The North Carolina Supreme Court made a ruling on Wednesday, putting aside a request from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who has been trailing in a tight race for a seat on the court. Griffin sought immediate intervention to determine whether more than 60,000 ballots should be excluded from the final count. Instead, the justices mandated that his appeals regarding the State Board of Elections’ decision to continue counting these ballots must first be heard in the local trial court, as prescribed by state law.
This decision could potentially delay the resolution of the election, which will ultimately determine whether Griffin, a judge serving on the intermediate-level Court of Appeals, or his opponent, Democrat Associate Justice Allison Riggs, will secure an eight-year term on the bench. Following recent recounts and the election board’s rejection of his protests, Riggs currently maintains a lead over Griffin, winning by a margin of 734 votes from a total of over 5.5 million ballots cast.
In a unanimous decision from the six justices present—Riggs recused herself—Griffin’s petition for a “writ of prohibition” was dismissed. The court noted that issuing such a writ is an extraordinary action. With Election Day occurring two and a half months ago, the court has instructed Wake County to move quickly in addressing Griffin’s appeals. It is possible that these matters may return to the Supreme Court for additional consideration.
The timing of the dismissal raised some eyebrows, as the justices had not yet completed their review of briefs submitted by both candidates and the State Board of Elections. The deadline for the submission of these briefs was set for Friday. Although the Republican-majority Supreme Court previously issued a temporary stay on January 7 that blocks the formal certification of Riggs as the winner, the scheduled oral arguments for the following Monday at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will continue as planned.
In the federal case, judges are examining whether the concerns regarding the challenged 66,000 ballots should be dealt with in a federal court. Riggs and the board’s lawyers argue this issue pertains to federal voting rights and election regulations, while Griffin’s team insists it is a state matter. Griffin’s lawyers maintain that absentee and early votes in question did not adhere to state laws on registration, residency, or photo identification, which they claim the State Board of Elections failed to enforce. Even the removal of a small fraction of these votes could potentially change the election outcome.
On the other hand, Riggs asserts that the contested votes are indeed valid, arguing that Griffin is attempting to overturn the results post-election by challenging ballots submitted by genuine, long-standing voters, which violates their rights. The order issued on Wednesday included written opinions from five of the six justices involved in the case.
Chief Justice Paul Newby, aligned with the Republican majority on the court, supported Griffin’s right to file protests as per state law and pointed out the lengthy disputes that can follow elections in North Carolina. He acknowledged the confusion among voters regarding the election’s shifting dynamics, noting that Griffin is entitled to question the electoral outcome under statutory provisions.
Conversely, Associate Justice Anita Earls, who is the sole Democrat participating in the discussions, expressed that the temporary stay against certifying Riggs’ victory should have been rejected. Earls pointed out that Griffin has failed to identify any instance of fraudulent voting, despite his challenge to over 60,000 ballots. She conveyed concern that the court’s order might indicate a predetermined outcome favoring the overturning of the election results, while ultimately expressing confidence that the judicial process will be handled fairly.
