RALEIGH, N.C. — Copland Rudolph participated in the recent November election, a routine she has followed for years, providing her vote as part of a multitude of North Carolina contests that were resolved quickly. However, nearly three months later, uncertainty looms over whether her vote will count in one of the more notable races for a seat on the state Supreme Court.
Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin continues to contest the results, despite two previous recounts that confirmed Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs as the victor by a slim margin. Riggs still occupies her position on the court while the ongoing legal disputes unfold. The litigation, being addressed in both state and federal courts, centers on Griffin’s attempt to invalidate approximately 66,000 ballots. Should Griffin’s legal efforts succeed, his attorneys assert he would likely be awarded the seat, strengthening the current 5-2 conservative majority on the high court.
Among those challenged, Rudolph expresses her frustration, asserting that her vote matters and urging Griffin to concede the election. “It’s infuriating,” said Rudolph, a 57-year-old leader of an education foundation in Asheville. “These votes have been counted. They’ve been recounted. The math is not in doubt.”
Critics, including Democrats, voting rights advocates, and various good government organizations, characterize Griffin’s actions as a threat to democracy, suggesting that they undermine the integrity of the electoral process. The results of the challenged ballots have been pivotal in determining outcomes for all other significant races in North Carolina from the previous fall.
As reported, 4,436 winners in the November election have been established, with four candidates advancing to runoff elections. The North Carolina Supreme Court race stands out as one of only four undecided races across the country. Detractors of Griffin claim that his refusal to accept the defeat reflects a blatant attempt to overturn the voters’ intentions for partisan gain. Legal victories for Griffin could also set a concerning precedent for future election challenges in other states.
Former North Carolina Democratic Governor Roy Cooper remarked, “The eyes of the entire country are on this race because the implications of having free and fair elections that are being questioned and potentially overturned are devastating.” The ongoing legal struggles coincide with another controversial maneuver by state Republicans, who recently abused their legislative supermajority to override Cooper’s veto, stripping powers from new Governor Josh Stein and other statewide Democratic officials.
The legal arguments regarding the contentious Supreme Court seat are proceeding in both state and federal courts. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments on whether the case should be handled at the federal or state level. Recently, the state Supreme Court declined Griffin’s request for a swift resolution concerning the consideration of the challenged ballots, stipulating that his appeals about State Board of Elections decisions must pass through a trial court first.
Currently, Riggs holds a narrow lead over Griffin by just 734 votes in a race with over 5.5 million total ballots cast. Her supporters argue that Griffin’s attempts to reverse the election results by challenging ballots is a violation of voters’ rights and emphasize that he ought to have conceded the contest long ago. Riggs expressed disappointment regarding the prolonged legal struggle, vowing to champion the voices of the more than 65,000 voters whose ballots Griffin is attempting to invalidate.
While Griffin has refrained from commenting on the litigation—citing concerns regarding the state’s judicial conduct code—his initial lead of about 10,000 votes on election night shifted as provisional and absentee ballots were added to the final tally. The GOP had indicated a willingness to pursue post-election challenges in closely contested North Carolina races when they initiated several pre-election lawsuits, a tactic they employed in other states in the previous year.
The majority of the ballots Griffin argues against involve approximately 60,000 voters whose registration records lack a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number, with some of these voters including even Riggs’ family. Griffin’s legal team claims these registrations are inadequate, but Riggs’ advocates assert that valid explanations exist for the missing data, emphasizing that any fault lies not with the voters.
Griffin has yet to present evidence that contradicts the eligibility of those registered voters, according to legal documents from Riggs and the state board, which also state that removing their ballots would conflict with federal law. Recently, Griffin’s legal focus has shifted to about 5,500 ballots from overseas voters who failed to provide photo identification copies—as required for other voters. Riggs’ legal team points out that many of these ballots were cast by military personnel, who are exempt from this ID requirement under state and federal law.
The State Board of Elections, which has a Democratic majority, dismissed Griffin’s previous protests largely along partisan lines. However, the state Supreme Court recently prevented the certification of a Riggs victory, at least temporarily. Although all other races in North Carolina have been certified and are unlikely to be impacted by Griffin’s challenges, the ballots he contests include absentee and early in-person votes.
As the legal proceedings continue, Democrats and advocates for voting rights are rallying to uphold Riggs’ victory in a pivotal swing state. Despite Republican Donald Trump’s win in the presidential election, Democrats have succeeded in several high-profile statewide offices. Activists have launched campaigns, including billboards and demonstrations, to support Riggs. On a recent occasion, a group known as the “Can’t Win Victory Fund” stood outside the state Supreme Court, reading the names of voters whose ballots Griffin is attempting to disqualify.
Dawn Baldwin Gibson, an African American pastor and school administrator from Pamlico County, voiced her concerns about the challenge to her ballot. As a registered voter with no party affiliation, Gibson reflects on her grandfather’s belief that voting is a core aspect of American identity. Confused and unsettled, she expresses her frustration, stating, “It just doesn’t make any sense.”
