In an intriguing twist to the North Carolina Supreme Court race, a bipartisan assembly of former U.S. lawmakers has stepped into the fray, asserting that the dispute over a contested seat should be resolved in federal court. This legal battle comes in the wake of Republican Jefferson Griffin’s defeat to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs, where Riggs maintains a lead of over 700 votes following two recounts.
Jefferson Griffin, currently serving on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, is challenging the election results by urging a federal district court to halt the certification of the race. He seeks to have the matter redirected to the state Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, to potentially invalidate over 60,000 ballots.
This jurisdictional debate has garnered attention from figures such as former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, and Christopher Shays, a former Republican U.S. Representative from Connecticut. They, along with other bipartisan members, submitted an amicus brief to Judge Richard Myers of the U.S. District Court in North Carolina’s Eastern District, emphasizing the need to keep Griffin’s case in federal court.
Griffin’s contention involves alleged irregularities, citing incomplete voter registrations as a significant issue. His objections encompass ballots from both Democratic and Republican voters, including those of Riggs’ family members and a WUNC editor.
After the North Carolina State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin’s protests due to insufficient evidence and inadequate notification to affected voters, Griffin sought intervention from the state Supreme Court. He bypassed the standard appeals process, directly petitioning the high court to reject the disputed ballots. However, the state elections board moved the case to federal court.
Central to Griffin’s argument is the claim that certain ballots should be invalidated due to outdated registration forms that did not require the last four digits of a Social Security number or a driver’s license number, as mandated by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002.
In contrast, the bipartisan brief argues that North Carolina’s unified voter registration system, which uses a single form for both state and federal elections, should be governed by federal standards. “It makes no difference to this analysis that this case involves an election for a state, rather than federal, office,” the brief states, suggesting that federal courts must interpret HAVA to maintain uniformity.
Additionally, Griffin has contested the counting of ballots from absentee military and overseas voters lacking photo identification, despite state administrative code permitting such exceptions. He further argues that ballots from ineligible overseas voters, such as children of missionaries and military personnel who never lived in North Carolina, should be discarded, though these voters are eligible under state law.
The state elections board may certify the election results as early as next week unless judicial intervention occurs.
