North Carolina Court Decision Opens Door for Ballot Disqualification in Supreme Court Race
In a move that has sent shockwaves through the political landscape, North Carolina’s top court has paved the way for the potential dismissal of some ballots in a tightly contested state Supreme Court election. This decision gives Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin a glimmer of hope to overturn what seemed to be a narrow defeat.
However, this extraordinary ruling from a Republican-majority court has drawn ire not only from Democrats but also from some within the GOP, including a sitting justice who voiced his dissent. The implications of this ruling may lead to further legal battles in federal courts.
Griffin, a state appellate judge, has been contesting his apparent loss to incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs, finishing behind by fewer than 1,000 votes in the November election. Following the defeat, Griffin asserted that approximately 65,000 votes were improperly cast and should be discarded.
His argument hinges on three specific categories of votes he believes are invalid: those from voters with incomplete registration details, military and overseas voters who failed to meet the state’s ID requirements, and ballots from overseas voters who have never resided in North Carolina or declared an intent to do so, often family members of expatriates or military personnel.
The prospect of invalidating such a significant number of ballots post-election is nearly unprecedented, provoking condemnation from voting rights advocates, Democrats, and even some Republicans who argue that it undermines the due process rights of voters and alters the rules after the election has already taken place.
The court currently holds a 5-2 Republican majority, with Justice Riggs recusing herself from this contentious case.
Last week, a state appellate court indicated that all three categories of votes were susceptible to disqualification. While the majority opinion subsequently narrowed this assessment, Griffin could still potentially discard enough votes to alter the election outcome.
On Friday, the high court ruled that most ballots from approximately 60,000 voters with incomplete registration data should be counted, attributing the blame for any issues to the state board of elections. However, the ruling places military and overseas voters at risk. These voters must verify their identity within 30 days—referred to as a “cure process”—or risk having their votes invalidated. Additionally, the court affirmed that ballots from “never residents,” amounting to a couple of hundred votes, should be disqualified.
This majority decision has sparked fierce dissent from two justices on the court—Democrat Anita Earls and Republican Richard Dietz. Justice Dietz expressed his disappointment, stating, “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. I was wrong. By every measure, this is the most impactful election-related court decision our state has seen in decades.”
The exact number of voters now required to navigate this cure process remains unclear. Initially, Griffin targeted specific Democratic-leaning areas, but the court’s latest ruling does not clarify its effect on statewide results.
Justice Earls criticized the majority’s logic, stating, “As a result of the action taken by this Court in this matter, the vote of an overseas or military voter who is registered in Wake County and who voted pursuant to the laws applicable at the time is counted. However, the vote of an overseas or military voter who is registered in Guilford County is presumed to be fraudulent. Explaining how that is fair, just, or consistent with fundamental legal principles is impossible, so the majority does not try.”
In response to this ruling, the state Democratic Party has vowed to challenge the decision in federal court, warning that it sets a perilous precedent that could erode trust in elections, both within the state and nationally. “Everyone needs to understand how deeply dangerous this is,” the party stated in a release. “Elections must mean something—but if this precedent holds, any candidate who doesn’t like losing will litigate American democracy into the ground.”
