In a pivotal turn of events, a North Carolina appeals court sided with Republican Jefferson Griffin in a dispute over the state Supreme Court race held on April 5, 2024, potentially upending the count in which Democrat Allison Riggs is currently ahead.
The court's decision calls into question over 65,000 ballots in what is the only unresolved judicial election in the U.S. this year, with Republican Griffin trailing Riggs by just 734 votes, as the Associated Press reports.
On Friday, a panel from the North Carolina Court of Appeals voted 2-1, favoring Griffin in the contentious race. The panel's ruling has brought widespread attention due to its implications for the voting process and the state's election integrity.
The decision challenges the inclusion of a substantial number of ballots that were cast and counted, with Griffin arguing they were not properly vetted.
The appellate court's majority opinion was penned by Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore, both registered as Republicans. They argued that the North Carolina State Board of Elections erred when it dismissed election protests from Griffin back in December 2023. These protests focused on over 65,000 ballots, classified into three categories, that Griffin challenged for differing reasons.
The Court of Appeals ruling reversed a prior decision issued by a trial court in February, which had supported the Board's handling of the election procedures. As a member of the Court of Appeals, Griffin had recused himself from participating in this particular case, maintaining the integrity of the deliberations.
Further complicating the situation, the ruling requires the State Board to direct county officials to contact voters whose ballots fall into two of the challenged categories. This order provides a 15-business-day window for voters to provide missing documentation, which includes including a driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number for registration purposes.
The controversy extends to ballots from overseas and military voters who did not submit the required photo ID or exception forms mandated by state law. Voters have the opportunity to "cure" these deficiencies by presenting the necessary identification within the stipulated time frame. Meanwhile, ballots from overseas voters who have never resided in the United States remain ineligible due to residency criteria.
Reacting to the decision, Griffin's campaign expressed satisfaction with the court's decision and signaled support for an opportunity to rectify any rank errors. They believe this approach ensures that only legally eligible votes are included in the election count. On the other hand, Riggs condemned the decision as misinformed and dangerously dismissive of the legitimate vote of over 65,000 residents. Her statement hinted at potential disenfranchisement and what she described as a precedence that undermines democratic will.
As the contest over eligibility and ballot inclusion intensifies, Riggs, along with representatives for the State Board, has announced plans to appeal the decision. This appeal is scheduled to progress to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Notably, five of the remaining six justices on the state's highest court are Republicans, and Riggs, currently serving as an associate justice, plans to recuse herself from these deliberations.
It remains unclear how many voters will participate in correcting their ballot deficiencies. Some affected ballots originate from counties that predominantly support Democratic candidates, which could potentially impact the election's final outcome should significant changes occur.
Election lawyers for both Riggs and the state board have not ruled out the possibility of taking the matter to federal court should the state-level appeal fail to yield a satisfactory resolution. This could prolong the uncertainty that has already extended well beyond the originally scheduled start of the new term, which was slated to begin in January 2024.
As the dispute over this key judicial seat continues to unfold, both campaigns await the next critical ruling that will decide the composition of the state’s highest court for the near future.
