In this week's fact check of North Carolina politics, we’re looking again at statements made by Republican rivals in this year’s U.S. Senate race.
Last week, we checked an ad from former Gov. Pat McCrory accusing one of his opponents, U.S. Rep. Ted Budd, of being sympathetic toward Russia and the invasion of Ukraine. It was rated mostly false. Now, we look at a tweet from Budd directed at McCrory.
In the tweet posted last week, Budd wrote that McCrory is "hoping NC Republicans will forget that when he was Governor, (McCrory) appointed the ‘Republican’ judge who sided with Democrats in the partisan Democrat lawsuit/power-grab over redistricting.”
Paul Specht of WRAL joined WFAE's Marshall Terry to analyze Budd's claim.
Big talk…he’s hoping NC Republicans will forget that when he was Governor, @PatMcCroryNC appointed the “Republican” judge who sided with Democrats in the partisan Democrat lawsuit/power-grab over redistricting. #ncsen #ncpol https://t.co/il7wUQRbKg
— Ted Budd (@TedBuddNC) March 21, 2022
Marshall Terry: OK, Paul, so what's the context here? What prompted Budd to tweet this?
Paul Specht: Well, as we know, the U.S. Senate is vetting Ketanji Brown Jackson for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy that will open up later this year. Pat McCrory tweeted that senators should reject any "radical activist judge" that is nominated by President Biden or any other Democrat. That's where Ted Budd comes in. He says, "Oh, McCrory is talking big, but he's hoping that voters will forget that he appointed this Republican judge who sided with Democrats in the redistricting case."
Terry: And is that true, what Budd said?
Specht: It's a bit of an oversimplification, and here's why. The redistricting case — there have been many, frankly — but this recent one went to different levels of North Carolina's judiciary. McCrory appointed a judge who was involved at the Superior Court level. His name is A. Graham Shirley. He was appointed in 2015 and then went on to win an election in 2016. So, when the case came before Superior Court — this is important context that Budd leaves out — Shirley and another Republican and a Democrat on the Superior Court panel ruled that Republican-drawn maps did not violate the state constitution. In other words, they ruled with Republicans at the Superior Court level.
What happened next? These voting rights groups that are liberal leaning, they appealed that. It went to the (state) Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a Democratic majority, and that majority ruled that the Republican maps did violate the state constitution. Now, if you're someone coming to Ted Budd's tweet, you may not realize it's the state Supreme Court that really tipped the scales here. They're the ones that struck down Republicans' maps in the first place. It was not Superior Court.
So, to be clear, McCrory's appointee did not vote to strike down the Republican maps. So, after the Democratic Supreme Court has its say, they order Republican legislators to redraw the maps. They go back to the drawing board and the maps must be approved by that Superior Court panel. That's the one that McCrory's guy sits on, so we're back to the lower level again. In this case. Shirley approves the Republicans' redrawn legislative maps, but he rejects their redrawn congressional maps and chooses to go with the congressional maps drawn by what they call "special masters," or outside consultants. In that sense, one could argue that he did pick maps that will be more beneficial to Democrats than the ones that Republicans initially drew.
That is a fair point, but here's what the tweet misleads people about: It says McCrory appointed "the" Republican judge who sided with Democrats. Shirley was not the only Republican on that panel to pick the consultant maps. The panel actually ruled unanimously. I know that's a lot of context, but it's a complicated case, and the tweet obviously oversimplifies what's happened.
Terry: What did Budd say when you reached out to him about this tweet?
Specht: He stood by the tweet. Ted Budd's folks over at his campaign said, "Hey, you know, this decision, while unanimous" — yes, they acknowledge that Shirley was not a lone actor here; it was unanimous — that they think it's worth pointing out that the decision handed over two or possibly more congressional seats to Democrats. And they say that McCrory is making a big deal over his record, and they just want to get his record out there and show the type of work that one of his appointees is doing.
Terry: So, going back to the tweet from Ted Budd, then, that we're talking about: How did you write that tweet?
Specht: Mostly false, and here's why. He accurately points out that McCrory appointed a Superior Court judge that was involved in this redistricting case and that that judge signed off on districts that are expected to help more Democrats. That's all fair to point out. However, his tweet just omits so many key details about this case that it really offers a misleading impression of what's happened and frankly, about McCrory's appointee.
When the case came before the Superior Court judge that McCrory appointed, he ruled with Republicans. And then, he was not part of the state Supreme Court that overruled the maps. Yes, he did play a role in enacting maps that consultants drew instead of Republicans, but he was not the only Republican judge to do so. and Budd's tweet sort of frames it as if Shirley had some sort of swing vote here. He did not.
And then finally, it's a little misleading to suggest that McCrory put Shirley on the bench. He definitely appointed him in 2015. But technically, Shirley was put on the bench by voters the next year in an election in 2016. So with all that said, there's an element of truth here, but there's so much context missing that we felt it was mostly false.
Terry: All right, Paul, thank you.
Specht: Thank you.
These fact checks are a collaboration between PolitiFact and WRAL. And you can hear them Wednesdays on WFAE's Morning Edition.
