In a first look at how the state’s 16 public universities complied with the new diversity policy — which removed mention of diversity jobs across universities and subsequently put them at risk of elimination — the institutions’ certification reports demonstrate varying approaches on how campuses chose to follow the new rule.

The University of North Carolina Board of Governors reviewed the reports on Wednesday, where they evaluated ranging actions that included diversity office closures and program changes. Millions of dollars were also redirected to student success initiatives, such as recruitment efforts and scholarships, as a result of cuts and realignments.

“The reports will be scrutinized far and wide. Some will say that the campuses went too far, some will say the campuses didn’t go far enough,” UNC system legal counsel Andrew Tripp said during the meeting. “It’s ultimately the Board of Governors that will judge campuses’ compliance.”

In late May, the UNC Board of Governors revoked and replaced its 2019 diversity policy, which outlined several diversity jobs and their responsibility for coordinating DEI efforts across the system. What replaced it was a policy focused on committing the system to equality of viewpoints, freedom of speech and institutional neutrality — leaving diversity positions and programs in limbo.

Diversity efforts have become a subject of conservatives’ ire on college campuses over the past few years, with the University of Florida and the University of Texas making national headlines for dismantling its diversity offices and cutting its staff. Diversity opponents say the practice can lead to discrimination, while its supporters say it helps level the playing field for women and people of color.

North Carolina’s Republican legislative leaders are among those who have expressed concern with DEI, and, at one point, were considering legislation restricting those programs before the UNC Board of Governors stepped in.

The UNC system in June sent out sweeping guidelines that covered everything from student success initiatives to campus center programming to facilitate the changes to come. To prove compliance with the new policy, schools were required to submit certification reports that described eliminated positions, position reassignments, program changes and financial savings from cuts.

Information on how universities were following the guidance was largely kept under wraps — even from faculty members — before the Sept. 1 report submission deadline.

Now, over a week later, those newly released reports show universities eliminated 59 positions and reassigned 131 more, according to the certification report statistics summary.

UNC-Chapel Hill, the state’s flagship university and second most populous public university as of 2023, makes up a third of eliminated positions. The second highest source of eliminations was at UNC Charlotte with nine cuts, followed by North Carolina State University with eight positions.

On the other hand, NC State led position reassignments — moving 29 people to new positions and departments. UNC-Chapel Hill realigned 27 positions. Other universities, such as East Carolina University and UNC Wilmington, chose to mostly move around positions rather than eliminate them.

Universities also redirected a large sum of money — more than $17 million in total across the system — that is meant to be reallocated toward student success initiatives. Almost all universities have spent those savings already, while UNC Pembroke and Appalachian State University have yet to do so.

Worries on how the policy would impact diverse recruitment and retention at universities surfaced during the board meeting, brought to the forefront by Joel Ford — one of the board’s few Black members. He called on UNC System president Peter Hans to “step up” to ensure community members know that the system’s universities were still welcoming to all students.

“That remains our obligation under federal law, state law and our moral obligation as well,” Hans said in response.

Others, such as board member Woody White, expressed concern on a different front: how quickly and fully the policy was implemented. White voiced his skepticism on whether all universities “meaningfully” made adjustments to the policy, noting that he didn’t see “the same level of velocity” in the new policy’s implementation as when the 2019 policy was approved.

Compliance with the policy will continue on an annual basis, but the reports were a “great first step,” Tripp said.

Ramone Alston, 30, escaped from the van on Tuesday as it arrived at the UNC Gastroenterology hospital in Hillsborough, North Carolina, where he was being taken for a medical appointment. He freed himself from his leg restraints and fled into the woods with handcuffs on, according to a news release from the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction.

Authorities brought in dogs and they did find tracks that led searchers north of the hospital, but the scent ran cold, Orange County Emergency Services director Kirby Saunders said at a Wednesday news conference.

U.S. marshals are supporting Orange County deputies and other law enforcement agencies in the search, helicopters have swept over the area and tips are being called in, but so far there are “no concrete leads” on Alston’s whereabouts, Orange County Sheriff Charles Blackwood told the news conference.

