North Carolina Supreme Court Race Concludes as Griffin Concedes After Legal Challenges
Judge Jefferson Griffin, the Republican candidate contesting a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court in the November election, has conceded defeat, bringing to an end his legal campaign aimed at invalidating thousands of ballots cast six months after the initial vote count. Griffin’s concession came two days after a federal judge ruled in favor of Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs, ordering the North Carolina election board to refrain from discarding any ballots submitted by voters in the closely contested race.
Griffin acknowledged his disagreement with the district court’s analysis but stated his respect for the court’s ruling, adding that he has respected every judicial body that has considered the case. He affirmed his decision not to appeal the court’s decision.
Riggs expressed her satisfaction that the will of the voters was finally heard, six months and two days after Election Day. She has been campaigning for a full eight-year term on the high court, following her appointment to the court in 2023 by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper to fill a vacancy on the seven-member tribunal, whose justices are elected by the public.
The North Carolina Supreme Court currently has a 5-2 Republican majority. Democrats, focusing on future legal battles concerning redistricting and abortion access, aimed to retain control of Riggs’ seat to potentially regain a majority in future elections.
Initial election results on November 5 showed Griffin leading Riggs by nearly 10,000 votes in the immediate hours after polls closed. However, as more ballots were counted, his lead narrowed, and after recounts, Riggs took the lead by 734 votes.
Subsequently, Griffin sought legal recourse to have over 60,000 ballots set aside, arguing that they were cast by voters whose registrations were accepted despite their failure to provide drivers license numbers or Social Security numbers as mandated by state law.
The state’s high court last month declined to invalidate those ballots. However, the court ruled that some military and overseas voters whose ballots Griffin challenged for not providing photo identification would need to verify their eligibility within a 30-day period.
This ruling opened the possibility of potentially thousands of votes still being discarded, prompting Riggs to seek intervention from a federal judge to prevent what she described as an unprecedented legal effort to overturn an election.
Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Myers, an appointee of Republican President Donald Trump in Raleigh, sided with Riggs on Monday, asserting that Griffin could not, under the U.S. Constitution, change the rules of the game after it had been played.
The legal battle underscored the intense partisan divisions surrounding election laws and the significance of judicial appointments in shaping legal outcomes. The case also highlighted the challenges of balancing voter access with election integrity concerns.
The outcome of the election and the subsequent legal challenges have significant implications for the future of the North Carolina Supreme Court and its role in interpreting state laws on issues such as redistricting, abortion, and voting rights.
The Democratic Party’s focus on retaining control of Riggs’ seat reflects the importance of the court in shaping the legal landscape of the state. With a 5-2 Republican majority, the court is currently poised to uphold conservative legal principles. However, a Democratic majority could potentially shift the court’s jurisprudence in a more liberal direction.
The legal challenges brought by Griffin were based on the argument that some voters had not complied with state laws requiring the provision of drivers license numbers or Social Security numbers for voter registration. These requirements were intended to ensure the accuracy and integrity of voter rolls and prevent voter fraud.
However, opponents of these requirements argued that they disproportionately burden certain groups of voters, such as low-income individuals and minorities, who may be less likely to possess the required documentation. They also argued that the risk of voter fraud is minimal and that these requirements are unnecessary and create barriers to voting.
The legal challenges also raised questions about the timing of the challenges and whether they were designed to suppress votes. Opponents of Griffin’s efforts argued that he was attempting to change the rules of the game after the election had already been held and that his goal was to disenfranchise voters who had legitimately cast their ballots.
The federal judge’s decision to reject Griffin’s legal challenges was based on the principle that election rules should not be changed after the election has already taken place. This principle is intended to ensure fairness and prevent partisan manipulation of election results.
The outcome of this election highlights the importance of voter participation and the role of the courts in resolving election disputes. It also underscores the need for clear and consistent election laws that balance voter access with election integrity. The legal battle and its resolution underscore the ongoing debates surrounding voting rights and election administration in the United States. The case serves as a reminder of the significance of judicial appointments and the potential impact of court decisions on shaping election outcomes and legal precedent.
