Judge Jefferson Griffin, NC Supreme Court loser, is unfit for his current seat | Opinion
As Jefferson Griffin wages his strangely tenacious legal battle to win a seat on the state Supreme Court, he should be at risk of removal from his current seat on the state Court of Appeals.
Griffin, a Republican, had every right to seek a recount after his narrow loss to Democratic Justice Allison Riggs in November’s election. He got two recounts and still lost by 734 votes out of more than 5 million cast.
That should have been the end of it. Instead, Griffin is pursuing a second route to reverse the election results by asking that more than 60,000 votes be tossed and the vote recounted without them.
In court filings, Griffin argues that most of the challenged votes were cast by voters whose registration lacked Social Security or driver’s license numbers as required to prove their identity. That technical complaint is moot because those voters had to show a photo ID at the polls or with their mail-in ballot.
Griffin’s case is frivolous and an embarrassment to himself, his party and North Carolina. Now it’s getting messier and more dangerous. The state Supreme Court, with a Republican majority, has agreed 4-2 to suspend certification of the election while it weighs Griffin’s extreme and meritless claim.
Even Republican Justice Richard Dietz blanched at the damage Griffin’s claim could do. He dissented against the court’s decision. He wrote, “Permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state’s election rules — and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules — invites incredible mischief.”
Griffin’s legal antics would be bizarre for any candidate, but they are especially so for a candidate who is a judge.
Not only has Griffin sworn to “support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States,” he is also bound by the state Code of Judicial Conduct. It requires that a judge “should conduct himself/herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
In a less polarized and coarsened political atmosphere, Griffin’s behavior would disqualify him from sitting in judgment on the state Court of Appeals. Rather than promote “public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” he has put his political ambition ahead of the law and shown an ignorance of the law itself.
A black robe can’t render Griffin impartial. He is willing to stretch the law to fit his interests and he lacks judicial temperament. How can parties in cases he judges, particularly those who are Democrats, think they are getting a fair hearing? How can the public have confidence in his impartiality?
If the appellate courts weren’t now so sullied by raw partisanship, Griffin’s actions would be cited by the state’s 14-member Judicial Standards Commission, which assesses allege violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct and recommends penalties to the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-controlled legislature has made complaints against judges secret and changed the commission’s membership and administration to favor Republicans.
Indeed, while Griffin’s legal vandalism goes unchallenged — at least as far as the public can know — the commission has received complaints against the state Supreme Court’s two Democratic justices, Riggs and Anita Earls. Riggs was the subject of a complaint filed by a Republican lawmaker citing her public comments on abortion and Earls faced scrutiny for saying the court system lacks racial diversity.
Griffin’s legal actions have left the state Supreme Court race unresolved for more than two months. He also has challenged the votes of more than 60,000 people and put the state Supreme Court at risk of losing all its credibility if it approves his specious claim in order to bolster its Republican majority.
In recklessly going to court, Griffin has shown he has no business being on one.
This story was originally published January 16, 2025 at 11:34 AM.