An appeals court judge has sharply criticized his colleagues for disallowing tens of thousands of votes in a crucial North Carolina election.
Why It Matters
The case could have a crucial role in deciding the makeup of the North Carolina Supreme Court and could cause major partisan division in the state.
Newsweek sought email comment from the campaigns of Allison Riggs and Jefferson Griffin on Monday.
Allison Riggs speaks to the press in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on December 7, 2022.
Olivier Douliery/Getty Images
What To Know
Democratic justice Allison Riggs held a 734-vote lead over Republican Jefferson Griffin in the race for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, in which over 5.5 million ballots were cast in November 2024, during the same round of voting as the presidential elections.
Griffin launched a legal challenge and on April 4, a three-judge panel of the North Carolina court of appeals ruled 2-1 that the state’s elections board erred in dismissing Griffin’s protests about invalid election ballots.
The case is particularly controversial as Griffin sits on the Court of Appeals and recused himself from the case, allowing a Republican 2-1 majority to vote in his favor.
In doing so, it continued the long-running case, the last disputed result in the November elections. Riggs continues to sit on the North Carolina Supreme Court while the legal challenges continue.
At the heart of the dispute are voters who did not supply a valid state ID or the last four digits of their Social Security number when registering to vote. Other absentee or military voters did not supply a copy of their ID exception forms with their ballots.
However, the appeals court has not struck out these ballots completely and has given the voters concerned 15 business days to provide the necessary ID. Over 65,000 voters must provide the necessary ID. If just 800 fail to do so, the election will likely be won by Griffin.
In a hard-hitting dissenting opinion, Toby Hampson, the one Democrat on the three-judge panel, criticized Griffin’s “indiscriminate efforts to call into doubt the votes of tens of thousands of otherwise eligible voters, without any showing any challenged voter was disqualified under existing law.”
Hampson wrote that this was “to elevate speculation and surmise over evidence and reason.”
He also had some harsh words for the court’s two-judge Republican majority.
“At best, the majority’s decision and completely unworkable remedy will lead to even more litigation—both state and federal. Tying this matter up in interminable litigation with no end in sight only results in delay, confusion, and sowing further doubt that every valid vote will be counted,” he wrote.
What People Are Saying
Judge Jefferson Griffin’s campaign committee welcomed the Appeals Court’s decision. “We stand by the process of allowing the State Board a second chance to do its job and ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots in our elections,” they wrote in a statement.
Judge Allison Riggs said in a statement that the Court of Appeals ruling was a “deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people.”
What Happens Next
Riggs said she will appeal. “Today’s decision was deeply misinformed and I will promptly appeal it. But I want folks to know, I think this fight ends in federal court. I’ve been telling people that all along,” she told the political website Democracy Docket on April 4.
