NC justices delay Griffin’s ballot challenge — but shed light on how they may rule later
The North Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid from Republican Jefferson Griffin to expedite his challenge of over 60,000 ballots cast in the 2024 race for a seat on the high court.
The court’s ruling, which called Griffin’s efforts to bypass lower courts “extraordinary,” does not, however, mean that the monthslong battle over the results of the state Supreme Court election are over. Far from it.
In fact, several of the court’s Republican justices explicitly stated their beliefs that Griffin’s claims alleging wrongdoing by the State Board of Elections may have merit – even if he did not follow the proper procedure in bringing them.
“There appear to be valid concerns that some of the state board’s actions in this election may violate the law,” Chief Justice Paul Newby wrote in a concurring opinion. “... It is possible that these actions may affect the outcome of the election.”
Griffin trails his opponent, Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs, by 734 votes following two recounts of the results. But he argues that tens of thousands of votes should be thrown out because the state, in his view, did not implement proper registration and identification procedures.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court issued an order blocking the State Board of Elections from certifying Riggs as the winner in the race while Griffin’s case proceeds. Wednesday’s decision did not rescind that order, a move Democratic Justice Anita Earls blasted in a dissenting opinion.
“If any losing candidate can make any sort of argument about votes in the election, no matter how frivolous, and automatically receive a court-ordered stay on appeal, preventing the winning candidate from being certified, nothing stops litigious losers from preventing duly elected persons from taking office for months or longer,” she wrote.
The court, which has a 5 to 2 Republican majority, unanimously agreed that Griffin failed to follow the proper procedural steps for his challenge and should have originated his lawsuit in Wake County Superior Court – rather than attempting to fast-track the case straight to the Supreme Court.
Riggs, who continues to sit on the Supreme Court as the race’s results are contested, has recused herself from the case.
In a statement on Thursday morning, Riggs said she agreed with the court’s decision to not immediately take up the case, but was disappointed that the process has dragged out for so long.
“Judge Griffin’s determination to waste taxpayer dollars in a baseless attempt to overturn his electoral loss won’t change my commitment to the people who elected me to this office,” she said.
In the months since the November election, Griffin’s legal attempts to overturn the results have become increasingly complicated – so much so that the case is now proceeding simultaneously in state and federal courts.
Wednesday’s ruling from the state Supreme Court was a setback for Griffin, who had hoped to get the very court which he aims to join to rule in his favor and throw out the challenged votes.
Meanwhile, Riggs and the State Board of Elections are trying to get federal courts to take jurisdiction over the case — arguing that it implicates national election laws like the Help America Vote Act.
On Monday, the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear arguments in the case. Shortly after Wednesday’s ruling, Griffin requested that the 4th Circuit delay these arguments.
The North Carolina Supreme Court has not scheduled arguments in the dispute, though it sits for its first term on Feb. 11.
Justices weigh in on Griffin’s case
While Wednesday’s order from the Supreme Court did not take a position on the merits of Griffin’s case, each justice did offer concurring opinions that may shed some light on where they stand.
Newby suggested that it was “highly unusual” that Riggs took the lead in the race despite the fact that Griffin initially had more votes on election night.
“It is understandable that petitioner and many North Carolina voters are questioning how this could happen,” he wrote. “Petitioner has a legal right to inquire into this outcome.”
Riggs overtook Griffin’s lead after election officials counted all outstanding absentee and provisional ballots — a process they were required to follow by state law.
In another opinion, Republican Justice Phil Berger Jr. also suggested the State Board of Elections may have acted improperly.
“The question presented, at its core, is what should be done if it is determined that those charged with faithfully executing the law fail or otherwise decline to follow the law?” he wrote. “Agencies, boards, and commissions operating outside the bounds of established rules is a familiar trope, as is sweeping bureaucratic incompetence and neglect under the rug.”
Republican Justice Tamara Barringer suggested that, while Griffin did not follow proper procedure in bringing the case directly to the Supreme Court, the court could put an end to the saga by deciding to take jurisdiction anyway.
“I do not see any need for this case, nor any party therein, to twist in the jurisprudential winds for the upcoming months before ultimately landing before this court,” she wrote. “... Instead, the citizens of North Carolina deserve a fair and final resolution.”
Justice Richard Dietz, the sole Republican who dissented to the order blocking Riggs’ certification as the victor, suggested once again that it was too late to grant Griffin the relief he seeks.
“The State Board of Elections complied with the election rules existing at the time of the election,” he wrote. “Judge Griffin’s argument is not that the Board violated the existing rules, but that the rules themselves are either unlawful or unconstitutional.”
In her opinion, Earls noted that Griffin has failed to produce evidence of a single ineligible voter and cautioned the court against indulging the case.
“It sets up courts to be the arbiters of election outcomes instead of voters, and weakens faith in the democratic processes of this state,” she wrote.
This story was originally published January 23, 2025 at 10:00 AM.
