stein and Boliek are statewide elected officials. Both can say voters put them in office. The fight isn't over who has a mandate — it's over which one of them gets to run elections, and the court just picked a side.
What the Law Actually Moved
The law at the center of the case is Senate Bill 382. The legislature passed it in December 2024, weeks after that November's elections. Stein had just won the governor's race. Boliek had just won the auditor's race[3][10]. Lawmakers passed the bill over Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto, with the Senate voting 30-19 and the House voting 72-46[3][10].
Before SB 382, the governor did five things related to elections: appointed all five members of the State Board of Elections, filled vacancies on it, could remove members, appointed the chair of every county board, and oversaw the state board's budget work[5]. SB 382 moved every one of those jobs to the auditor's office[5].
A Wake County trial court struck the law down on April 23, 2025. That panel split 2-1, with one Republican judge and one Democratic judge in the majority saying the law violated the state constitution's separation of powers[10][11]. The Court of Appeals reversed that on September 16, 2026, also 2-1, but this time the two Republican judges outvoted the one Democrat[1][2][5].
Judge April Wood wrote the majority opinion. Judge Valerie Zachary joined it. Judge John Arrowood dissented[1][5]. In North Carolina, a challenger has to prove a law unconstitutional "beyond a reasonable doubt" — the same standard used in criminal trials — before a court can strike it down. Lawmakers set that bar high on purpose, so judges don't overturn close calls made by elected legislators. Wood wrote that Stein hadn't cleared it[1][2].
The Argument Neither Side Fully Answers
Stein's case rests on one constitutional line: the governor must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed[2]." Election law is law. If he can't appoint, fire, or supervise the people running elections, he argues, he can't be held responsible for how they're run[2][5]. Arrowood's dissent backs that up directly, calling election enforcement "a core function and power of the governor[1][5]." Stein also points to timing — the bill passed weeks after an election, folded into what was largely hurricane relief legislation, aimed at an office the other party had just won[2][3].
The legislature's answer is structural, not emotional. Separation-of-powers law polices the line between branches of government, not how power is arranged inside one branch[1][5]. The legislature didn't give itself the appointments. It moved them from one elected executive branch officer, the governor, to another, the auditor[1][5]. Both stay inside the executive branch. Boliek's own statement leaned on exactly that point: the ruling "affirms the constitutional independence of the State Auditor's Office," which he says is doing "the election duties prescribed to our office[8]."
Neither side fully engages the other's strongest point. Stein's camp rarely addresses that Boliek is also a statewide-elected executive with his own claim to accountability[2][8]. The legislature's side rarely explains why this particular power moved right after an election, to the winner of a different race, inside an unrelated bill[2][3]. Both omissions matter, because each is the piece that would complicate the other side's story.
The Boards Already Flipped
Whatever the courts eventually decide, the practical change already happened. After SB 382 took effect, the state elections board and all 100 county boards flipped from 3-2 Democratic majorities to 3-2 Republican ones. The new state board was sworn in back in May 2025[4][7]. That's been the setup for more than a year now, regardless of any court ruling.
Critics, including Democracy Docket and allied groups, say the new boards used their new majorities to tighten early-voting rules and give local Republicans more power to challenge voters and toss ballots on party-line votes[6]. Supporters counter that the auditor's office is simply an independently elected part of the executive branch, carrying out duties the legislature assigned to it — nothing more unusual than any other reassignment of executive power[8].
There's a clock running underneath all of this, too. North Carolina started mailing absentee ballots for the 2026 midterms on September 4, 2026 — before this ruling even came down[12]. Any court that reversed the current setup now would be reorganizing how elections are run in the middle of an active election. That's a practical argument for leaving things as they are, separate from whatever the constitution actually requires.
Where It Lands Next
Stein says he's taking the case to the North Carolina Supreme Court[2][5]. That court, like the Court of Appeals panel that just ruled, has a Republican majority[2][5]. North Carolina elects its appellate judges in partisan races, a fact that shapes how each side both argues the case and talks about the outcome afterward.
Coverage of the ruling split along familiar lines. Carolina Journal, published by the conservative John Locke Foundation, led with the legal holding and Boliek's statement, using the word "transfer" rather than anything sharper[5]. NC Newsline, part of the left-leaning States Newsroom network, used a milder headline verb but built its story around the judges' party affiliations and Stein's "partisan power grab" language[2]. Democracy Docket called the law a "scheme" outright in its headline and stated legislative intent as settled fact[6]. Alternet labeled Boliek "far-right" without offering evidence for it[9]. WRAL, a Raleigh broadcaster generally seen as centrist, used the word "takeover" in its headline while otherwise quoting both sides[7]. Courthouse News Service stuck closest to the legal doctrine, with less attention to what the reconstituted boards have actually done since 2025[8].
