NC Supreme Court Allows Griffin’s Challenge of Overseas Ballots for November 2024 Election

With incumbent North Carolina state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs (Democrat) recusing herself, the Court ruled that challenges by her opponent Jefferson Griffin (Republican) to more than 60,000 ballots in the November 2024 election will be allowed for those that voted abroad.

The number of ballots affected is up to 7000. Griffin targeted voters in areas that tend to vote Democratic. He did not challenge all overseas ballots, only those for four counties that lean Democratic and have large universities. The state has 100 counties. This targeted challenge could more than erase Riggs’ win which was by 734 votes after two recounts.

In a 4-2 decision almost along party lines, the Court partially overturned ruling entirely in Griffin’s favor by a state Court of Appeals.

North Carolina has never required voters abroad to show identification. This ruling retroactively levies that requirement on them. If they do not show ID quickly enough, their votes from last November will be discarded.

Justice Richard Dietz was the only Republican on the Court who did not rule for Griffin. He said in the past that Griffin’s case aimed to change voting rules after the election, so it should not have been allowed to proceed. He also said the ruling should not have been hurried.

By every measure, this is the most impactful election-related court decision our state has seen in decades. It cries out for our full review and for a decisive rejection of this sort of post hoc judicial tampering in election results.

Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat, dissented strongly:

It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election. Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate.

Earls highlighted the Court’s acceptance of targeting overseas ballots for only four counties. How could the Court say that many voters broke an alleged rule, but only some will be punished, based solely on where they live?

The case was sent back down to the Court of Appeals, which must write final instructions for a 30 day timeline in which voters abroad can prove their identity to prevent having their vote discarded. The State Board of Elections, which has opposed Griffin’s challenge, posted a Frequently Asked Questions page online for voters whose ballots have been challenged.

Riggs plans to appeal to federal court, so the issue is not fully settled.

Click here for more details.