RALEIGH, N.C. — On Friday, a federal appeals court announced that it would convene further discussions regarding a tightly contested election for a North Carolina Supreme Court position, wherein the candidate who is currently trailing has claimed that a significant number of ballots cast should not have been included in the final count.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, has set a date for oral arguments on January 27 after examining multiple legal submissions throughout the week. This development indicates that both the federal appeals court and the state Supreme Court are likely to concurrently tackle vital issues pertaining to the contest between Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs and her Republican opponent, Jefferson Griffin.
According to the election returns, Riggs is leading Griffin by a slim margin of 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million votes cast. However, Griffin’s legal team, who hold positions as state Court of Appeals judges, contend in their official election grievances that over 60,000 ballots are from voters deemed ineligible.
The vast majority of these contested ballots come from voters whose registration files do not have a valid driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. State legislation has mandated that such identifying numbers be included in voter registration applications since 2004.
Previously, the State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin’s challenges last month and was prepared to confirm Riggs as the winner on Friday. Griffin approached the state Supreme Court seeking intervention, but the board transferred the case to federal court, citing its involvement with various federal voting laws. Griffin argued that the case should remain in front of the state Supreme Court, which is composed of a Republican majority.
In a ruling on Monday, U.S. District Judge Richard Myers determined that state courts were the appropriate forum for Griffin’s claims and subsequently returned the appeals to the state Supreme Court. The following day, the justices of the Supreme Court voted 4-2 to block the certification of the election results, with Riggs opting to recuse herself from the discussion. The justices requested briefs to be submitted by January 24.
Simultaneously, the state elections board appealed to the 4th Circuit, questioning whether Myers should have retained jurisdiction over Griffin’s case and ultimately dismissing his request for a preliminary injunction. Riggs’ legal representatives urged the 4th Circuit to expedite the proceedings, as Riggs aims for a resolution before the Supreme Court begins hearing its cases on February 11. In response, the 4th Circuit granted the expedited timeline for legal briefs and oral arguments without assigning specific judges.
The potential outcome of concurrent rulings from both the federal and state appeals courts remains uncertain. Griffin’s complaints primarily address state statutes and constitutional matters, while attorneys for Riggs and the elections board argue that federal regulations and the U.S. Constitution significantly influence the case.
Additionally, Griffin is contesting ballots cast by overseas voters who have never resided in the United States but have parents recognized as North Carolina residents, as well as military or overseas voters who failed to submit the required photo identification with their ballots.
Earlier that day, a state trial court dismissed a petition from Republican Party affiliates and two voters seeking the removal of ballots from voters whose registration records were incomplete, determining that these ballots should not count towards the final tallies for the state elections held in November.
According to the state elections board, there are various reasons why a voter’s record might lack the necessary identification number, and representatives in court indicated that evidence surfaced suggesting that these particular voters were indeed not authorized to vote.
The Democratic National Committee, which has allied with the elections board in opposing the GOP’s request, stated in its legal brief that such appeals reflect an ongoing effort by the Republican Party in recent months to “engage in mass voter suppression.”
