In Raleigh, North Carolina, the state’s intermediate-level appeals court is gearing up to address an unresolved election matter next week. The debate centers around a lingering dispute over a pivotal November election for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat.
The hearing, set to take place on March 21, will be led by a trio of judges from the Court of Appeals. This follows a decision made public on Friday, which dismissed a request by current Supreme Court Associate Justice Allison Riggs to have the entire Court of Appeals review the matter immediately.
Amidst recounts and election protests, Riggs, a registered Democrat, holds a slim lead over Republican contender Jefferson Griffin by a margin of 734 votes, drawn from over 5.5 million ballots in the race. The pivotal seat has an eight-year term in the nation’s ninth-largest state, and it remains the only undecided contest nationally, despite the Associated Press having declared over 4,400 winners in the 2024 general election.
Jefferson Griffin, who also serves as a Court of Appeals judge, has mounted a challenge against over 65,000 early or absentee ballots. His legal team insists these votes should be excluded. However, the State Board of Elections dismissed his challenges in December, and a trial judge recently upheld those dismissals, prompting Griffin’s decision to appeal.
Riggs’ legal counsel argued in a recent court document that the case deserved initial review by the full Court of Appeals—or “en banc”—to expedite proceedings, noting that any party dissatisfied with the three judges’ decision could still request a rehearing by the entire court.
Griffin’s legal team, however, countered that a preliminary review by a smaller panel was justified in light of more than 30 issues under review, stemming from the trial judge’s straightforward orders supporting the board’s conclusions.
The 15-member Court of Appeals sees Griffin excluding himself from the case’s deliberation. The decision to refuse an immediate en banc review was revealed in a Friday order, with only three judges supporting Riggs’ request. Importantly, the panel consists of judges John Tyson and Fred Gore, both Republicans, alongside Democrat Toby Hampson.
Griffin’s challenge primarily targets ballots from voters whose registration records are missing essential identification numbers, along with votes from overseas citizens without prior U.S. residence and absentee votes with inadequate photo ID documentation.
Regardless of the Appellate Court’s judgment, the proceedings are expected to ascend to the state Supreme Court, where Justice Riggs has already withdrawn from the case. The remaining justices consist of a Republican majority, with five out of six justices being registered with that party. Efforts to have the Supreme Court rule on contested ballots without prior lower court scrutiny have been previously declined.
In the event that Griffin turns the race tide by swing ballots, Riggs has the option to seek federal court intervention on grounds pertaining to federal election and voting rights legislation, as suggested by a previous federal appeals court.
Griffin’s attorneys contend that inclusion of the disputed ballots contravenes state regulations or the North Carolina Constitution, while Riggs’ legal representation, along with the board, maintain that the ballots were appropriately cast and Griffin’s protests did not meet procedural requirements.
Riggs’ supporters have held statewide rallies, urging Griffin to concede the election. These gatherings have featured voters whose votes may be disqualified if Griffin’s arguments hold in court.
Additionally, on Friday, Court of Appeals Judge Tom Murry ruled against Riggs’ motion for his recusal from Griffin’s appeal, citing it irrelevant as he is not on the three-judge panel. This decision comes in light of a campaign donation from a Murry committee to Griffin’s defense fund, which Riggs’ attorneys had cited as a reason for recusal.