Blackwood urged residents near the hospital to check their home cameras for any evidence of where Alston went, and to stay vigilant.

“He’s extremely cagey, extremely dangerous, and he has nothing to lose,” Blackwood said.

Alston has been serving a life sentence at Bertie Correctional Institution in Windsor since his conviction in the murder of 1-year-old Maleah Williams, who was shot on Christmas Day in 2015 from a passing car while she was playing outside her family’s apartment in Chapel Hill. She died three days later.

The transport officers involved are being interviewed to gather more details on Alston’s escape, Blackwood said. No one has been suspended, he said.

Alston has family and friends who live in the area, and Blackwood said they’ve contacted some family members, but their cooperation has been “varied.”

The reward for information leading to his capture has increased from $25,000 to $35,000 after a contribution from the U.S. Marshals Service, officials said.

While many calls from local residents haven’t been serious, the sheriff’s office has received a few tips about Alston being seen in Durham, and a team of investigators has been sent to the area to check them out, Blackwood said.

A three-judge panel for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously reversed on Monday a previous decision by a lower court to dismiss civil claims — including use of excessive force in the shooting death of the Black teenager, Nasanto Crenshaw — against Greensboro city police officer Matthew Lewis Sletten.

The lawsuit against the officer now returns to the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, where it may go to trial. The panel, meanwhile, upheld the dismissal of other claims against the city contained in the lawsuit.

After responding to reports of a stolen car in August 2022, Sletten followed the vehicle, which Crenshaw was driving, until they reached a dead end in the parking lot, according to the appeals court’s ruling. Sletten attempted to block off the car with his patrol vehicle, which Crenshaw swiped while trying to park, according to the plaintiff.

The lawsuit said Crenshaw tried evading Sletten by driving off when the officer shot at the vehicle several times, fatally hitting the teen. Sletten told the court that Crenshaw drove “directly toward” him and caused him to shoot, according to the court ruling.

The teen’s mother, Wakita Doriety, sued the city and Sletten for wrongful death, battery and assault, in addition to claims against the officer for federal civil rights violations. She sought financial damages and other relief for his estate.

U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles dismissed Doriety’s claims in July 2023 against both the city and Sletten after reviewing video footage of what happened. Calling the video “integral” to granting the officer’s motion to dismiss, Eagles ruled that the footage indisputably showed the car driving at Sletten, according to the appellate opinion.

The appellate panel only partially disagreed with Eagles’ ruling. Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, writing the court’s opinion, said the video didn’t clearly refute the plaintiff’s “plausible allegations” of excessive force at this stage in the litigation. Keenan wrote that the video lacked “critical details” such as where the officer was located, the trajectory of the allegedly stolen vehicle and distance between the car and Sletten when he fired his gun.

“Courts must be mindful not to short-circuit at the motion to dismiss stage a plaintiff’s plausible claim of excessive force based on a video that does not blatantly contradict those allegations,” she wrote. Circuit Judges James Wynn and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin joined in the opinion.

The plaintiff’s attorney, Harry Daniels, said in a statement that Sletten was not in danger when he shot Crenshaw, adding that he hopes Crenshaw’s mother will “get to have her day in court” because of the appellate ruling.

Attorneys from a Greensboro law firm representing Sletten declined to comment Tuesday. The ruling can still be appealed.

The Guilford County district attorney said last year she would not pursue criminal charges against Sletten, saying he was justified in using deadly force.

The panel did uphold the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case against the city by citing governmental immunity — a type of immunity for local governments to protect them from legal claims based on their employees’ actions.

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina senators are pushing to legalize medical marijuana again, but it’s unclear if the state House will approve it.

A Senate bill that was originally intended to add state regulations to hemp products experienced a major facelift on Wednesday when lawmakers added a provision legalizing medical marijuana. The amendment would apply to qualifying patients who have a “debilitating medical condition” such as cancer or epilepsy to be prescribed medical cannabis by a doctor.

