— Republicans and Democrats lit into each other Tuesday night over legislation that will strip the Republican ballot designation from a longtime Democrat who switched parties shortly before running this year for the state Supreme Court.

Senate Rules Chairman Harry Brown called Democrats hypocrites for going against the bill. Democrats accused Republicans of abandoning the rule of law for political gain. They said to expect a lawsuit once the bill, moving quickly Tuesday in a legislative session called less than 24 hours before, becomes law.

Chris Anglin, the Raleigh attorney and Supreme Court candidate at the center of the issue, issued a statement Tuesday night calling the bill "a stunning act of cowardice."

Asked whether Anglin will file a legal challenge to Senate Bill 3, campaign manager Perry Woods said, "We will explore our options," adding that he has "little doubt a legal challenge would be successful."

The Republican majority has tinkered repeatedly with North Carolina's judicial elections in recent years, returning them to partisan affairs and, last year, canceling this year's primaries. That had an apparently unintended consequence, doing away with the longstanding rule that no one could be on the ballot as a Republican, Democrat or member of any other political party unless they'd been registered with the party at least 90 days.

A group run by Republican operatives sent out mailers at one point, asking Democrats to run in statewide judicial races. But in the end, it was Anglin, a Democrat-turned-Republican, who jumped into the state's highest-profile judicial race: the lone Supreme Court seat up for re-election this year.

The race pits incumbent Republican Justice Barbara Jackson against Democrat Anita Earls, who has been the lead attorney on a series of lawsuits targeting GOP redistricting efforts and other election laws. Anglin is the third candidate, and he changed his voter registration three weeks before getting in the race.

He'd be listed just by name, no party designation, under the bill that cleared the Senate and the House on nearly party-line votes. Senate Bill 3 states that, in order to be listed as a member of a given party, or even as unaffiliated, a candidate would have to have been registered that way when they file for office as well as 90 days before.

The bill allows those affected by the change to withdraw from their races by Aug. 8. It also adds language to the ballot to explain to voters who will and won't be identified by party.

Republican senators started Tuesday's floor debate on the bill without mentioning Anglin's name and focusing on the bill more holistically. By the end, Sen. Jerry Tillman, R-Randolph, had accused Anglin of trying to rig the race, and Sen. Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, said Anglin was trying to perpetuate "a fraud on the people of the state of North Carolina."

"I suspect he doesn't even want to be a justice," said Hise.

Anglin is a long shot to win, but says he's in the race to do so and "to be a voice for Republicans who are appalled at these types of shenanigans that attack our rule of law."

Legislative Democrats said the bill has two potential constitutional problems. It's retroactive, changing the rules of the election after Anglin and others had filed for their seats. It also appears to target a single person, they said.

Brown, R-Onslow, said that's not true. There's a former Republican running as a Democrat for a judgeship in Wake County who would also be affected, he said, adding "and I also understand that there are several others."

It will be up to the State Board of Elections & Ethics Enforcement to determine who's affected and contact them.

Charges of hypocrisy, insincerity

Brown lashed out near the end of debate at Democrats who had complained about the Republicans changing the rules mid-game. This is no game, he said, and if anyone talks about how important elections are but votes against the bill, then "your words mean nothing."

"Because you're a hypocrite," he said. "I think this is a daggum sensible bill."

Democrats reminded Brown and others that it was the Republicans who changed the 90-day rule last year.

"You decided to fix something that wasn't broken. Now you don't like the result," Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue said.

Sen. Jeff Jackson, D-Mecklenburg, wanted to know, if a Republican had switched his or her registration to the Democratic Party and run in the Supreme Court race, would the bill still be offered by the GOP majority.

Who among the GOP caucus would rise to say it would, Jackson asked.

"Zero," he said with a raised voice. "So no speeches, thank you very much, about sincerity."

In the House Tuesday evening, the debate was shorter and less fiery, but with no less partisan conviction on either side.

Rep. David Lewis, R-Harnett, said the measure would provide "more reliable information to voters."

"We believe that voters are better off if they’re informed about a candidate’s ideology or a candidate’s party affiliation," Lewis said. "No person has an absolute right to run for office by declaring what they are because it suits their individual whim to do so."

Rep. Darren Jackson, D-Wake, countered that Republicans made precisely that argument when the state Democratic Party challenged the primary cancellation in federal court, arguing it violated their right to freedom of association by allowing anyone to run under a party label without the party's blessing.

"You said no, because the party doesn’t get to choose who’s a Republican and who’s a Democrat. You have the right to self-identify. That’s what you put in your court filings," Jackson said. "You’re going to lose this lawsuit if anybody files."

Lewis said the bill is not aimed at a specific candidate, saying one judicial race in Mecklenburg and two in Wake County would be affected, as well as the Supreme Court race.

But Rep. Mickey Michaux, D-Durham, wasn't buying it.

"Don’t think anyone’s fooled by what you’re doing here tonight. They know what you’re doing, and they know why you’re doing it," said Michaux. "You found yourself in a situation that you can’t get yourself out of except by passing a piece of legislation that the courts will more than likely find unconstitutional."