Which voters must ‘cure’ ballots in NC Supreme Court race? We now have an answer
A court-ordered examination of challenged ballots in the state Supreme Court election — if it goes forward — could affect as many as 1,675 voters.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections provided details Tuesday on how it would carry out the 30-day review, known as a cure period, for challenged votes cast in the 2024 Supreme Court race.
The process would include far fewer ballots than the 65,000 that were initially challenged by Republican Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, who seeks to overturn his 734-vote loss to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs.
The board’s interpretation of the cure period, if it holds, appears to raise the likelihood that Riggs will maintain her victory. However, further court action could alter the plan.
In a legal filing late Wednesday, Griffin said he opposed the board’s plan and asked the Court of Appeals to force the board to include more ballots and fewer opportunities for cures in the process.
Here’s what to know about the board’s decision:
How did we get here?
Following two recounts of the results, which affirmed Riggs’ victory, Griffin and the NC GOP embarked on an unprecedented legal campaign to challenge over 65,000 ballots.
He argued that missing registration information, and missing photo IDs for military and overseas voters, could result in ineligible votes being cast — though he conceded the issues were likely not the fault of voters.
The case reached the North Carolina Supreme Court, which ruled last week that the vast majority of voters challenged by Griffin (over 60,000 of them) should have their votes counted.
However, the court’s order still left potentially thousands of other ballots in jeopardy — ordering a 30-day cure period for some and outright discarding a smaller number.
Riggs appealed to federal court, where a judge ruled that the cure period could continue, but that the state should hold off on certifying the election based on its results until he has weighed in.
What votes are now in jeopardy?
The board’s plan, which was explained in legal filings late Tuesday, gives clarity on exactly which votes remain in contention.
While the Supreme Court’s order was vague about which votes would have to be cured, the board appears to have adopted the most limited interpretation of the court’s ruling.
In total, up to 1,675 ballots could be affected, according to the board’s proposed plan. That includes:
- 1,409 military and overseas voters from Guilford County, home to Greensboro, who Griffin argued did not submit a photo ID or an ID exception form with their absentee ballots.
- 266 so-called “Never Residents.” These are the adult children of North Carolina residents, living abroad. They are American citizens, but indicated they have never resided in the state.
Voters can find out if their ballot is challenged by checking the list here.
The actual number of affected ballots could be smaller, though.
The board explained that some of the challenged voters appear to have been listed more than once and there is overlap between the two categories.
The board said that, before beginning the cure period, it would also conduct its own review of the ballots to identify any voters who were wrongly challenged.
Why are these groups in question?
In court, the Democratic-controlled board has argued that both categories of voters should have their ballots counted — but the GOP-dominated Supreme Court disagreed.
Before the election, the board approved an exemption to the voter ID requirement for military and overseas voters which was approved by the Rules Review Commission and not challenged at the time.
However, Griffin argued that the exemption violated state law, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, saying those voters would need to either provide an ID to election officials or have their votes discarded.
As for the “Never Residents,” a bipartisan state law passed over a decade ago allows those voters to participate in North Carolina elections, but Griffin argued it was unconstitutional — and the Supreme Court agreed.
Unlike the military and overseas ballots, the court ruled that these votes should be thrown out without giving voters the opportunity to cure them.
Why are only Guilford County votes affected in the ID challenge?
While Griffin initially challenged a far larger amount of voters, court rulings and the board’s interpretation of them have whittled down the number.
The reason only Guilford County is included in the ID challenge is that, according to the board, this was the only county that Griffin challenged by the deadline to file an election protest.
Griffin later sought to add thousands of votes from several other counties that, like Guilford, lean heavily Democratic, but the board said those came too late to count.
Critics have said that Griffin blatantly sought to target Democratic votes by only including these counties, but his lawyers said it was merely a question of what data they could get in time to meet the deadline.
The Supreme Court’s order did not specify which counties should be included in the cure period, apparently leaving the decision up to the board.
But Griffin argues that the board’s decision to include only Guilford defies the court’s order. He’s asked the Court of Appeals to force the board to include all six counties where he challenged votes, which could bring the total number of challenged ballots to over 5,000.
How can voters cure their ballots?
The cure period has not yet begun, but if and when it does, affected voters will receive a notice from election officials with instructions.
After the State Board of Elections conducts its own review of the ballots to remove wrongly challenged voters from the list, it will contact the remaining voters by mail and, if possible, email and telephone.
For voters challenged for not providing ID, the board will inform them that they have 30 days from the date the mailing was sent to submit a copied photo ID or ID exception form.
Those documents can be submitted by mail, fax, or electronically through email or an online portal that the board plans to set up.
Voters who comply with this request will have their votes affirmed, while those who don’t could have their ballots discarded.
While the “Never Residents” will technically not be able to cure their ballots, the board still plans to notify all of them that their vote has been challenged.
Recent reporting from Anderson Alerts and Popular Information found that several of the challenged “Never Residents” actually did live in North Carolina.
Citing this reporting, the board said that these voters will also have the chance to submit a sworn affidavit stating that they actually have resided in North Carolina. If they do so, their votes will not be identified for removal.
Griffin argues that this defies the court’s order and that the board should not be able to remove wrongly identified “Never Residents” from the challenge list.
When does the cure period begin?
While the Supreme Court ordered that the cure period should be 30 days long, it is still unclear exactly when it would begin.
The board’s plan said that it would not begin the clock until it had conducted its own review of the challenged ballots. After that, the 30-day period would begin once it sends out notices to all of the affected voters.
Further court action could also delay or block the cure period.
What does this mean for the outcome of the race?
All votes are secret, so it is impossible to know exactly who the challenged voters chose in the Supreme Court race — or if they voted in the race at all.
However, with up to 1,675 ballots in jeopardy, Riggs appears to have a far greater chance of retaining her victory than when 65,000 ballots were in question.
Chris Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University, said that having fewer overall ballots in contention is better for Riggs, but it could still be possible for Griffin to flip the results.
“The devil is, of course, in the details,” he said. “This cure process — nobody’s done anything like this before this far after an election. I think there’s a whole lot of uncertainty here.”
Could this still change?
Yes.
This case is still being litigated and further court action could change the plan at any time.
After a federal judge declined to stop the cure period from taking effect, Riggs and several advocacy groups appealed his ruling to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which has yet to weigh in.
And then there’s Griffin’s request to the state Court of Appeals. He wants that court to compel the board to include more voters and fewer opportunities to fix ballots in the process.
This story was originally published April 16, 2025 at 12:17 PM.
