There has been a lot of water under the bridge since last fall’s election catapulted Republicans to victory in the races for many state, local, and federal offices.
But one contest from November that’s still up in the air concerns a seat on North Carolina’s state Supreme Court that has, so far, remained in the hands of a Democratic incumbent.
Since November’s general election, justice Allison Riggs has maintained a razor-thin edge over Republican Jefferson Griffin, who currently serves on the state court of appeals. Riggs, who originally joined the state’s Supreme Court thanks to a gubernatorial appointment in 2023, has managed this hair’s-breadth advantage despite two recounts, thousands of individual voter challenges, and an ongoing court battle that Griffin has pursued in his quest to join the state’s highest court.
Yet, in the end, the final results of this race may hinge on the selections of the a few thousand overseas voters – including at least one individual whose ballot is presently part of the vote count in Alamance County.
At the moment, North Carolina’s state board of elections credits Riggs with a lead of 734 votes out of the more than 5.5 million ballots cast in this race. Riggs ultimately nailed down this slim margin after two statewide recounts that her opponent requested when he wound up narrowly behind in the tally after November’s general election.
The outcome of these two recounts hasn’t deterred Griffin from continuing to poke holes in Riggs’ apparent success at the polls. The challenger has, instead, pivoted his post-election strategy to the state’s court system, which he has asked to toss out about 65,000 votes that are currently part of the official tally.
Griffin has, so far, been relatively mum on his efforts to litigate the election’s results. According to one Raleigh news outlet, the candidate’s campaign manager has declared that any such comments from the sitting appeals court judge would amount to a violation of the judicial code of conduct.
Riggs, meanwhile, hasn’t been at all hesitant to speak her mind about the legal gambits of her opponent. In fact, a formal statement on her candidate homepage aims a stinging rebuke at Griffin’s apparent unwillingness to accept the will of the voters.
“My opponent has filed a lawsuit seeking to throw out more than 65,000 lawfully cast ballots, including the votes of both of my parents as well as deployed military serving our country,” the statement contends. “As a proud daughter of a 30-year military veteran, I won’t stop fighting to ensure that every eligible voter – including active duty military and veterans – can make their voices heard.”
In any event, the final word on this race will most likely emerge from the ongoing courtroom brawl between the two candidates.
Last month, a three-judge panel with the N.C. Court of Appeals gave Griffin’s efforts a shot in the arm when it tentatively agreed to disqualify thousands of contested ballots. Some of these ballots had come from overseas voters while others were cast within North Carolina by individuals who’ve been on the state’s voter rolls for decades but have never submitted certain identifying details that are presently required to register.
The appeals court went on to give most of these affected voters three weeks to update their records in order to salvage their choices from last fall’s election. Then, on April 11, the Republican-led state supreme court threw a wrench in this ruling when it decided to uphold the ballots that had been cast stateside by voters with incomplete registrations.
A majority of the six justices who weighed in on this case found that it was state board of elections, rather than the voters themselves, who were to blame for these incomplete records – having had the better part of two decades to obtain the driver’s license or social security numbers it lacked for these individuals.
“Accordingly,” the majority declared, “we cannot agree with the court of appeals that the [state election] board erred by counting their ballots.”
The state’s highest court was willing, however, to back up the appeals panel on two categories of overseas ballots.
For starters, the N.C. supreme court agreed to disqualify ballots from hundreds of overseas voters who’ve never lived in the U.S. but had inherited American citizenship from their parents.
The court also upheld the removal of thousands of other overseas ballots – including many from active duty service members – which lacked copies of state-mandated photo I.D.s or the relevant exemption forms needed to overcome the state mandate. Even so, the state supreme court nevertheless extended the lower court’s deadline for “curing” these incomplete ballots, and provided those affected with up to 30 days to submit the required I.D.s or exemption forms.
It remains unclear right now just how many voters at the state level would be impacted by the state supreme court’s decision. According to Alamance County’s election director Dawn Hurdle, it took some sleuthing on the part of her staff to determine that there’s only one overseas ballot in her jurisdiction that falls under the ruling’s purview.
“There were actually two on the list,” Hurdle went on to explain in an interview. “But when we looked at previous North Carolina registrations, there was a driver’s license on file for one of those voters. So, they must’ve just checked the wrong box.”
Since this decision came down from the state’s highest court, Riggs has filed a federal court challenge against her competitor’s attempts to scrub the vote count. In the meantime, the state board of elections has pledged to give its county-level subsidiaries the guidance they’ll need to comply with the state supreme court’s instructions.
In a statement on April 14, the state board conceded that North Carolina’s 100 local boards of elections will eventually have to “identify and remove” votes from U.S. citizens who’ve never lived in the U.S. – albeit “in the supreme court contest only.” The board also alluded to the need to resolve the status of overseas voters who failed to submit their photo I.D. or I.D. exemption forms along with their ballots.
“As soon as possible,” the official statement concludes, “the state board of elections will provide detailed instructions to the affected counties and voters on how to comply with the decision.”
At this point, Hurdle concedes that her counterparts at the state level have not yet given her the go-ahead to move forward with any of these actions.
“The decision is not yet in effect,” the local election director acknowledged; “the matter is still being litigated in state and federal court. So, at the moment, we’ve been advised not to reach out to any voters.”
