RALEIGH, N.C. — The North Carolina Supreme Court’s recent ruling to not expedite the appeals regarding the unresolved November election for a court seat indicates that an official winner will likely not be determined in the immediate future. This situation may provide an advantage to the candidate trailing in the election.
A majority of the justices on the court declined a request from the State Board of Elections, which sought to bypass the lower-level Court of Appeals and take the case directly to the Supreme Court. The board argued that this situation warranted an accelerated review process.
The ruling issued on Thursday appears to favor Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who is attempting to displace Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs. Griffin opposed the State Board’s request for an expedited procedure. The Supreme Court, where Republicans hold a majority, and the Court of Appeals, where Griffin currently serves, continues to navigate this political landscape.
In the election, Riggs holds a narrow lead of 734 votes over Griffin, out of over 5.5 million ballots that were cast and subsequently recounted. Griffin is contesting more than 65,000 early and absentee ballots, claiming that they should be excluded from the final count.
The ballots under scrutiny include those submitted by voters with incomplete registration details, such as missing driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of Social Security numbers. Additionally, there are challenges on votes cast by overseas individuals who have never resided in the U.S. and by military or overseas voters who failed to provide proper photo identification.
While numerous winners have been declared in the broader 2024 general election, the North Carolina Supreme Court election remains the only race in the country that is still without a definitive outcome. After extensive legal disputes in both state and federal courts, a trial judge upheld the dismissals made by the State Board regarding Griffin’s challenges related to those ballots. Griffin subsequently appealed this decision, and a three-judge panel has set deadlines for brief submissions concluding in early March.
This week, the state board’s attorneys requested immediate consideration of the matter by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the exceptional nature of the voting issues at hand and the need for prompt resolution. Although Riggs’ legal team supported the board’s recommendation, Griffin’s lawyers criticized the trial judge’s brief orders, arguing they lacked sufficient explanation and contending that the case warranted more thorough judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court, with Riggs recused, saw its remaining six justices vote 4-2 against the election board’s request to move the case forward without further review by the Court of Appeals. Associate Justice Trey Allen, who supported the denial, noted that addressing the case prematurely would lack a significant examination by a lower court.
In dissent, Justice Richard Dietz and Justice Anita Earls argued against the denial. Justice Earls expressed concern that ongoing delays could undermine trust in electoral processes and questioned the fairness and effectiveness of the judicial system in upholding democratic principles.
With this ruling, if the Court of Appeals were to later reverse the trial judge’s dismissal and support Griffin’s claims regarding the ballots, that decision would take precedence at the Supreme Court level, even in the event of a deadlock among the justices. On the other hand, had the Supreme Court embraced the request to skip the lower court, it would have required a majority decision of four out of six justices to overrule the previous judgment.
Griffin’s advocacy team has asserted that counting the contested ballots contravenes state laws and the constitution. Meanwhile, Riggs’ lawyers, along with the board’s representatives, maintain that all votes were cast lawfully and that Griffin did not follow the necessary protest procedures. Notably, a board attorney indicated that a significant portion of the challenged voters had indeed provided valid identification information.
Should the state courts eventually rule in favor of Griffin, Riggs may still find protection in a federal appeals court ruling allowing her to pursue her case related to federal election and voting rights laws. Riggs stated her commitment to uphold both state and federal constitutions and to advocate for the freedoms of North Carolinians, regardless of how long this process may take.
Griffin, who has stepped back from participating in deliberations on the Court of Appeals regarding this matter, has refrained from making comments about the ongoing legal issues, citing the judicial conduct code.