For now, the governor has no say over who runs North Carolina's elections boards. The 2026 midterms will be administered under the structure Republicans built in 2024, no matter how the Supreme Court eventually rules on whether that structure is constitutional.
Summary
On Wednesday, September 16, 2026, a three-judge panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the legislature acted lawfully when it moved power over elections-board appointments from the governor to the state auditor[1][2]. The decision reversed a trial court that had struck the same provisions down in April 2025[10][11]. It leaves Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek, not Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, naming members of the State Board of Elections and the chairs of all 100 county boards[1][5]. Stein said the same day that he will appeal to the North Carolina Supreme Court[2][5].
The law is Senate Bill 382, passed in December 2024 over then-Gov. Roy Cooper's veto, weeks after Stein won the governor's race and Boliek won the auditor's race[3][10]. Before that law, the governor appointed all five state board members, filled vacancies, removed members, appointed each county board chair, and oversaw the state board's budget work[5]. SB 382 shifted all of those duties to the auditor[5].
The two sides do not even agree on what the case is about. Stein and the dissenting judge say it is about the governor's constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" — a duty they argue requires real control over the officials who run elections[2][5]. Legislative leaders, Boliek and the majority say it is about whether the legislature may shuffle duties among elected executive officers, which they argue it may, because nothing moved to the legislature itself[1][5]. Judge April Wood wrote that Stein had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the law violated the constitution[1][2].
The practical stake is immediate. After the transfer, the state and county boards flipped from 3-2 Democratic majorities to 3-2 Republican majorities[4][7]. Critics say those new boards have since tightened early-voting and ballot-challenge rules[6]; supporters say the auditor's office is an independently elected executive office doing duties the legislature assigned it[8]. North Carolina began mailing absentee ballots for the 2026 midterms on September 4, 2026, before this ruling came down[12].
The Event
On September 16, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in Stein v. Hall upholding the provisions of Senate Bill 382 that moved elections-board appointment power from the governor to the state auditor[1][2][5]. Judge April Wood wrote the majority opinion and Judge Valerie Zachary joined it; both are Republicans[1][5]. Judge John Arrowood, a Democrat, dissented[1][5]. The ruling reversed an April 23, 2025 decision by a three-judge Wake County Superior Court panel that had declared the provisions unconstitutional[10][11]. Gov. Josh Stein said later that day that he would appeal to the state Supreme Court[2][5].
Undisputed Facts
- Senate Bill 382 became law in December 2024 after the legislature overrode Gov. Roy Cooper's veto — the Senate 30-19 and the House 72-46[3][10].
- Before SB 382, the governor appointed all five State Board of Elections members, filled vacancies, removed members, appointed each county board chair, and directed the state board's budgeting functions[5].
- SB 382 transferred each of those duties to the State Auditor, an office won in November 2024 by Republican Dave Boliek[3][5].
- On April 23, 2025, a three-judge Wake County Superior Court panel ruled 2-1 that the appointment provisions violated the state constitution's separation of powers; the majority included one Republican and one Democrat[10][11].
- On September 16, 2026, the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling 2-1, with the two Republican judges in the majority and the one Democratic judge dissenting[1][2][5].
- After the transfer took effect, the state elections board and county boards shifted from 3-2 Democratic majorities to 3-2 Republican majorities; the new state board was sworn in in May 2025[4][7].
- The North Carolina Supreme Court, where Stein says he will appeal, has a Republican majority[2][5].
- North Carolina began mailing absentee ballots for the 2026 midterm elections on September 4, 2026[12].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Who counts the votes
- North Carolina is one of the most closely divided states in the country, and its congressional delegation can swing control questions in Washington. Whoever appoints the boards sets early-voting hours, rules on ballot challenges, and certifies results[6][9]. That is the real prize, independent of any party's constitutional rhetoric.
- A legislature that keeps testing the limit
- SB 382 is not a one-off. The General Assembly has repeatedly passed laws moving powers away from Democratic governors, and courts have repeatedly been asked to draw the line — including in the earlier Cooper-era fights this case builds on[10][11]. Each ruling sets the next starting point.
