The North Carolina Supreme Court has decided to dismiss a request from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who is trailing in a closely contested race for a Supreme Court seat, to disqualify over 60,000 ballots from the election tally. Instead, the justices mandated that his appeals against the State Board of Elections’ decision to continue counting these ballots be first considered in the local trial court, as stipulated by state law. This ruling may delay the finalization of whether Griffin or incumbent Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat, will secure an eight-year term on the court.
Riggs currently leads Griffin, a judge on the Court of Appeals, by a margin of 734 votes, following ballot recounts and the dismissal of Griffin’s election protests. The court’s unanimous decision to reject Griffin’s petition, which sought a “writ of prohibition,” indicates that such actions are considered significant and not taken lightly. Notably, while Riggs is still a sitting justice, she recused herself from the deliberation of this case. The court emphasized the need for the Wake County court to consider Griffin’s appeals swiftly, especially since the election took place more than 2.5 months ago.
The timing of the court’s dismissal caught some by surprise, especially since it occurred while justices were still receiving legal briefs relevant to the decision. A temporary stay issued by the Republican-majority Supreme Court on January 7 continues to hinder the official certification of Riggs as the election winner. Despite this, oral arguments are scheduled for the upcoming Monday at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where attorneys for both candidates, the state board, and other interested parties will present their cases. The federal judges are evaluating whether the issues surrounding the challenged 66,000 ballots are under the jurisdiction of federal law, as argued by Riggs’ legal team, or if they should remain in state court, as Griffin’s side contends.
Lawyers for Griffin argue that the absentee and early voting ballots in question did not adhere to North Carolina’s registration, residency, and photo ID laws, claiming the State Board of Elections neglected its enforcement responsibilities. They contend that excluding even a fraction of these ballots could potentially change the election’s outcome. Conversely, Riggs maintains these votes were valid and accuses Griffin of attempting to undermine the electoral process and disenfranchise law-abiding voters.
Accompanying Wednesday’s decision were written opinions from five of the six justices involved, highlighting differing perspectives on the case. Chief Justice Paul Newby, one of the court’s five Republican members, recognized Griffin’s right to challenge the election results according to state law. He criticized assertions that Griffin aimed to disfranchise voters or intentionally delay the certification process, noting that some previous electoral disputes in North Carolina have extended well beyond a quick resolution.
Griffin had initially held a lead of 10,000 votes on election night, but as the counting of provisional and absentee ballots progressed, Riggs eventually took the lead. Newby acknowledged the confusion this situation has caused among North Carolina voters and reinforced Griffin’s legal right to seek clarity through established procedures.
On the other hand, Associate Justice Anita Earls, the sole Democrat on the bench, contended that the temporary stay preventing Riggs’ victory certification should have also been overturned. She criticized Griffin for failing to provide evidence of any voter fraud among the 60,000 ballots in question. Riggs perceived the court’s actions as indicative of a bias toward overturning the election results but expressed confidence that the judiciary would evaluate the challenges fairly.
