Appellate judges seek resolution in legal disputes surrounding upcoming North Carolina judicial elections.

RALEIGH, N.C. — On Monday, a panel of federal appellate judges engaged in a detailed discussion with attorneys concerning a disputed Supreme Court seat election in North Carolina, particularly focusing on the jurisdiction issues relating to about 66,000 contested ballots.

The arguments took place before three judges from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Richmond, Virginia. They heard from representatives of Democratic Justice Allison Riggs, who is presently leading against Republican contender Jefferson Griffin, as well as counsel from the State Board of Elections. The board had ruled last month against Griffin’s request to disqualify these votes from the election counts.

Riggs has a narrow lead of 734 votes over Griffin in a race that saw over 5.5 million ballots cast. Griffin’s legal team contends that if the ballots in question, which they assert were cast by ineligible voters, are discarded, he stands a good chance of winning. Conversely, supporters of Riggs are urging Griffin to concede. The term for the Supreme Court seat is slated to commence in January, with Riggs remaining on the bench for now. If Griffin prevails, it would strengthen the existing 5-2 conservative majority on the court.

The judges did not specify when they would issue a ruling following the 90-minute arguments centered on whether Griffin’s pleas should be addressed in a federal court or remain within the state judicial system.

Currently, Griffin’s legal challenges exist in both the federal and state court systems, a rare occurrence following extensive legal maneuvers regarding the election in the nation’s ninth-largest state. The exchanges during the session highlighted complicated issues regarding the transfer of state legal matters to federal jurisdiction.

The ballots contested by Griffin include those from individuals who did not provide a valid driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number, as mandated by North Carolina law since 2004. Additionally, some ballots were cast by military personnel or voters residing overseas who failed to submit required photo identification. There were also a few ballots from overseas voters who had never lived in the U.S. yet had parents recognized as North Carolina residents. Riggs and the State Board of Elections argue that these ballots were legally cast, while Griffin’s supporters claim his actions are aimed at preserving election integrity.

Initially, Griffin’s lawyers sought intervention from the state Supreme Court to exclude the contentious ballots. However, the elections board swiftly moved the case to federal court, asserting that Griffin’s appeals address federal voting regulations and rights issues.

During the arguments, Nicholas Brod, a deputy solicitor general representing the elections board, emphasized that Griffin’s considerable request to retroactively modify established election laws and disenfranchise over 60,000 voters merits a federal court’s attention in alignment with civil rights legislation.

The appellate judges were quick to raise questions regarding the case, particularly revisiting developments that had occurred in the preceding three weeks. U.S. District Judge Richard Myers returned the case to the state courts, noting it involved “unsettled questions of state law.” The state elections board promptly appealed Myers’ ruling to the 4th Circuit.

Furthermore, shortly after Myers’ decision to send the case back to state courts, several justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court halted the board from officially confirming the results of the election pending their deliberation on Griffin’s request to invalidate the ballots. Riggs recused herself from participating in this matter. However, last week, the remaining justices dismissed Griffin’s initial petition for a “writ of prohibition” and concluded that the local trial courts should first examine his challenges.

Questions arose from U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer regarding the next legal steps. Niemeyer asked Brod how to navigate the situation given the direct involvement of the state Supreme Court. Brod responded that the case could essentially be revisited by Myers. However, Griffin’s attorney raised the point that the dismissal from the state Supreme Court rendered the case moot.

Thompson argued that the state Supreme Court’s ruling on procedural grounds means the writ of prohibition should be considered dead. Judge Heytens countered that the matter still holds validity, contingent on the state Supreme Court’s decision to maintain a stay that prevents the election results from being certified. Circuit Judge Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. also participated in hearing the case.