Your browser does not support
WShould chicken The election loser concedes? That question lies at the heart of the fight over North Carolina’s Supreme Court race that remains contested months after Election Day. Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, challenged incumbent Democratic nominee Allison Riggs for her seat in November. After losing by only 734 votes, he requested two recounts. When both confirmed her victory, they filed lawsuits, challenging the votes of nearly 70,000 voters. On January 7, the Republican court, where he hopes to sit, delayed certifying Ms. Riggs’ win.
Mr. Griffin questions several groups of voters. Among them, 5,500 live abroad or on military bases and did not submit a photo Identification card With their absentee votes. Another group of just over 60,000 filed registration forms that were missing their Social Security number or driver’s license number. He says that among the rest are criminals and the dead.
Democrats are angry about the challenges. “This is probably the most anti-democratic measure we’ve seen at the state level,” says Morgan Jackson, a party strategist. The two largest groups of voters under scrutiny did nothing wrong. Under rules set by the state Board of Elections, overseas voters are exempt from assistance Identification cardAlthough the board was aware that some voters had incomplete registration forms, it chose not to fix them before the election. This decision was blessed by a federal judge.
An analysis by Chris Cooper of Western Carolina University finds that less than a quarter of the two largest groups of voters facing the challenge are Republicans. Griffin questions outside votes in only four of North Carolina’s 100 counties, the most Democratic in urban areas. Griffin isn’t shy about his targets: In a brief he filed last week, he encouraged the court to stop examining ballots once the result flips in his favor.
At stake is the political future of one of America’s most swing states, which is a hotbed of battles over redistricting. The state court is the arbitrator of electoral maps. If Griffin clinches a spot in the 5-2 Republican-controlled seat, Republicans would almost certainly decide on redistricting after the 2030 Census. But such an outright power grab could backfire, Cooper says. North Carolina will host one of the most competitive Senate races in the country in 2026. Even Republicans acknowledge that the story of their team trying to overturn legal votes could help Democrats.
Bob Orr, a former Republican judge who has since left the party, believes the idea of a legal challenge was cooked up before the election for Donald Trump, in case the presidential race in North Carolina approached. Paul Shoemaker, who ran Griffin’s campaign, denies this. Republicans claim that the State Board of Elections, which is run by Democrats, misinterpreted the opinion of voters in North Carolina.Identification card to delegate. Although the overseas voter exemption rule was unanimously confirmed by the Rules Committee, Republicans believe the appointed board should not be allowed to carve exceptions to state law. “Why should some people vote under different rules?” Mr. Shoemaker asks.
Changing the game after everyone has played seems difficult, says Jim Sterling of the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank. Yet the rebels are committed to fighting. Jason Simmons, chairman of the state Republican Party, says Griffin’s loss made their unresolved concerns more pressing. He thinks it’s the Democrats who are playing dirty. “Instead of allowing the process to move forward, they want to decide this matter in the courts of public opinion,” he says.
Meanwhile, the legal challenge is moving through state and federal courts. On January 27, the 4th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals will hear arguments, where its ruling will overturn the state ruling. So far, one Republican state judge has expressed opposition to Mr. Griffin’s arguments. Citing the principle that prohibits changing election law late in the process, Richard Dietz criticized Republicans for trying to throw out the ballots of voters who complied with existing rules. Doing so, he wrote, “invites incredible harm.” ■
Stay on top of American politics with the we shortOur daily newsletter containing quick analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and balancea weekly note from our Lexington columnist examining the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
