Polarization in the state is only furthered by the Court’s characterization of the state attorney general as a pure partisan player rather than a legal advocate for all North Carolinians. Second, litigation will become increasingly polarized as the General Assembly employs hyper-partisan counsel or uses pro bono support from ideologically extreme nonprofits. First, taxpayers will bear significant costs as the North Carolina General Assembly pays outside attorneys to litigate for the State rather than using apolitical career staff at the North Carolina Department of Justice. This Article discusses the impacts of the Berger decision. Such a major grant of executive power to the legislature ignores the state constitution’s strict separation of powers mandate, which protects each branch from seizure of power by the others. Instead of trusting the executive branch to execute and defend the state’s laws, the Court permitted two state legislators, supported by partisan outside counsel, to represent the entire State of North Carolina in nearly any litigation that could arise. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP upended this common understanding of the attorney general’s job.
When North Carolinians vote for their attorney general, they select the candidate who can best represent their state in the courtroom. NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP WHO SPEAKS FOR THE STATE? EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES OF BERGER V. The NCLR Forum prefers submissions between 6,000 and 12,000 words, including footnotes. As such, we especially invite submissions considering recent developments in North Carolina law and in the Fourth Circuit. The NCLR Forum is committed to publishing pieces of special import to practitioners in North Carolina.
The North Carolina Law Review Forum, the journal’s online publication, is a space for speedy dissemination of timely articles and op-eds by academics, judges, practitioners, policymakers, and law students, as well as for lively discussion and responses to articles published in North Carolina Law Review.