Ballot Dispute Highlights Ongoing Tensions in North Carolina Supreme Court Race

Nearly five months after the 2024 elections, a legal battle unfolds in North Carolina, centering around a disputed state Supreme Court race. This intense confrontation has captured the attention of voters and analysts alike.

The stakes are high, involving an eight-year term on the state’s highest court, which represents the ninth most populous state in the nation. At the center of the controversy is the narrow margin by which incumbent Allison Riggs leads her Republican opponent, Jefferson Griffin.

Close Race After Multiple Recounts

Following two recounts, Riggs, a Democrat, finds herself ahead by a mere 734 votes out of over 5.5 million total cast. Griffin, currently serving on North Carolina’s Court of Appeals, has raised concerns about the validity of approximately 65,000 ballots, which he claims should be discarded on the grounds of ineligibility.

Griffin’s Legal Arguments Against the Ballots

Griffin contends that the North Carolina Board of Elections improperly dismissed his formal protests last December and certified the ballots after the recounts. If successful in his legal challenge, the exclusion of these ballots from the final tally could result in a significant shift in the electoral outcome, potentially favoring Griffin.

A trial judge recently supported the Board of Elections’ decision, but the matter has escalated to a three-judge panel within the state’s appeals court. This panel listened to arguments just last Friday, intensifying the anticipation surrounding the ruling.

Contention Over Military and Overseas Votes

Among the ballots under scrutiny are those submitted by voters lacking complete registration records, including either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Griffin’s legal team has also challenged ballots cast by military and overseas voters who failed to attach photo identification copies.

Griffin’s attorneys assert that counting these contested ballots violates state laws and provisions within the state constitution. In contrast, lawyers representing Riggs and the Board of Elections argue that the ballots were cast in accordance with established rules, reinforcing that changes cannot be made post-election.

Ads and Allegations Targeting Voters

On Tuesday, as the appeals court deliberates, a new advertisement emerged, accusing Griffin of specifically targeting military voters in his lawsuit. This ad, produced by the Justice Project Action, a nonpartisan organization, aims to advocate for the rule of law and uphold the independence of American courts.

The advertisement features four veterans who express deep concerns regarding the potential suppression of military votes. Set to air on the Fox News Channel across North Carolina, the spot seeks to rally public support against the challenges posed by Griffin’s lawsuit.

Growing Pressure on Griffin

The ad’s release coincides with a letter signed by over 200 former judges and legal experts, urging Griffin to withdraw his legal challenge. Among the signatories were notable figures, including former general counsels for the North Carolina Republican Party and former GOP Governor Jim McCrory. Their collective plea underscores the increasing pressure on Griffin to reconsider his position as the case progresses.

Potential Future Developments

As anticipation builds for the appeals court’s ruling, analysts speculate that this case is likely to ascend further up the judicial ladder, possibly reaching the North Carolina Supreme Court regardless of the outcome. The implications of this election are profound, as the resulting court makeup could influence a wide array of critical decisions in the state.

This unfolding legal battle not only highlights the complexities of electoral processes but also underscores the contentious nature of politics in North Carolina. With military ballots at the heart of the dispute, the situation raises questions about voter rights and election integrity.

In this unresolved race, the focus remains not just on the numbers but also on the broader implications of the decisions made by the courts. The outcome could set important precedents for future elections, particularly regarding how similar challenges are handled across the state and beyond.

AP reporting is included in this article.