It comes amid a pending decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to drop marijuana as a Schedule I drug to Schedule III and recognize its medical uses.

The original bill — which added several regulations for hemp products that are legal under federal law — was approved in a committee Wednesday morning before a Senate floor vote. Federal law allows for the sale of hemp products with concentrations of less than 0.3% of delta-9 THC, which is one of the main psychoactive substances found in traditional cannabis.

The hemp regulations bill was suddenly sent back to the Senate Judiciary Committee to add the 35-page medical marijuana provision Wednesday afternoon.

The new provision outlines requirements for physicians to prescribe medical marijuana, how people can get a medical marijuana identification card, what it takes to get a medical cannabis supplier license and restrictions on smoking in certain places.

Patients who qualify for using cannabis medically would need written certification from a physician under the bill.

The original hemp legislation that still remains prohibits sales of those goods to people under 21, requires testing before distribution and mandates obtaining licenses to sell legal hemp products such as THC gummies and cannabis-infused drinks.

Despite its renewed Senate momentum, House Republicans’ current stance on legalizing medical marijuana is murky. Just earlier this month, House Speaker Tim Moore indicated it didn’t have enough support.

“In no uncertain terms, there are not the votes in this caucus right now for this bill,” Moore said.

Senate Rules Chairman Bill Rabon, a vocal advocate for medical marijuana, told The Associated Press after committee that he reached out to Moore Wednesday morning but did not hear back. He also spoke with other House leaders and caucus members about the amendment, but had “no idea” whether they would consider approving it.

“I’m very optimistic, but I’m also very persistent,” the Brunswick County Republican said.

The Senate previously attempted to legalize medical marijuana last year under legislation led by Rabon, who said he smoked pot while undergoing chemotherapy for colon cancer. Lacking enough votes in the House after the Senate’s approval, the medical marijuana bill died last session.

Medical cannabis products are legal in 38 states and the District of Columbia, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The amended bill will be voted on in the Senate on Thursday, then again on Monday, Rabon said.

More than 350,000 physical licenses and identification cards have recently been delayed for up to eight weeks, but the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Wayne Goodwin said during a state House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing that the backlog’s end may be in sight. The department anticipates the backlog to be eliminated before June 30.

People waiting on their new licenses must use a temporary driving certificate, which expires after 60 days. Those who don’t receive their license before the expiration date are advised to call the DMV.

But heated accusations of what caused the significant backlog flared up during the hearing between lawmakers, Goodwin and Lisa Shoemaker, vice president of global corporate relations for IDEMIA, the DMV’s card manufacturer for over 25 years.

A coding error in February impacted about 2,100 cards, which resulted in the card manufacturer pausing production for less than a week, Goodwin said.

When production started again, the DMV had a 12-day backlog for credentials. Since IDEMIA added a second production facility, the backlog has been significantly reduced, Goodwin said.

But Shoemaker detailed a much different story about the backlog’s origin, saying “the DMV did not act with transparency” throughout the process. The department did not heed IDEMIA’s advice on solutions and did not disclose the root cause of the backlog to the company, she said.

Committee chair Rep. Harry Warren, a Rowan County Republican, said the backlog also impacted people who needed photo IDs to vote in the March 5 primary election.

The department has started transitioning to another manufacturer, CBNSTI in Danville, Virginia. Goodwin said it will not inherit the current backlog.

As part of the transition, the DMV announced last week that a newer, more secure ID card design will be phased in. Goodwin also said that many improvements have been made at the DMV in recent years, such as filling 250 employee vacancies and adding online appointments to skip wait lines.

Goodwin isn’t a stranger to lawmakers’ DMV concerns, as he was previously grilled by Republican legislators on long wait lines earlier this year. A bill has also been introduced in the state that would make several changes to the DMV — among them, making the DMV commissioner a governor-appointed position subject to approval by the Senate.

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina’s public university system board voted Thursday to repeal a nearly five-year-old diversity, equity and inclusion policy, meaning its 17 schools will likely join other major universities in cutting diversity programs and jobs.

