...
By Gabe Whisnant
News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
In a major development in the only unresolved race from the 2024 general election, a North Carolina appeals court ruled Friday in favor of Republican Jefferson Griffin, potentially overturning the result of a razor-thin state Supreme Court contest.
The decision could unseat Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs, who led Griffin by just 734 votes after two recounts in a race that saw over 5.5 million ballots cast.
...
Read More on U.S.
Context
The eight-year term on North Carolina's highest court—representing the nation's ninth-largest state—was scheduled to begin in early January. In the meantime, Justice Riggs has continued to serve in her current role. She has also recused herself from initial deliberations related to the election protests already brought before the state Supreme Court.
What to Know
The 2-1 decision from a panel on the Court of Appeals determined that tens of thousands of ballots were improperly counted. The court ordered the State Board of Elections to give certain voters approximately 15 business days to provide missing information, such as photo identification, or face having their ballots tossed. The challenged ballots are widely believed to favor Riggs, and their disqualification could tilt the outcome in Griffin's favor.
With two Republican judges ruling in favor of Griffin, the court found that the State Board of Elections erred when it dismissed the judge's postelection protests in December. Griffin, who currently serves on the Court of Appeals, recused himself from the case, leaving his colleagues to rule on the matter.
Griffin's protest had challenged over 65,000 ballots across three categories. In two of those categories, voters can still salvage their ballots by submitting the required information. But in the third category—ballots cast by overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S.—Tyson and Gore ruled that those votes should not be counted at all.
Riggs' attorneys and the state elections board argue that the ballots were cast legally under established rules that have governed previous elections, and that changing those rules retroactively undermines the integrity of the process. Riggs' supporters have held rallies urging Griffin to concede, accusing him of trying to reverse a lawful election result.
What People Are Saying
Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore wrote in their ruling: "Free elections under ... the North Carolina Constitution include the right to an accurate counting of votes. Griffin has a legal right to inquire into this outcome through the statutorily-enacted and postelection procedures available to him."
Dissenting Judge Toby Hampson, a Democrat, criticized the ruling, writing: "To accept Petitioner's indiscriminate efforts to call into doubt the votes of tens of thousands of otherwise eligible voters, without showing any challenged voter was disqualified under existing law from voting is to elevate speculation and surmise over evidence and reason."
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin issued the following statement: "This partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people. North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice. They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."
What Happens Next
The case is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court, where five of the six remaining justices are Republicans. If the state appeal fails, her legal team has indicated they may take the case to federal court.
Reporting by the Associated Press contributed to this story.
Update: 4/4/25, 2:46 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional information.
Update: 4/4/25, 5:16 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with additional remarks.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines