Atkinson Didn’t Win... She Was Appointed
An Associated Press article started this way, "Having just won the nation’s last undecided statewide election
from November 2004, June Atkinson offered some biting praise for her state after taking office as North Carolina’s new
superintendent of public schools."
‘Having just won’? Once again, a supposedly non-partisan media representative tries to dictate the
direction of a news story, instead of simply reporting the event. Democrat June Atkinson was ‘appointed’ Superintendent
of Public Instruction by a biased legislature controlled by Democrats who were intent on deriding the rule of law from the
Before the election season had even started, the legislature wrote an ambiguous law that was destined to create
controversy because they wanted as much room to manipulate the law to their benefit as possible in case there was to ever
be a close election.
As is happening across the country, North Carolina Democrats are finding fewer and fewer members among their
representative constituencies and they are doing everything they can while still holding the power positions to maintain those
positions for as long as they can.
Hillary Clinton and her ilk are advocating for convicted felons to have the ability to vote because research
data shows they would overwhelmingly vote Democrat. In North Carolina, lax driver license laws open the door for illegal aliens,
who will mostly vote Democrat, to register to vote and the law that led to the superintendent race contention was written
with the same mindset.
Republican Bill Fletcher, who was a little more than 8000 votes behind Atkinson in the race, realized the ambiguity
of the law and the fact that enough votes were called into question by the law because of their out-of-precinct status and
filed a lawsuit contesting the election results.
The case was reviewed by the State Supreme Court and that panel of judges ruled in favor of Fletcher because,
as they read it, the law written by the legislature did not clearly specify the legality of votes cast outside a voter’s
precinct, even though voters were told their votes were acceptable by the State Board of Elections who based their decision
on what legislators had told them was their ‘intention’ with the law.
The state legislature was incensed by the Court ruling and took the decision to be an attack of the legislature’s
integrity and repeatedly asserted that the Court was trying to undermine the authority of the legislature.
Democrat Senator Dan Clodfelter charged, "It’s not for one branch to claim for itself powers that were
placed in another body."
The problem here is that Democrats are outraged that the Court utilized an unmitigated precident to actually
give a ruling based on the mandate of the law, instead of doing what Democrats want courts to do and rule based on the ‘intention’
of the legislature, not what they actually wrote.
Fletcher’s crime was to be a Republican who ran a solid state wide campaign that took the decision of
victory to within a few thousand votes. Then he actually had the gall to call out the legislature on it’s less-than-concise
prescript and took the case to court where they agreed with his assessment. That was enough for State Democrats to charge
the Court with trying to usurp the legislature’s power.
Those Democrats decided it was in their self-preserving interests to do what Democrats have always done when
they are losing. They changed the rules after the fact by amending the mandate, then made it retro-active so it would dictate
the outcome of the election.
And just so everyone completely understands the unflinching power of the Democrat-controlled legislature, they
unequivocally told the Supreme Court to stay out of legislative business concerning elections because the state constitution
gives the legislature the power to decide the winner of elections.
Or did it?
Fletcher still has a suit pending in court that deals with that very issue. In 1971, the legislature lost the
power to direct the outcome of elections, ‘by the joint ballot of both Houses of the General Assembly in the manner
prescribed by law,’ because the law mandating that activity was removed from the state statute.
To regain their imperialistic domain over election results, Democrats added to the re-written retro-active prescript
the re-establishment of that function and the process by which the legislature would carry it through. Which they then used
to dictate the outcome of the election.
Fletcher was gracious and applauded as the state legislature ‘appointed’ Atkinson to the position
of Superintendent of Public Instruction. But for the media, Atkinson, or state Democrats to try and assert that they somehow
‘won’ is as egregious as the debacle itself has been.