The 24-member University of North Carolina Board of Governors approved its agenda, which included the diversity policy repeal, with two members voting against the repeal. Campus changes are expected to take place at the start of the next school year.

UNC System President Peter Hans said in his meeting remarks that students and faculty should be allowed to confront “competing ideas” but the role of public universities is to remain neutral on “political controversies.”

“No one can speak for the whole university community on contentious issues because the university is not of one mind about anything,” Hans said.

The system’s policy change focuses on removing a 2019 regulation that outlines various DEI positions — such as diversity officers across the university system — and also defines officers’ duties, such as assisting with diversity programming and managing trainings for staff and students.

The new policy includes compliance with state and federal nondiscrimination laws, a commitment to free speech and academic freedom, and a requirement to adhere to institutional neutrality — which prevents the university system from taking a stance on debated political topics.

It does not include the outlined responsibilities of DEI officers and liaisons, suggesting they may be eliminated. A university system document about the policy said its goal is not to cut jobs, but some positions could be discontinued.

The policy will not impact classroom instruction or university research, nor will it dismantle student organizations or cultural centers, according to the university system. It initially passed through the board’s university governance committee last month in less than four minutes with no discussion.

Hans told reporters after the vote that the new policy likely meant DEI staff would change their titles and responsibilities to comply. He also anticipated legal guidelines to come out this summer to facilitate the transition.

Extra funding originally designated for DEI offices will go to “student success initiatives,” the system said. Hans said the board would trust university chancellors to reinvest the funds, but those initiatives wouldn’t include policing and public safety — a funding area that the board of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the system’s flagship university, decided to reallocate millions of DEI funds from next year’s budget to.

That decision last week violated the Board of Governors budget policy, Hans said.

The system’s legal counsel advised the university board that it could not make line-item changes such as the DEI cut to the university budget, but they “chose to disregard that advice,” he said.

The board’s budget chair, Dave Boliek, said in an interview last week that the budget cut had been under consideration for almost a year.

“There’s no reason why we can’t, as university trustees, signal that this is the direction the university needs to take. I feel good about it,” said Boliek, who also won the Republican primary for state auditor last week.

More definitive plans to cut DEI funding date back to at least late March, according to UNC public records obtained by The Associated Press. In an agenda sent to another administrator before last month’s Board of Governors meeting, university provost Chris Clemens wrote that a plan to remove at least $1 million from the university’s DEI budget was needed.

Public feedback to the UNC Board of Governors before the vote was largely limited to a submission form on its website, which closed Thursday. As of Monday, more than 250 people had submitted public comments — with most identifying as alumni, according to University of North Carolina system public records.

Just 13 people expressed support for the potential repeal while most others voiced opposition to it. Commenters included students who recounted how they benefited from university diversity programs and parents who said they wouldn’t send their child to a UNC school if the policy changed.

About 35 protesters from schools across the system gathered outside of the UNC System Office in Raleigh to oppose the policy repeal — and at one point, attempted to enter the building. Two people were arrested, a UNC system spokesperson said.

“Despite their best efforts, we have not been silenced and we will not be silenced,” said Nathaniel Dibble, a member of Young Democratic Socialists of America at North Carolina State University, before the vote.

Sonja Phillips Nichols, one of four Black members on the board, told reporters she voted against the repeal because of people’s concerns that they weren’t heard by the governing body.

DEI has become one of the most contentious issues on college campuses in recent years as conservatives have claimed that the practices can lead to discrimination. Advocates, however, say diversity initiatives do the opposite by ensuring minority students’ and faculty’s inclusion in the university community.

Elsewhere, the University of Florida and the University of Texas at Austin both announced job cuts for diversity staff this year. More broadly, at least 20 states have seen Republican proposals seeking to limit public diversity and inclusion programs.

North Carolina’s Senate leader Phil Berger, whose chamber along with the House elects the board’s voting members, said Thursday that DEI policies are “completely different from the average person’s understanding of the need for diversity, for equity, for inclusion.”

