A Supreme Battle: The Ongoing Fight for an Associate Justice Seat in North Carolina
November 5th, 2024, was over two months ago. Yet in one election, the victor is still waiting to pop the corks on the celebratory champagne. Recently, the North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed a request for a hearing to overturn the results of a race — for one of its own seats.
It's now up to the lower courts to rule on the case, which could take months.
Associate Justice Jefferson Griffin, despite having his 734-vote loss to Associate Justice Allison Riggs recounted twice, refuses to concede in the election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. His latest bit of legal maneuvering to fast-track his case didn't go the way he'd hoped.
In Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections, the North Carolina Supreme Court dismissed Griffin's writ of prohibition in order to allow the lower courts to make a determination in his case to exclude over 60,000 ballots. He believes their exclusion will mean an election victory.
Requesting Supreme Treatment
Griffin's approach to pleading his case has followed an unusual path. A judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, he attempted to have the courts step in before the official results of his race were released but was rebuffed. He also filed election protests in each of North Carolina's 100 counties.
He then deviated from the expected statutory path of simply filing in the Wake County Superior Court. Instead, he also submitted a 119-page petition for a writ of prohibition against the North Carolina Board of Elections to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Griffin pulled no punches in the complaint, accusing the State Board of having "broken the law for decades."
The petition begins by requesting the disqualification of 5,509 votes made by military and overseas voters. Griffin claimed that the Board failed to obtain required identification from overseas absentee voters. He anticipated that the disenfranchisement of these voters would be enough to secure his victory, but if not, he demanded that over 60,000 so-called "never-voters" be disqualified instead — individuals he claims voted with incomplete voter registrations.
It appears to be Griffin's assertion that the alleged cheating only mattered in his race and not the other close races in North Carolina. In his petition, he notes that he doesn't want the voters removed from the voting rolls, only to have their votes disqualified in his race.
The North Carolina Supreme Court, which had halted the certification of the election while the case was addressed by the legal system, held that the Wake County Superior Court needed to try the case first. It left a stay on the certification process in place until the exhaustion of all appeals.
Riggs, who continues to serve in her role as an Associate Justice during the litigation, recused herself from the decision. The only other Democrat on the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Anita Earls, issued a partial dissension with the ruling over the retention of the stay.
State or Federal Court?
Repeated setbacks do not appear to have encouraged Griffin to give up. In addition to the Supreme Court's ruling, he's also failed with filings for restraining orders and the blocking of certification.
A hearing during the last week of January threatens to have a seismic effect on Griffin's gambit. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether the case belongs in state court or federal court. Griffin would greatly prefer the former, while the Board of Elections and Riggs no doubt would feel better served by the latter.
Regardless, Griffin's claim probably won't reach a final resolution anytime soon. Despite the expedited schedule arranged by the North Carolina Supreme Court, every possible appeal is likely to be utilized. It remains to be seen how much of the eight-year term is left by then.
Related Resources
- What Is Voter Suppression? (FindLaw's How Do I Protect My Vote?)
- Appealing a Court Decision or Judgment (FindLaw's Litigation and Appeals)
- Voting During Military Service (FindLaw's Voting Guide)
