Photo credit: abcnews.go.com

North Carolina Supreme Court Dismisses Request to Remove Ballots in Close Election

RALEIGH, N.C. — The North Carolina Supreme Court has decided not to immediately address a request from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin to discard over 60,000 ballots in a tightly contested race for a position on the same court. The court’s ruling came on Wednesday.

Instead, the justices instructed that Griffin’s appeals concerning the State Board of Elections’ decision to continue counting the ballots should first be evaluated in Wake County Superior Court, following the state’s legal protocols.

This unanimous decision could delay the resolution of whether Griffin, a sitting judge on the intermediate-level Court of Appeals, or current Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat, will secure an eight-year term on the bench.

Following recounts and the election board’s rejection of Griffin’s protests, Riggs currently holds a lead of 734 votes amidst more than 5.5 million ballots cast in the election according to official counts.

The court labeled Griffin’s petition for a “writ of prohibition” as an “extraordinary” request and emphasized the importance of following the legal process through the lower courts. Riggs voluntarily recused herself from this matter due to her ongoing position on the bench.

Given that Election Day occurred approximately two and a half months ago, the court urged the Wake County Superior Court to handle Griffin’s appeals without unnecessary delays. There is a strong likelihood the matter may yet find its way back to the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the dismissal came as justices were still reviewing legal briefs from involved parties about the potential issuance of the writ, with the deadline for those briefs set for the upcoming Friday.

Currently, a temporary stay issued by the Republican-majority Supreme Court on January 7, which prevents the State Board of Elections from formally certifying Riggs as the election winner, remains in effect.

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not affect the upcoming oral arguments scheduled for Monday at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where attorneys representing Riggs, Griffin, the election board, and other stakeholders are set to discuss the legal challenges.

A key issue in that appeal is whether the 66,000 ballots subject to Griffin’s challenge should be adjudicated in federal court. Riggs’ legal team argues that the matter pertains to federal voting rights and election laws, while Griffin’s representatives assert it falls within state jurisdiction.

Griffin’s legal arguments indicate that some absentee and early votes may have been cast in violation of state laws regarding registration, residency, and photo identification, suggesting that eliminating even a fraction of these votes could reverse the election outcome.

In contrast, Riggs maintains that the votes contested are valid and accuses Griffin of attempting to overturn the election results by disregarding the rights of legitimate voters.

The order issued by the court on Wednesday included written opinions from five of the six justices involved in the case.

Chief Justice Paul Newby, recognizing Griffin’s right to challenge the election results within the scope of state law, addressed accusations suggesting that Griffin sought to undermine voter enfranchisement. He noted that numerous contested elections in North Carolina have taken extended periods to resolve.

Griffin initially led the election by 10,000 votes on Election Day, but as the counting of provisional and absentee ballots progressed, Riggs overtook him for the lead.

“It is understandable that petitioner and many North Carolina voters are questioning how this could happen,” Newby stated, affirming Griffin’s legal right to seek clarity on this electoral outcome through statutory procedures.

Conversely, Associate Justice Anita Earls, the sole Democrat in the deliberations, argued that the temporary stay against certifying Riggs’s victory should have also been lifted. She emphasized that Griffin could not prove that any of the over 60,000 voting individuals were inadequately qualified under state law to cast their ballots.

Earls further expressed concern over what she viewed as an implied bias in the Court’s order regarding the eventual outcome, although she remained confident in the judiciary’s ability to assess these claims impartially.

Source
abcnews.go.com