Controversial North Carolina Supreme Court Election Challenge Attracts National Attention
A contentious legal battle has arisen in North Carolina, drawing significant national interest as Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican on the state intermediate court, seeks to contest the results of the state’s supreme court election. Griffin, who narrowly lost the race to Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes, is attempting to invalidate over 60,000 ballots.
The heart of Griffin’s challenge lies in his assertion that the North Carolina State Board of Elections has been improperly registering voters for decades. He argues that the board failed to require necessary identification documents like a driver’s license or social security information and incorrectly allowed certain absentee and overseas ballots without photo ID.
Significantly, Griffin does not allege any voter fraud or wrongdoing by voters, instead focusing on procedural issues with the board of elections. His objections largely target votes from predominantly Democratic counties. Griffin contends that the board ignored illegal processes, leading to ballots being cast by individuals who did not provide legally required information. He insists these votes should be excluded.
Justice Riggs and the elections board argue that ballots from eligible voters who followed the election process should remain valid. Riggs emphasizes that voters relied on the procedures set by the board, which were in place at the election time. She cites the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause as protection for these voters. The debate extends to the interpretation of state and federal election requirements, with claims that many voters identified as having missing information did, in fact, provide it at registration.
The legal proceedings have also involved several lawsuits in both state and federal courts. A federal judge declined to hear the case, citing respect for state interests under the principle of abstention. This decision is currently under appeal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recently heard related arguments.
Griffin’s challenge tests a long-standing principle in election law: post-election changes to election rules are not permissible. Some justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court have shown openness to Griffin’s claims, highlighting the judiciary’s role in maintaining or undermining democratic norms. A ruling in Griffin’s favor could set a precedent for similar actions in other states.
An amicus brief from eight scholars warns that Griffin’s efforts signify a significant democratic regression in North Carolina, calling for federal court intervention to uphold democratic principles.
The North Carolina Supreme Court, with a 5–2 Republican majority, recently rejected Griffin’s request to have the high court bypass the lower courts. However, they maintained a stay preventing the board from certifying the election. Justice Trey Allen, a Republican, authored the court’s order, using language that may indicate support for Griffin’s claims.
Conversely, Justice Anita Earls, the sole Democratic justice involved, argued against the stay, stating that “we cannot overturn the results of an election on potentials.” Justice Richard Dietz, also a Republican, expressed skepticism, noting that the State Board of Elections adhered to the existing rules during the election. He indicated any issues with those rules should not affect past elections.
If the court ends up in a 3–3 split, the lower court’s decision will stand, pending any contrary federal court ruling. A state trial court hearing is scheduled for February 7.
Griffin’s case challenges not only the election outcome but also the judicial system’s role in safeguarding democracy. The North Carolina courts face the call to potentially discard tens of thousands of votes, while federal courts are being asked to protect voters’ rights under federal law. The case presents a significant test of the U.S. judicial system and its democratic foundations.
