A Divided Court’s Decision: The Fate of North Carolina’s Voters Hangs in the Balance
In a contentious ruling that has sent ripples through North Carolina’s electoral landscape, a divided state appeals court ruled on Friday that tens of thousands of voters must verify their identities months after they cast their ballots. This decision raises the alarming possibility that these votes could be discarded, potentially flipping the outcome of a closely contested state Supreme Court election.
Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs initially appeared to have narrowly defeated Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin by a mere 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast during the last fall election. Griffin, however, has raised objections to the election results, contending that approximately 65,000 ballots should be invalidated due to alleged issues with voter registration and identification.
While the state board of elections dismissed Griffin’s challenge, the North Carolina Supreme Court intervened in January, blocking the certification of results and allowing Griffin’s case to proceed. On Friday, the state appeals court ruled 2-1 in favor of Griffin, with the two Republican judges, John Tyson and Fred Gore, asserting in their majority opinion that “the post-election protest process preserves the fundamental right to vote in free elections ‘on equal terms.’” They argued that this right is compromised when “votes are not accurately counted because unlawful ballots are included in the election results.”
The prospect of discarding a substantial number of ballots post-election is extraordinary and could potentially shift the election outcome in favor of Griffin, a sitting state appellate judge. His challenge has faced vehement criticism from voting rights advocates, Democrats, and even some Republicans, who argue that altering the rules retroactively undermines the integrity of the electoral process.
In response to the ruling, Justice Riggs expressed her intention to appeal, stating that the decision “threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people.”
Griffin’s contention focuses on three categories of voters he believes should have their ballots tossed. He claims that many voters submitted ballots with incomplete registrations, lacking valid driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. Moreover, he argues that overseas voters failed to provide proper photo identification or did not reside in the state.
The appellate court mandated that county election boards provide voters with incomplete registrations, as well as overseas voters lacking photo ID, a 15-day window to fulfill registration requirements. Failure to do so would result in their ballots being discarded. Additionally, the court ruled that ballots from 267 voters who had not lived in the state should also be invalidated.
In a pointed dissent, Democratic Judge Tobias Hampson, the sole Democrat on the panel, criticized Griffin’s challenge, asserting that he failed to identify a single ineligible voter. “Every single voter challenged by Petitioner in this appeal, both here and abroad, cast their absentee, early, or overseas ballot by following every instruction they were given to do so,” Hampson remarked. He further emphasized that “changing the rules by which these lawful voters participated in our electoral process after the election to discard their valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution.”
