In a significant legal development, North Carolina election officials have been temporarily restrained from reaching out to voters with contested ballots in the outstanding 2024 state Supreme Court race.
The decision, rendered by a three-judge panel from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, favored Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs. The panel granted a stay after Riggs requested that federal judges dismiss state appellate court rulings permitting Republican contender Jefferson Griffin to challenge and potentially discard disputed ballots.
The ruling has prompted concerns among Democrats and voting rights advocates, who view Griffin’s actions as an attempt to undermine democratic processes. They fear this could set a precedent for reversing election outcomes in future disputes nationwide. However, supporters of the state Republican Party assert that ensuring only lawful votes are counted is Griffin’s primary goal.
Currently, election officials are barred from fulfilling state judiciary mandates to contact voters classified under two categories as ineligible. This includes many military and overseas voters, who would typically have 30 days to provide further identification information to validate their votes. For those who cannot rectify their ineligibility, their ballots would be excluded from the count.
In the tightly contested race, Riggs leads Griffin by a mere 734 votes out of over 5.5 million cast, marking the last unresolved election from November’s general elections. The stay maintains the status quo, with Riggs and her supporters seeking to have a federal trial judge declare the removal of any ballots from the final tally as unlawful.
Despite two recounts appearing to confirm Riggs’ victory, Griffin, shortly after the November 5 election, contested over 65,000 ballots. State court rulings subsequently narrowed this number down to potentially between 1,675 and 7,000 ballots. The final figures are still being debated in state courts. Fewer ballots removed enhances Riggs’s potential to maintain her lead.
Lawyers advocating for Riggs and allied groups voiced their concerns to the 4th Circuit, expressing that without the stay, dispatches to affected voters might only foster voter confusion, particularly if federal courts later overturn the current state court verdict.
The recent order from U.S. Circuit Judges Paul Niemeyer and Toby Heytens highlights the justification for the stay while awaiting U.S. District Judge Richard Myers’ resolution on Riggs’ claims. They argue that the U.S. Constitution and federal voting laws prevent the disenfranchisement of these ballots.
“We enjoin the North Carolina State Board of Elections from mailing any notice to any potentially affected voter pending the district court’s resolution of Riggs’ motion for a preliminary injunction,” the order stated.
Judge Marvin Quattlebaum Jr., dissenting, remarked that Myers had not erred by previously directing the state board to withhold certification of any race outcomes as legal arguments are considered.
Dory MacMillan, spokesperson for Riggs’ campaign, welcomed the motion, labeling it as a reprieve from “a confusing and burdensome cure process for ballots that had nothing wrong with them” and expressed confidence that federal law protects these votes from being discarded.
On the contrary, Griffin’s legal team maintained that the request for the stay should not have succeeded, advocating for federal courts to uphold state court decisions regarding the removal of invalid voter ballots.
Paul Shumaker, spokesperson for Griffin’s campaign, anticipated prolonged legal disputes, commenting, “The ruling only further delays an outcome.”
The two categories of ballots deemed inadmissible by state appeals courts include those cast by overseas voters who had never resided in the U.S. despite having parents who were North Carolina residents, as well as military or overseas voters who failed to provide either photo identification or an ID exception form with their absentee ballots. Election officials must inform these voters, allowing them a 30-day window to submit the necessary identification or exception form for their votes to be counted.
Both Riggs and Griffin, despite being affiliated with their respective judicial institutions, have abstained from participating in any deliberations within their courts related to their election contest.