The North Carolina Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling in the election protest initiated by state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin. In a closely divided 4-2 decision, the court ruled both to uphold and to reverse portions of an April 4th order by the state’s Court of Appeals. This decision follows a contentious November 2024 election for an open supreme court seat, where Griffin, a Court of Appeals Judge, narrowly lost to the incumbent Justice Allison Riggs.
After two recounts, Griffin trailed Riggs by 734 votes out of more than five million ballots cast in the election. Subsequently, Griffin sought judicial intervention, disputing over 60,000 ballots on the grounds that these registrations were accepted without the necessary information, such as a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number. The Supreme Court’s order reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss these disputed votes, ruling that these ballots should indeed be counted. This turnaround drew on a historical 1960 precedent which established that voters should not be penalized for errors made by election officials.
Additionally, the court addressed issues concerning several thousand overseas absentee ballots. These votes, which were submitted without accompanying photo ID, were addressed in the ruling, maintaining the lower court’s requirement for voters to submit a copy of their ID within 30 days of the notice. This part of the decision is grounded in NC statute § 163-230.1, which stipulates terms for absentee voting.
However, Justice Anita Earls expressed dissent, arguing that the majority misapplied statutory guidance. According to Earls, the military and overseas voters, who predominantly make up the absentee votes, should have been primarily considered under Article 21A, the Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act, which does not require photo identification.
The political implications of this ruling have reverberated through state politics. North Carolina Governor Josh Stein criticized the court on social media, lamenting the decision as an affront to voter equality under the law. More details on Governor Stein’s reaction can be found here.
Legal professionals and political analysts alike continue to scrutinize the court’s decision as a pivotal moment in North Carolina’s electoral jurisprudence, impacting future electoral contestation protocols. For further reading, please refer to the original report on Jurist.