The legal effort to overturn the results of North Carolina’s 2024 state Supreme Court race is an affront to all of the state’s voters, but it potentially also could provide a blueprint for overturning election results in other states.
At issue is a lawsuit by Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, who lost his bid to unseat Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes out of 5,540,090 votes cast. Griffin asked that more than 65,000 votes be tossed because of flaws in the voters’ registration, the lack of photo ID on military and overseas absentee ballots and a lack of state residency by some voters.
The Griffin lawsuit has ping-ponged between state and federal courts for nearly six months and is currently pending in federal court. Ultimately, this case could endure all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the 6-3 Republican majority might uphold Griffin’s attempt to change the rules that govern an election after the election.
“It is pretty fair to say that the idea of disenfranchising voters after they have voted – for administrative errors where the voters were clearly legal voters – is an affront to basic principles of democracy and sets a dangerous precedent,” said Steven Greene, a political science professor at N.C. State University who focuses on U.S. elections. “There seems to be real potential here for opening a Pandora’s Box nationwide where legitimate voters face the risk of being disenfranchised after the election.”
Michael Bitzer, a Catawba College political scientist who closely follows North Carolina elections, agrees that the case could spur election challenges elsewhere.
“We could see this as a test case in other states challenging the administrative aspects of voter registration,” he said. “It could also set national dynamics if this case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, adding to a long line of election law cases out of the state.”
The other prominent federal cases out of North Carolina involving racial and partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression have been brought in response to actions by the Republican-controlled state legislature. In this case, it’s a Republican judge — backed by the state Republican Party — challenging rulings by the State Board of Elections.
It’s an aggressive move and not one that all Republicans endorse. The state Supreme Court has a 5-2 Republican majority but its recent ruling partially upholding Griffin’s complaint included a dissent from Republican Justice Richard Dietz.
“I expected that, when the time came, our state courts surely would embrace the universally accepted principle that courts cannot change election outcomes by retroactively rewriting the law,” Dietz wrote. “I was wrong.”
Richard Hasen, a UCLA law professor and a leading expert on election law, said the Griffin case is especially dangerous after President Donald Trump and other Republicans have sown doubts about the accuracy of election results. Those doubts, he said, make more people willing to accept the removal of legitimately cast votes, a move that would have been almost universally opposed in the past.
“What is different now is so many people believe election conspiracy theories that they would be more likely to support the kind of due process violations that look fundamentally unfair,” Hasen said.
After Trump spent four years falsely claiming that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged,” Griffin’s claim that the Democratic-controlled State Board of Elections is bending the rules against him could gain traction.
“This is the first case that comes in this atmosphere of conspiracy and election denialism,” Hasen said. “You can’t take for granted that federal courts will step in and do the right thing.”
That hazard has already appeared.
In February, a Wake County Superior Court judge dismissed Griffin’s lawsuit. That finding was overturned by a 2-1 ruling by a panel of appeals court judges with the two Republican judges in the majority and the Democratic judge dissenting. The Republican-dominated State Supreme Court gave Griffin a partial victory by tossing the votes he challenged on residency and ordering that overseas and military voters cure their absentee ballots by presenting a photo ID within 30 days.
“Judge Griffin has a losing case, but that’s not the way some judges see it, and it’s highly concerning,” Hasen said.
The law and judicial partisanship are colliding in this case. If partisanship prevails, it could have consequences for democracy beyond North Carolina.
Associate opinion editor Ned Barnett can be reached at 919-404-7583, or nbarnett@newsobserver.com
