Federal Judge Rules to Certify North Carolina Supreme Court Election Results Favoring Democrat

Federal Judge Rules to Certify North Carolina Supreme Court Election Results Favoring Democrat

A federal judge has issued a ruling mandating the North Carolina elections board to certify election results that indicate Democrat Allison Riggs secured a victory in the state Supreme Court race against Republican Jefferson Griffin. This decision comes after the judge determined that thousands of contested ballots must remain included in the final count.

U.S. District Judge Richard Myers, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, supported Riggs and others who contended that recent rulings by state appeals courts would violate the U.S. Constitution by eliminating potentially thousands of ballots. These ballots include those cast by overseas military voters and their families, who were not required to submit a copy of their photo IDs, as well as ballots from U.S. citizens with affiliations to North Carolina but who have never resided in the country.

Judge Myers emphasized that removing votes six months post-Election Day would infringe upon the due process and equal protection rights of the residents involved.

He ordered the State Board of Elections to certify the results, which, following two recounts, showed Riggs winning the election by a narrow margin of just 734 votes over Griffin.

In his ruling, Myers stated, “The State Board SHALL certify the results of the election for Seat 6 based on the tally at the completion of the canvassing period on December 10, 2024,” while denying Griffin’s petitions for judicial review and injunctive relief.

The judge has postponed his order for seven days, providing Griffin the opportunity to appeal the decision to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Over 5.5 million ballots were cast during what has emerged as the nation’s last unresolved election from November. Myers articulated that the case revolves around whether the federal Constitution permits a state to revise the rules of an election retrospectively, thereby treating specific voters differently than others in similar positions.

The judge instructed that the board must refrain from implementing the orders from both the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and must instead proceed to certify the election results based on the tally at the end of the canvassing period.

Griffin, a judge on the state Court of Appeals, filed formal protests post-election, aiming to disqualify ballots that he claimed were unlawfully cast in an effort to overturn the result in his favor.

Paul Shumaker, a spokesperson for Griffin’s campaign, noted that the legal team is currently reviewing Myers’ order and considering the next steps.

Riggs expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating her commitment to upholding the Constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina’s Supreme Court Justice. She remarked, “Today, we won.”

Griffin sought to keep the decisions made by state courts intact, which included provisions allowing voters with otherwise ineligible ballots an additional 30 days to submit identification for their votes to remain counted.

Riggs, along with the state Democratic Party and affected voters, accused Griffin of attempting to alter the 2024 election outcome post-factum by targeting ballots cast by individuals who complied with the voting regulations established last fall.

Judge Myers pointed out that Griffin’s protests, rejected by the State Board of Elections, represented attempts to apply retroactive changes to voting laws that would unjustly disenfranchise the targeted voters. Notably, his challenges concerning voter identification primarily affected no more than six Democratic-leaning counties.

Myers articulated a critical principle in electoral integrity by stating, “You establish the rules before the game. You don’t change them after the game is done.” He cautioned that allowing parties to alter established election rules retroactively could lead to confusion and unrest that threatens public trust in federal courts, state agencies, and the electoral process.

One type of ballot identified by state appellate courts as ineligible involved military and overseas voters who failed to provide photo identification or an exception form along with their absentee ballots. According to state regulations, these voters were exempted from the identification requirements, and appeals courts had permitted a corrective process allowing their ballots to still count.

Another category affected by state court decisions involved ballots cast by overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S. but whose parents were declared North Carolina residents. A state law had authorized these individuals to participate in state elections.

Griffin’s formal protests targeted more than 65,000 ballots. Following state court rulings, the total was reduced to between 1,675 and 7,000, as indicated in court filings.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.