On July 27, Civitas’ Susan Myrick pointed out the conflict of interest of Judge Michael Morgan, who is not only running for the one opening on the state Supreme Court this year. He is also the judge who will decide whether Voter ID legislation enacted in 2013 is constitutional according to state law.
As Myrick pointed out, “He has conveniently (for him) scheduled the state voter ID trial to start on Sept. 26 – just six weeks ahead of Election Day and more than three years after the case was first filed.”
An excerpt from his statement, as reported by the N&O, is below:
“A publication has attempted to cast aspersions on my ability to preside over this case fairly and impartially and attempted to cast aspersions on me personally,” Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan said. “The publication has therefore concluded that I should recuse myself from further involvement in this matter.”
The N&O went on to say:
“Morgan did not name the publication in question, although he was clearly referencing the Civitas Institute...”
Of course he was. And we will continue to hold him accountable.
As Myrick said, “Does anyone really think an elected local judge who had been considering a run for statewide office has no interest in what laws will govern his election? Running for an office that will be impacted by a decision in the Voter ID case should be enough for any judge to recuse himself from the case.”