NC Court of Appeals gives over 60,000 challenged voters 15 days to prove eligibility
In a split decision, a panel of judges on the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled Friday that tens of thousands of votes cast in the contested 2024 Supreme Court race should be recounted and verified — potentially flipping the election results.
The court ordered that over 60,000 voters whose eligibility has been challenged by Republican Jefferson Griffin should be given 15 days to provide documentation to election workers showing they are able to vote. If they fail to do so, their votes would be thrown out.
“The inclusion of even one unlawful ballot in a vote total dilutes the lawful votes and ‘effectively ‘disenfranchises’ lawful voters,” the panel’s two Republicans wrote in the majority opinion.
Justice Allison Riggs, the Democratic incumbent in the race, announced she would appeal the ruling, which she said allows “disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people.”
“North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat and I swore an oath to the constitution and the rule of law — so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people,” Riggs said.
Friday’s decision comes nearly five months after the November election and is unlikely to be the final step in the contentious case, which has left North Carolina as the only state in the country with an uncertified statewide race. The ruling could be halted on appeal before the cure period goes into effect.
After Griffin narrowly lost his race to Riggs by 734 votes, he and the North Carolina Republican Party quickly challenged the validity of tens of thousands of ballots on untested legal grounds.
“Our position has not wavered and today’s decision confirms the facts were on Judge Griffin’s side,” NC GOP Chair Jason Simmons said in a statement. “This a victory for the rule of law and election integrity.”
In Friday’s decision, Judge Toby Hampson, a Democrat, dissented from the majority, noting that Griffin has not proven that any of the challenged voters are actually ineligible.
“Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise 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,” he wrote.
What happens next?
While the majority did not rule that all of the challenged ballots should be immediately thrown out, Hampson wrote that the short cure period would still result in many votes being canceled.
“The proposition that a significant portion of these 61,682 voters will receive notice and timely take curative measures is a fiction that does not disguise the act of mass disenfranchisement the majority’s decision represents,” he said, noting that some of the voters may have died since Election Day and others, such as military and overseas voters, may have inconsistent access to post offices or internet.
The cure period does not begin immediately.
First, the case will go back to Wake County Superior Court, which ruled against Griffin in February. From there, the trial court was instructed to direct all 100 county boards of elections to “expeditiously identify” and notify the challenged voters.
In a statement, Pat Gannon, a spokesperson for the State Board of Elections, said the agency will provide instructions to affected voters if the court’s order goes into effect.
He also clarified that the order would only affect voters’ selections in the Supreme Court race, not any other contest on the 2024 ballot.
However, the court’s decision could be halted before any of this happens — as Riggs is likely to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Since she has recused herself from this case, only six justices would hear it — raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock.
If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday’s decision from the Court of Appeals could stand.
Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats’ hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.
The case has drawn national attention, with critics warning that if successful, it could form a playbook for challenging election results nationwide.
“This partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts,” Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people.”
“We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight,” N.C. House Democratic Leader Robert Reives said in a statement.
Which voters are affected?
Griffin’s challenge to the election results revolves around three disputed categories of voters:
- The largest category is voters who did not have a driver’s license or Social Security number in the state’s voter registration database.
- Griffin also challenges military and overseas voters who did not provide an ID, even though a specific exemption to the rule was approved for those voters. This category only includes voters from counties that lean heavily Democratic.
- The smallest category of challenged voters are what Griffin calls “Never Residents.” These are the adult children of North Carolina residents who live abroad and have never resided in the state, but are American citizens.
Many voters from all three of these categories have participated in North Carolina elections for decades without issue, but Griffin has embarked on an unprecedented legal campaign to undermine their eligibility.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the voters challenged for registration and ID issues would be given an opportunity to cure their ballots.
However, they ruled that the “Never Residents,” who were explicitly granted voting eligibility over a decade ago in a bipartisan state law, are fully ineligible to vote.
“The votes cast by these purported voters are not to be included in the final count,” the majority wrote.
A variety of advocacy organizations have created online tools allowing voters to determine if their vote has been challenged.
Gannon, the elections board spokesperson, said that any voter who is concerned their registration information is incomplete should submit an updated voter registration form.
This story was originally published April 4, 2025 at 12:36 PM.
