RALEIGH, N.C. — On Tuesday, North Carolina’s top court decided to pause the certification of the results for a November election involving one of its own justices. This halt allows for a review of arguments made by a candidate who finished behind in the race, specifically contesting the validity of over 60,000 ballots cast in the election.
The state Supreme Court, which is predominantly Republican, issued this temporary stay, presenting a challenge for Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs. The current election results indicate that Riggs holds a narrow lead over her Republican opponent, Jefferson Griffin, with just a 734-vote margin out of more than 5.5 million votes cast.
The winner will secure an eight-year term on the Supreme Court, where currently five of the seven justices are registered Republicans. Last month, the State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin’s written objections regarding the ballots. This dismissal started a timeline that could have allowed the board to certify Riggs’ victory by this Friday, potentially finalizing ongoing litigation unless a court intervened.
The recent court ruling puts an end to the certification process and requires Griffin and the State Board of Elections to submit legal briefs to the justices within two weeks. Griffin, who serves as a judge on the intermediate-level state Court of Appeals, initially approached the state Supreme Court for intervention three weeks ago. However, the elections board promptly shifted the case to federal court, asserting that the appeals related to federal voting and voting rights laws.
Griffin challenged this move, a view echoed by U.S. District Judge Richard Myers. On Monday, Myers returned the case to the state Supreme Court, noting that Griffin’s claims raised “unsettled questions of state law” and were loosely associated with federal law.
Following this, Griffin’s legal team sought a temporary stay from the state Supreme Court, which was granted shortly after. The ruling emphasized the need for expediency in the matter due to its direct implications on election certification.
The order noted that Riggs had recused herself from these proceedings, while Associate Justice Anita Earls, the other Democratic member, expressed opposition to the stay, arguing that the public interest necessitates maintaining standard democratic procedures as dictated by state statutes and the constitution.
Quickly after, both Riggs and the State Board of Elections filed notices of appeal regarding Myers’ decision with the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the State Board requested that the appeals court instruct Myers to reclaim the litigation from the state Supreme Court and to prevent its return while the case is under appeal.
Without intervention from federal appellate judges, it would ultimately fall upon the state Supreme Court to decide the victor for its own seat, raising concerns about the impact of the Republican majority potentially altering the election outcome.
Griffin’s legal documents suggest he expects to win if the ballots he claims are improperly counted are excluded, despite the fact that the election results have already undergone two recounts. The state GOP insists that both Griffin and the party are focused on ensuring that each legally cast vote is properly counted.
Supporters of Riggs have accused Griffin and the state GOP of attempting to overturn the legitimate election results. Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton stated that Riggs “deserves her certificate of election,” attributing the current situation to Griffin’s unwillingness to accept the voters’ decision.
The majority of the ballots being challenged by Griffin reportedly come from individuals whose registration lacked either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number—a requirement that has been in place since 2004. Additionally, Griffin is contesting ballots from overseas voters, some of whom have never lived in the U.S. but whose parents are recognized as North Carolina residents, as well as military voters who submitted ballots without the necessary photo identification.
Attorneys representing Riggs and the State Board argue that excluding these votes would infringe upon both federal and state laws, alongside the U.S. Constitution, claiming that Griffin hasn’t provided proof that even a single challenged voter falls outside these broad categories of eligibility.
This state Board of Elections, which dismissed Griffin’s challenges, consists of three Democrats and two Republicans. In recent years, the Supreme Court in North Carolina, the ninth largest state in the U.S., has become a significant battleground for partisan issues relating to redistricting, voter ID laws, and voting rights disputes.
