In a significant development influencing the final outcome of North Carolina’s sole unresolved 2024 race, the state’s Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Republican candidate challenging a tight state Supreme Court election. This decision, made by a 2-1 majority with Republican judges leading the ruling, brings into question the validity of potentially tens of thousands of ballots that were included in the final count.
Although the ruling threatens to disqualify these ballots, it allows a three-week period for the voters to supply additional information to validate their choices, potentially averting the removal of their votes. The majority of the disputed ballots are considered to support Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs, who, following two recounts, maintained a marginal 734-vote lead over Republican contender Jefferson Griffin, with over 5.5 million ballots cast in total.
The crux of the appellate judges’ decision was that the State Board of Elections erred in December when it dismissed Griffin’s protests against the election results. As Riggs promptly announced an intention to appeal, the case is anticipated to progress to the state Supreme Court soon. Griffin’s protests centered on discrepancies involving over 65,000 ballots in three distinct categories. Notably, Griffin, who plays a role within the Court of Appeals, had recused himself from participating in the deliberations of this case, though other colleagues ruled in his favor.
Friday’s prevailing opinion from the appellate court asserts that ballots from each contested category violated state laws or the constitution, therefore should not be counted. This opinion overturns the earlier decisions made by a trial judge who upheld the state’s actions back in February. The opinion, supported by Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore, emphasizes the inclusion of the right to a precise vote count under the North Carolina Constitution.
Among the discrepancies claimed were ballots from individuals lacking a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number in their registration records, requirements mandated since 2004 yet alleged by Griffin’s attorneys to have been improperly enforced. Another contested group involved ballots from military or overseas voters not accompanied by necessary photo identification or ID exemption forms, which are generally required under North Carolina’s voter ID laws.
For these scenarios, the judges instructed the state board to order county officials to notify the voters to provide missing information within 15 business days. If voters meet the deadline with valid information, their votes would count as stated in the opinion. However, for overseas voters who never resided in the U.S., their ballots are to be dismissed based on state residency laws, as per Tyson and Gore.
Dissenting from the majority, Court of Appeals Judge Toby Hampson argued Griffin’s protests lacked the identification of ineligible voters by existing November election standards and expressed concern over changing long-standing electoral rules retroactively. Hampson’s view was that Griffin’s approach unjustly raised doubts about votes from previously eligible voters without substantiating disqualification under current laws.
Griffin’s legal team posits that his victory is probable if these contested ballots are excluded. Meanwhile, Riggs and her allies highlight the partisan tilt of the counties where disputed ballots originated. The extent to which voters will engage in the ballot rectification process remains uncertain.
While Griffin’s campaign expressed approval of this Friday’s decision, emphasizing a second opportunity for the State Board to ensure only properly eligible votes are counted, Riggs called the ruling a dangerous precedent that risks invalidating the votes of over 65,000 eligible voters.
The term for the eight-year position on the highest court was initially scheduled to commence in January, however, Riggs continues to serve, though she has recused herself from appeals being prepared for the Supreme Court. With five out of six remaining Supreme Court justices registered as Republicans, Riggs and the board’s attorneys are contemplating escalating the matter to federal courts if needed.