- Elected courts
- North Carolina elects its appellate judges in partisan races. Both the Court of Appeals panel here and the state Supreme Court that will hear the appeal have Republican majorities[2][5]. That fact shapes both how each side litigates and how each side spins the outcome.
- The clock
- Absentee ballots for the 2026 midterms started going out September 4, 2026, before this ruling[12]. Any court that reversed the structure now would be reorganizing election administration in the middle of a live election — a practical argument for leaving things in place that is separate from whether the law is constitutional.
Material realityWhatever the courts ultimately decide, the boards have already changed hands. The state board and the county boards went from 3-2 Democratic to 3-2 Republican after the transfer, and the new state board was seated in May 2025[4][7]. Those boards have been running elections for more than a year. The September 16, 2026 ruling did not create that situation; it declined to undo it[1][2]. The governor still has no appointment power over elections boards unless the state Supreme Court reverses. And the 2026 midterms will be administered under the current structure regardless of how the appeal eventually comes out.
Narrative as a weaponThree actors are working hardest on perception here. Stein's office wants the story to be about a 100-year practice broken by a lame-duck legislature aiming at the man voters just elected — hence "partisan power grab"[2]. Boliek and legislative Republicans want it to be a dry structural question about which executive officer holds a statutory duty, where the high "beyond a reasonable doubt" bar for striking down a law does most of the work[1][8]. Democratic-aligned voting-rights groups want the focus on downstream board decisions rather than on the doctrine, because that is where their strongest evidence sits[6]. Notice what each framing leaves out: Stein's side rarely engages the fact that the auditor is also elected statewide, and the Republican side rarely addresses why the change was passed weeks after an election and folded into a hurricane-relief bill[3]. Both omissions are load-bearing.
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's core claim is not that he lost a perk. It is that the state constitution gives the governor one job no one else can do: "take care that the laws be faithfully executed"[2]. Election laws are laws. If the governor cannot appoint, remove, or supervise the people who administer them, he argues, he cannot be held responsible for how they are run[2][5]. Judge Arrowood put the same point in the opinion: enforcing election law is "a core function and power of the governor," so the governor "requires some degree of control over the state board and county boards"[1][5]. Stein also leans on history — governors held this power for more than 100 years, and the legislature changed it only after voters elected a Democrat to the office[2][6]. His second argument is about timing and motive: the shift was written into a hurricane-relief bill and passed weeks after the election it followed, which he calls "a partisan power grab"[2][3].
WhyStein is a first-term Democratic governor facing a legislature run by the other party. Control of the elections boards is the main lever he has over how the 2026 midterms are administered in his state[2][6]. Losing it also sets a precedent: if the legislature can move one duty out of the governor's office, it can move others[11].
Impact on themHe has already lost the appointments in practice — the boards flipped in 2025 and have been operating under Republican majorities since[4][7]. A Supreme Court loss would make that permanent and would shape what future legislatures can strip from future governors[2][5].
Frames it asBoliek's argument is that he is not an interloper — he is an elected executive officer with his own constitutional standing. His statement on the ruling was that it "affirms the constitutional independence of the State Auditor's Office," and that his office is "part of the executive branch of North Carolina" carrying out "the election duties prescribed to our office"[8]. The implication his side presses: North Carolina voters elected him statewide in the same November 2024 election that elected Stein[3]. Accountability to voters is not lost when a duty moves from one statewide-elected executive to another; it just moves[1][5].
WhyThe transfer turned a low-profile audit office into a central player in how elections are run, and gives Boliek a statewide political profile he did not have before[4][7].
Impact on themHe now names the state board's members and every county board chair, plus fills vacancies and removals[5]. A reversal at the Supreme Court would strip all of that back out of his office[2].
Frames it asTheir strongest argument is a technical one that the Court of Appeals accepted: separation of powers polices the line BETWEEN branches, not the layout WITHIN one[1][5]. The legislature did not give itself a seat on the elections board. It moved duties from one elected executive to another elected executive — both still in the executive branch[1][5]. Under North Carolina law, a court may strike down a statute only if the challenger proves it unconstitutional "beyond a reasonable doubt" — the same high bar used in criminal trials, deliberately set high so that judges do not overturn the elected legislature's choices in close cases[1][2]. Judge Wood wrote that Stein did not clear that bar[1][2]. Their broader principle: the General Assembly, not the governor, writes the election code and decides which office administers it[5].
WhyRepublicans hold veto-proof-adjacent majorities and a durable interest in who certifies results, sets early-voting hours, and rules on ballot challenges heading into the 2026 midterms[6][9].