“The concerns that have been expressed about DEI — not just in North Carolina, not just in North Carolina universities — but across the nation are legitimate concerns,” he told reporters before the vote.

House Speaker Tim Moore also told reporters Wednesday that he fully supported the repeal, but if there seemed to be “more work to be done” on DEI, the General Assembly could consider further action.

___

Associated Press writer Gary Robertson in Raleigh contributed to this report.

Republicans supporters say the legislation, which passed its first committee Tuesday, was prompted in part by the recent wave of protests on universities nationwide — including at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill — against Israel’s war in Gaza.

GOP Sen. Buck Newton brushed off concerns that getting rid of pandemic-era exemptions on masks was overly broad, saying he expects authorities to use “good common sense.”

“We didn’t see Granny getting arrested in the Walmart pre-COVID,” Newton said as he presented the bill Tuesday in the state Senate Judiciary Committee.

While the main thrust of the bill enhances penalties for people wearing a mask during a crime or intentionally blocking traffic during protests, most concerns centered on the health and safety exemption. According to the bill’s summary, people could no longer wear masks in public for medical reasons.

“You say, ‘Well, this wasn’t a problem before COVID,'” Democratic Sen. Natasha Marcus told Newton. “The world is different now. We can’t go back to when pandemics didn’t happen.”

The exemption was originally added to state statutes in 2020 along mostly bipartisan lines.

During public comment, several speakers also voiced disapproval for the bill, such as Melissa Price Kromm, executive director of the North Carolina For the People voter engagement coalition, who called the legislation an “anti-protest bill” that aimed to curb free speech.

If passed, the bill would enhance punishments for people using a mask to disguise their identity while committing a crime — making their misdemeanor or felony one class higher than if they weren’t wearing a mask. Intentionally blocking traffic or obstructing emergency vehicles for a protest would also be criminalized.

Since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, instances of pro-Palestinian protesters blocking roadways have occurred across the country, including in Raleigh and Durham. In recent weeks, tensions escalated on UNC’s campus with several arrests and clashes with police. Many demonstrators wore masks during the protests.

When the bill was first discussed last week, it was met with silence from all committee members. That wasn’t the case on Tuesday, as several Democratic legislators, as well as members of the public, expressed concern with the bill’s potential ramifications.

Sen. Sydney Batch, a Wake County Democrat who said she was immunocompromised during the pandemic, cited the health exemption removal as one of her biggest concerns about the bill.

When asked by Batch if someone wearing a mask for health purposes in public would be violating the law, a legislative staff member said it would, because the bill repeals the exemption.

Newton said he could revisit the bill if problems arise.

Batch told reporters after the committee that she planned to meet with Newton this week to discuss her issues with the bill before it reaches the Senate floor.

Newton told reporters last week he expected the Senate to want to pass the bill, but he had yet to have further conversations with the House to see if it would be prioritized.

The grim risks came into stark relief Monday when four law enforcement officers were killed in North Carolina while serving an arrest warrant. The attack in Charlotte left four other officers wounded and became the worst attack on police in the U.S. since 2016.

The tragedy underscores the limits of even the best-trained officers and the unpredictability of the alleged criminals being served.

“A lot of these guys don’t want to go back to jail,” said Tre Pennie, executive director of the National Fallen Officer Foundation. “And if it’s not a surprise, they got time to prepare. They’re going to do everything they can to keep from going back to jail.”

Law enforcement can never control more than half of the situation, said Thor Eells, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association.

“They can be 100% correct in everything they do,” he said, but the “suspect and or suspects are responsible for the other 50%.”

Here is what we know about the shooting in Charlotte and other fatal shootings of officers serving warrants.

___

What happened in Charlotte?

A U.S. Marshals Task Force of officers from different agencies arrived in a residential neighborhood to try to capture Terry Clark Hughes Jr., authorities said. He was wanted for possession of a firearm by an ex-felon and fleeing to elude in Lincoln County, North Carolina.

