Welcome to the Friday, Jan. 10, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- Following the 2024 elections, more Americans now live in a state with a Republican trifecta
- Election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court remains uncalled amid ongoing legal challenges
- Did you know that three of the last eight presidents have issued at least one pardon during their first year in office?
Following the 2024 elections, more Americans now live in a state with a Republican trifecta
As a result of the 2024 elections, 41.5% of Americans live in a state with a Republican trifecta, and 36.5% in a state with a Democratic trifecta. Twenty-two percent live in a state with a divided government.
After the 2022 elections, 41.7% of Americans lived in a Democratic trifecta, 39.6% in a state with a Republican trifecta, and 18.8% in a state with a divided government.
The following changes in trifecta status happened as a result of the 2024 election:
- Democrats lost trifectas in two states—Michigan and Minnesota. A combined 15.9 million Americans live in both states. Democrats did not gain any trifectas.
- Republicans maintained the same number of trifectas that they had before the elections.
- Divided governments gained two states—Michigan and Minnesota. A combined 15.9 million Americans live in both states. Divided governments did not lose any trifectas.
We started collecting data on this topic in 2018. The percentage of the population living in a state with a Republican trifecta peaked at 48% that same year. The percentage of the population living in a state with Democratic trifecta was at its highest point in 2024 at 41.7%. The percentage of the population living in a state with a divided government peaked in 2018 at 31.3%.
The chart below shows these changes over time.
Since 2010, Democrats gained the greatest number of trifectas in 2019 with a pickup of six states. Democrats lost the greatest number of trifectas in 2015 with six states. Republicans gained the greatest number of trifectas in 2011 with a pickup of 11 states. They lost the greatest number of trifectas in 2019 with four.
Election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court remains uncalled amid ongoing legal challenges
On Jan. 8, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an order preventing the State Board of Elections from certifying a winner in the election for a seat on the court. This election is the only one for a state Supreme Court seat that has not been called.
In a 4-2 decision, the court ordered a stay of certification until they hear a challenge of more than 60,000 ballots cast in the election. Justices Trey Allen (R), Tamara Barringer (R), Phil Berger Jr. (R), and Paul Martin Newby (R) voted in favor of the stay. Justices Richard Dietz (R) and Anita Earls (D) dissented.
Justice Allison Riggs (D)—a candidate in the election at the center of this challenge—recused herself from the case.
Let’s take a look at how we got here.
On Nov. 5, Riggs and Jefferson Griffin (R) ran in the partisan election for a seat on the state Supreme Court. Initial results showed that Riggs led Griffin by 734 votes. According to North Carolina state law, elections decided by less than 10,000 votes are eligible for a recount. On Nov. 19, Griffin officially requested a recount. The full machine recount reaffirmed the initial results. Griffin then requested a second recount. That recount—completed by hand in a sample of precincts—also reaffirmed the initial results. After the second recount, the State Board of Elections did not request a full recount, which, by law, it could have if there had been a significant change in the outcome.
In addition to filing for recounts, Griffin filed a challenge on Nov. 21, arguing that more than 60,000 votes should not be counted because they were cast by voters who did not properly register under state law or who were ineligible to vote. The elections board voted 3-2 to dismiss his challenge of those votes. All three Democratic members of the board voted to dismiss the challenge, and the two Republican members did not.
On Dec. 18, Griffin filed an intervention request with the state Supreme Court. In response, the elections board filed paperwork to move the case from the state Supreme Court to federal court. On Dec. 20, Judge Richard Myers II of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina denied Griffin’s request to block the elections board from certifying the election results. Three days later, Griffin sought a federal injunction to prevent the certification. Ultimately, Myers ruled on Jan. 6 that the state Supreme Court should hear the case. The elections board immediately appealed the ruling to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
On Dec. 7, the state Supreme Court sided with Griffin, issuing a temporary stay and preventing the election board from certifying Riggs as the winner while considering the case. If the 4th Circuit does not take action on this case, it will remain under the state Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Both parties will spend the rest of the month filing their arguments in court.
At the time of the election, the court had a 5-2 Republican majority. On Sept. 3, The News & Observer’s Kyle Ingram wrote, “For Democrats, the race is the first step in a four-year plan to wrest control of the high court back from the GOP. For Republicans, the race is the chance to further solidify a conservative majority on a court that has already become an integral part of upholding the will of the state legislature.”
Did you know that three of the last eight presidents have issued at least one pardon during their first year in office? The most recent president to issue a pardon during their first year in office was Donald Trump, who issued one in 2017 for former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R), who was found guilty of criminal contempt for disregarding a 2011 court order. George H.W. Bush issued nine pardons in 1989, and Ronald Reagan issued two in 1981.
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
The Constitution imposes two major limits on the power of executive clemency:
- Clemency is limited to federal offenses. The president cannot pardon individuals for civil or state offenses.
- The president may not use this power to intervene in impeachment proceedings.
For more information on executive clemency and presidential pardons, click the link below.
This post was originally published on here
