RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The North Carolina Supreme Court has made a pivotal decision regarding the ongoing electoral dispute over a court seat, mandating that a substantial number of ballots contested by the candidate currently trailing remain valid as part of the vote count.
This ruling partially reverses a recent decision by a lower court, the Court of Appeals, which had been in favor of Republican Jefferson Griffin. Griffin is narrowly behind Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs in the race. The Supreme Court’s decision maintains that additional ballots from two other contested categories, including those cast by military personnel and overseas voters, were incorrectly included in the tally. These voters are granted an opportunity to submit photo identification or ID exception forms to ensure their votes are counted, according to the prevailing order.
Unresolved Election Race
The contested race between Griffin and Riggs remains unresolved, with Riggs leading by 734 votes out of over 5.5 million ballots. This election is currently the only undecided contest for 2024 in the nation. The possibility of the outstanding ballots changing the election outcome in Griffin’s favor remains uncertain. Griffin, currently a judge on the Court of Appeals, was not part of the panel that ruled in his favor last week, and Riggs did not partake in the Supreme Court’s deliberations.
Attorneys for Riggs have taken the matter to federal court, seeking an injunction to halt the immediate enforcement of the state appeals court’s decisions. Both Riggs and the State Board of Elections, which initially dismissed Griffin’s protests concerning over 65,000 ballots, had anticipated returning to federal court if necessary to argue potential violations of federal election and voting rights laws.
Registration Issues and Ballot Validity
The largest group of contested ballots, approximately 60,000, involves voters registered since 2004, lacking either a driver’s license number or Social Security digits in their records. The Supreme Court’s opinion stated that these ballots were rightfully counted, faulting the State Board of Elections for not adequately collecting identifiers, rather than the voters. Voters verified their identity under the state’s new photo ID law, and legal precedent dictates that errors by officials should not invalidate votes.
“Accordingly, we cannot agree with the Court of Appeals that the Board erred by counting their ballots,” reads the order. If upheld, the Court of Appeals ruling would have provided these voters with a window to submit identifying numbers to validate their ballots.
Adjustments for Military and Overseas Ballots
The Supreme Court upheld most of the Court of Appeals’ decision regarding military and overseas voters who failed to submit ID or exception forms, initially deeming their ballots ineligible. However, the high court extended the deadline for these voters to provide the necessary documentation from 15 business days to 30 calendar days.
The Court also maintained the ruling that potentially hundreds of overseas voters, who have never resided in the U.S., are ineligible to vote based on state residency laws, necessitating their ballots’ removal from the count.
According to Riggs’ legal team and the board, the votes challenged by Griffin were legally cast under established rules for the November election and should remain valid.
Responses to the Supreme Court’s Decision
In a news release, Riggs expressed satisfaction with the reversal of a significant part of the Court of Appeals decision but pledged to continue her efforts to uphold “the fundamental freedoms for which our military service members and their families have sacrificed so much.”
Paul Shumaker, a spokesperson for Griffin’s campaign, stated that the Supreme Court’s decision aligns with their initial claims.
Associate Justice Anita Earls, the only Democrat among the participating justices, issued a strong dissenting opinion, arguing that the prevailing order enforces unequal voter treatment and infringes upon the state constitutional right to vote. Meanwhile, Republican Associate Justice Richard Dietz contended that a comprehensive review should have been conducted to determine the validity of Griffin’s claims regarding altering a past election. The Supreme Court’s decision was made without oral arguments.
__
Note: This article has been updated to correct the location where Riggs’ attorneys filed a federal court motion to Raleigh, not Wilmington.