The task force was fired on as they approached the house, and Hughes, 39, was killed in the front yard, authorities said.

An AR-15 semi-automatic rifle and a 40-caliber handgun were found at the scene. An AR-15 is able to penetrate traditional body armor and allowed the shooter to “unload several rounds towards our officers within a matter of seconds,” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings said.

He said more than 100 spent bullets were recovered, though it wasn’t clear how many were fired by the suspect. At least 12 officers also fired guns.

Authorities in Charlotte will likely conduct an “after-event analysis” that will include interviewing officers and neighbors, said Alexis Piquero, a University of Miami criminology professor.

The lessons learned will be of interest to law enforcement agencies across the country, he said, to make sure officers “can prevent this from ever happening again.”

___

How often are officers killed?

Piquero, who is a former director of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, said the serving of warrants by police often occurs as planned and runs “fairly smoothly.”

And while officers prepare for danger, shootings are unavoidable because officers can’t predict how a suspect will react. All it takes is “a high-caliber weapon (and a) person with really evil intentions,” he said.

Three officers were killed while serving warrants in 2022, according to the FBI’s Center for the Study of Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted.

Their deaths amounted to 5% of the 60 law enforcement officials who died that year because of felonious incidents. Those are defined by the FBI as deaths that are the “direct result of a willful and intentional act by an offender.”

In 2021 and 2020, two officers died each year while serving an arrest warrant, FBI data shows. Five officers died in 2019 while serving search or arrest warrants.

Recent fatal shootings include the killing of two sheriff’s deputies in Cobb County, Georgia, in 2022. They were attempting to arrest a man wanted on theft charges when another man confronted them with a gun, authorities said. A shootout ensued when the armed man refused commands to drop his weapon.

In 2021, a Houston police officer was killed and another was wounded while they were attempting to arrest a man on drug charges, police said. The man they were trying to arrest was also killed.

In 2020, a Philadelphia police officer was shot and killed as he served a homicide warrant at a home, officials said. Several people were arrested, including the fugitive being sought.

___

How do police try to lessen the risks?

Eells, of the National Tactical Officers Association, said police must consider a multitude of factors before serving a warrant.

“There are so many tangibles that come to play. It’s like trying to wrap your arms around Jell-O and then pick it up,” he said. “It’s not easy.”

Among the things officers will want to know is the criminal histories of the people being arrested.

“Have they demonstrated a propensity for violence? Have they been known to carry weapons?” said Eells, who served more than 30 years with the Colorado Springs Police Department. “Are they involved in gang activity?”

Mental illness as well as drug and alcohol abuse are also valuable details. So is any formal weapons training or known access to body armor.

Then there’s the suspect’s location. Do police have to go through a fence? Is there a ring camera? Is it an apartment complex with a lot of people around? Maybe it’s safer to arrest the suspect away from home.

“They’ll go through this planning process until they arrive at a decision where they think they’ve mitigated the factors that they can control with regard to risk,” Eells said. “But there will still always be inherent risk. We cannot eliminate it.”

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — An attorney representing voters accused of fraud in the 2016 election warned North Carolina’s highest court that their eventual decision could allow political operatives to make voter fraud allegations without consequence — but the justices had several questions.

The North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday for Bouvier v. Porter — a civil suit centered around four voters from Guilford and Brunswick County who allege they were defamed by supporters of former Gov. Pat McCrory after the 2016 election. The panel of five justices considering the case were all Republicans after the court’s two Democrats recused themselves for previously representing the plaintiffs.

Both sides underwent a barrage of questioning from the judges panel during the 50-minute hearing, although most inquiries — and sometimes outright disagreements — fell on the plaintiffs.

As is usual, the court didn’t immediately rule. It’s not clear if the case, which discusses voter fraud allegations, will be decided before the 2024 election, according to plaintiff attorney Jeff Loperfido. The decision will not determine if the plaintiffs were defamed but rather whether the defendants had certain immunities to make their claims.