Impact on themThe ruling preserves the structure they built and removes, for now, the risk that boards would have to be reconstituted mid-election-cycle with ballots already in the mail[9][12].
Frames it asThis camp argues the doctrinal question is a distraction from the record. Their specific evidence is what the new boards did after taking over: Democracy Docket and allied outlets say the Republican-majority boards tightened early-voting rules and gave local Republicans new power to challenge voters and discard ballots on party-line votes[6]. Their principle is that election administration should not change hands as a spoil of a legislative session, and that a law written after an election, aimed at the winner of that election, is different in kind from a general structural reform[2][6][9]. They also stress the courts themselves: both the Court of Appeals panel and the state Supreme Court have Republican majorities, which they say makes judicial review a thin check here[2][5][9].
WhyThese groups litigate and organize around ballot access, and North Carolina's congressional delegation is closely divided, so administrative rules there can matter nationally[9].
Impact on themThey lose their main state-court vehicle for reversing the transfer unless the state Supreme Court takes a different view[2][6].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 5.3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Courthouse News Service | U.S. center (legal trade press) | 2 | "North Carolina governor loses election board appointment struggle" | Frames the story around the doctrine and the opinions rather than the partisan stakes. The omission runs the other way: less on what the reconstituted boards have actually done since 2025. |
| Carolina Journal | U.S. right (published by the John Locke Foundation) | 4 | "Appeals Court upholds transfer of NC elections appointments to Boliek" | Leads with the holding and gives Boliek's statement prominent placement. Uses "transfer" rather than "takeover," and treats the 2-1 split as a legal outcome rather than a partisan one. |
| WRAL | U.S. center (Raleigh commercial broadcaster) | 4 | "Politically divided NC court panel upholds GOP takeover of state elections board" | Reporting is detailed and quotes both sides, but the word "takeover" in the headline adopts one side's characterization without attributing it. |
| NC Newsline | U.S. left (States Newsroom network, nonprofit, progressive-aligned funding) | 5 | "NC Appeals Court okays auditor appointing elections board members" | Headline verb "okays" is mild, but the story foregrounds judges' party registration and Stein's "partisan power grab" language, framing the ruling as a political result first. |
| Democracy Docket | U.S. left advocacy (founded by Democratic election lawyer Marc Elias) | 8 | "North Carolina appellate court OKs Republican lawmakers' scheme to maintain GOP control of elections board" | Calls the law a "scheme" in the headline and states intent as fact. Does supply the most specific downstream evidence — the board rule changes — but offers no version of the majority's reasoning. |
| Alternet | U.S. left | 9 | "GOP 'power grab' as North Carolina court hands elections to far-right auditor" | Labels Boliek "far-right" without supporting evidence, and puts "power grab" in the headline. The legal question is not engaged at all. |
References
- NC Court of Appeals rules against Stein in elections board lawsuit — WUNC · U.S. center; NPR member station licensed to UNC-Chapel Hill
- NC Appeals Court okays auditor appointing elections board members — NC Newsline · U.S. left; States Newsroom nonprofit network, progressive-aligned donors
- Changes to voting laws and state board of elections included in North Carolina veto override — Ballotpedia · U.S. center; nonprofit elections encyclopedia
- For the first time in a decade, GOP controls NC's election board — Axios · U.S. center; commercial digital news
- Appeals Court upholds transfer of NC elections appointments to Boliek — Carolina Journal · U.S. right; published by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank
- North Carolina appellate court OKs Republican lawmakers' scheme to maintain GOP control of elections board — Democracy Docket · U.S. left advocacy; founded by Democratic election attorney Marc Elias
- Politically divided NC court panel upholds GOP takeover of state elections board — WRAL · U.S. center; Raleigh commercial broadcaster (Capitol Broadcasting)
- North Carolina governor loses election board appointment struggle — Courthouse News Service · U.S. center; commercial legal trade press
- GOP 'power grab' as North Carolina court hands elections to far-right auditor — Alternet · U.S. left; progressive commentary site
- NC Senate overrides veto of bill shifting elections board appointment power — Carolina Public Press · U.S. center; nonprofit statewide newsroom
- North Carolina Court Enables a Partisan Shift on State Elections Board — State Court Report · U.S. center-left; published by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law
- NC plans to start mailing 2026 ballots Friday. Could the rules still change before then? — WRAL · U.S. center; Raleigh commercial broadcaster