Ongoing Turbulence in North Carolina Supreme Court Race Five Months Post-Election
Originally published by The Contrarian on April 7, 2025.
The contest for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court remains contentious five months after the November 2024 election. Recent developments have reignited disputes surrounding over 60,000 ballots in the state, providing Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin a renewed opportunity to close the 734-vote gap against Democrat Allison Riggs.
Key Developments
On Friday, a state appeals court issued a significant ruling that questioned the validity of the votes cast. The court’s 36-page opinion, which elicited a 66-page dissent, focused on several critical aspects:
- Determining whether 60,273 votes should be invalidated due to incomplete voter registration records.
- Examining the status of 1,409 military and overseas ballots from Guilford County that lacked photocopies of voter identifications.
- Assessing whether 267 U.S. citizens residing abroad should be disqualified because of their residency requirements.
Implications for Voter Rights
One significant concern raised by critics of the ruling is the potential for penalizing voters for issues stemming from state administrative failures. Historically, U.S. election law has protected voters from disenfranchisement due to mistakes made by election officials. As noted by election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg, disenfranchising voters who followed instructions from election officials deviates greatly from established legal norms. This principle is echoed by the North Carolina Supreme Court, which has previously asserted that errors by election officials should not result in innocent voters losing their rights.
Legal Precedent and Timing
The dissenting opinion in the case pointed out that challenges to election laws should ideally occur before the election itself. Notably, the contested rules were already established long before the November election. This oversight raises questions about the timing of the legal challenge. According to the dissent, state laws had been consistently applied for over a decade, and the recent focus on these procedures appears reactionary rather than proactive.
Challenges to Implementation
The proposed remedy, which would allow affected voters 15 business days to correct their ballots, seems impractical. The likelihood that many voters will be unreachable, deceased, or unwilling to undertake additional steps after the election raises serious concerns about the feasibility of such a solution. Additionally, some voters may be residing abroad or otherwise indisposed, complicating any efforts to rectify the ballot issues.
Broader Implications
Questions remain as to why these scrutiny measures apply solely to the state Supreme Court race. If these ballots are invalidated, it raises a broader concern regarding other contests and regions affected by similar issues. Furthermore, North Carolina’s method of associating ballot identifiers with individual voters poses a risk to the principle of the secret ballot, which is a cornerstone of democratic elections.
As the situation stands, confusion reigns in North Carolina’s electoral landscape. With five months having passed since the election, the state continues to grapple with the complexities and legal ramifications of this Supreme Court contest.