Soon after what became a narrow win for Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper in 2016, supporters of his opponent, the incumbent McCrory, filed election protest petitions declaring voting irregularities had occurred, including accusations from Greensboro Republican official William Porter. The petitions, which were also filed in Brunswick County, alleged the plaintiffs had voted twice, according to their 2017 lawsuit.

Porter’s petition against three Guilford voters was dismissed for “lack of any evidence presented” and one protest in Brunswick County was withdrawn, according to an appeals court opinion.

The case was sent up to the state Supreme Court after an appeals court gave plaintiffs a partial victory in 2021. It decided Porter had absolute privilege while the other defendants — the law firm Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky and the Pat McCrory Committee Legal Defense Fund among them — did not.

Absolute privilege is a legal term used in defamation cases to outline circumstances where someone is shielded from liability for potentially defamatory statements. The privilege is typically granted in judicial and legislative proceedings.

Craig Schauer, a defense attorney, said during Thursday’s hearing that the defendants did fulfill a role that would give them absolute privilege, albeit in a more informal setting than typical judicial proceedings. By ruling against the defense, Schauer said the court’s precedent would hinder people from voicing their concerns with the election process.

“It’s unprecedented. It’s undefined. It’s unnecessary. It’s actually based on a legal fiction, and it’s going to result in unwanted consequences,” he said.

An attorney representing the plaintiffs, Press Millen, urged the court to uphold the appellate decision. Absolute privilege is something earned and not given “willy-nilly,” he said, and the defendants were not true participants during the election protest filing.

“This court will be creating a group, a creature, who is entirely able to act with impunity in the context of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings without being lawyers, witnesses or parties,” Millen said.

Several of the justices, including Tamara Barringer, Trey Allen and Chief Justice Paul Newby, raised issues with the plaintiff’s arguments, citing concerns of how broad to make the scope of who doesn’t have absolute privilege. A few times during the hearing, Justice Richard Dietz told the plaintiffs they “just brought the wrong claims” to argue to the court.

“This could have been any losing candidate’s campaign effort to try to create enough smoke to delay certification or try to encourage the state board of election to review these protests in a certain way,” Loperfido said before the hearing.

Schauer didn’t immediately respond to an email after Thursday’s arguments seeking comment.

Louis Bouvier, the lead plaintiff, told The Associated Press after the arguments that he was disappointed in the justices’ questioning because to him, it’s a “simple issue.” The case results are more important today than seven years ago when the lawsuit was filed because of “the mood of the country and politics,” Bouvier said.

“2016 and now, it’s like, earth-shatteringly different,” he said after the hearing.

Maria Baquiran Moreno entered one of her scratch-off tickets in the state’s Feb. 7 second-chance lottery drawing, according to a Feb. 13 North Carolina Education Lottery news release. Then, the Greensboro resident got a phone call that would change everything: she had won the drawing’s grand prize, lottery officials said.

“I always tell people to do the second chance because you never know,” Moreno said in the release. “I’m the walking example of that.”

The lottery told her she had won $1 million, according to the release.

“I was sobbing,” she said in the release. “It was overwhelming.”

Moreno enjoys playing scratch-offs and keeping her tickets for second-chance drawings, she told lottery officials. But she never expected to win such a large amount off one.

“When I started crying my kids thought something was wrong,” Moreno said with a laugh.

Given the choice to receive a lump sum of $600,000 or $50,000 every year for two decades, Moreno chose to get the lump sum, lottery officials said. After taxes, her total winnings came out to $429,000.

Now she will use the money to pay off her mortgage and potentially plan a family trip to Japan, lottery officials said.

Moreno won the top prize for the $10 Million Spectacular Second Chance drawing, lottery officials said. The next drawing — the second of four — will be July 3, according to lottery officials.

Many people can gamble or play games of chance without harm. However, for some, gambling is an addiction that can ruin lives and families.

If you or a loved one shows signs of gambling addiction, you can seek help by calling the national gambling hotline at 1-800-522-4700 or visiting the National Council on Problem Gambling website.

©2024 The Charlotte Observer. Visit charlotteobserver.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.