Federal Judge Upholds Controversial Ballot Count in North Carolina Supreme Court Race
RALEIGH, North Carolina — In a ruling that has the potential to tilt the political landscape, a federal judge decreed late Monday that disputed ballots in the contentious 2024 race for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat must be included in the final count. This decision, if confirmed, would mark an electoral victory for incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs.
U.S. District Judge Richard Myers sided with Riggs and others who contended that adhering to recent state appeals court decisions—mandating the removal of thousands of ballots deemed ineligible—would violate the U.S. Constitution. Myers emphasized that ballots cannot be discarded six months post-Election Day without infringing upon the due process and equal protection rights of voters.
Moreover, Myers instructed the State Board of Elections to certify results that, following two recounts, showed Riggs leading Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin by a mere 734 votes. However, the judge has postponed his ruling for a week, allowing Griffin the opportunity to appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Myers articulated, “The board must not act upon the orders of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court but should instead certify the election results based on the final tally at the end of the canvassing period.” Notably, Myers was appointed to his position by former President Donald Trump.
With over 5.5 million ballots cast, this race has emerged as the last unresolved contest from November’s general election. Griffin, who serves on the state Court of Appeals, submitted formal protests following the election, aiming to overturn the results by excluding ballots he claims were unlawfully cast.
In contrast, Riggs expressed confidence following the ruling, stating, “Today, we won. I’m proud to continue upholding the Constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina’s Supreme Court Justice.”
Griffin had sought to uphold the decisions made by state courts, which instructed that voters with potentially ineligible ballots be granted 30 days to provide identifying information for their votes to count.
Riggs and various voting rights advocates have criticized Griffin’s actions as an attempt to retroactively alter the 2024 election outcome by excluding ballots from voters who followed the rules established prior to the election. Myers echoed this sentiment, stating that Griffin’s post-election protests were attempts to implement retroactive changes that would unfairly disenfranchise targeted voters, particularly those in six Democratic-leaning counties.
Myers succinctly encapsulated the situation: “You establish the rules before the game. You don’t change them after the game is done.” In his extensive 68-page ruling, he warned that allowing parties to alter the electoral rules post-election could lead to “confusion and turmoil” that risks undermining public confidence in both the federal courts and state agencies.
Democrats and voting rights advocates have raised alarms over Griffin’s actions, labeling them as an assault on democracy that could set a dangerous precedent for the GOP in other states. Conversely, the state Republican Party has defended Griffin’s position, asserting that he seeks to ensure only legally cast votes are counted.
A notable aspect of this controversy revolves around ballots cast by overseas voters who have never resided in the U.S. but are considered North Carolina residents based on their parents’ status. A 2011 state law permitted these individuals to vote, a point that has drawn scrutiny. Additionally, the appeals courts ruled that military or overseas voters who failed to provide photo identification or an exemption form could still have their ballots counted through a “cure” process.
While North Carolina retains the authority to establish future electoral rules, Myers asserted that these cannot be applied retroactively to selectively disenfranchise certain voters.
Griffin’s protests initially targeted over 65,000 ballots, with subsequent rulings narrowing that number to an estimated 1,675 to 7,000 ballots, as per court documents.
As one of only two Democrats on the seven-member state Supreme Court, Riggs’s victory would bolster the party’s efforts to regain a majority in the court in the coming years. Notably, both Griffin and Riggs have refrained from participating in legal discussions regarding their own electoral outcomes.
