In North Carolina, the Republican candidate for a State Supreme Court seat has refused to concede to the Democratic incumbent, even though two recounts by a state elections board confirmed that he lost the November election by a few hundred votes.
The Republican challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, who currently sits on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, has instead embarked on an extraordinary monthslong effort to toss out scores of ballots. The race is the last in the nation to be uncertified.
Judge Griffin’s challenge has ping-ponged through federal and state courts. The Democratic incumbent, Justice Allison Riggs, appealed a recent State Supreme Court decision that could lead to thousands of military and overseas ballots being tossed.
On Tuesday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit temporarily blocked the ballot verification process that had been ordered by the State Supreme Court. Many of the ballots in question come from Democratic-leaning counties, so their removal could lead to the election being overturned.
As the case continues through the court system, Judge Griffin and the North Carolina Republican Party have drawn criticism from democracy watchdog groups, liberals and even some conservatives who worry about a dangerous precedent being set for future elections.
Here’s what to know about the case.
What happened after the November election?
Justice Riggs was declared the winner of the State Supreme Court race by 734 votes, an unusually small margin. Judge Griffin sought to verify that margin by requesting recounts. After the State Board of Elections reaffirmed Justice Riggs’s victory twice, Judge Griffin filed a protest with the board, which has a Democratic majority.
In his protest, Judge Griffin sought to dismiss the ballots of roughly 65,000 people and argued that a majority of them were ineligible to vote because they did not supply certain required personal data — such as a driver’s license number — when they registered. But the omissions, he admitted, were because of administrative errors, not voter errors.
Voting rights experts have described the issues raised by Judge Griffin as moot because even if the voters’ registration forms were missing driver’s license numbers, state law still requires them to show ID when they vote.
Questions about those omissions had spread in conservative circles for more than a year, and were teed up for use by Republican political strategists well before Judge Griffin’s loss in November.
The elections board rejected Judge Griffin’s argument in a series of votes that went largely along party lines. But in January, the State Supreme Court blocked state officials from certifying the outcome of the race, allowing Judge Griffin’s case to be heard in court.
Many of the voters on Judge Griffin’s list are from Democratic-leaning counties, so discarding their ballots could potentially overturn the election. Critics have likened the challenge to changing the rules after the game has been played. They note that these voters’ ballots have been certified for every other race from last November.
Who are the voters being challenged?
-
Between 2,000 and 8,000 military and overseas voters, roughly, from up to six Democratic-leaning counties, who Judge Griffin argues should have submitted a photo ID or an ID exception form with their absentee ballots. The State Board of Elections, however, had exempted such voters from the requirement before the election in a unanimous vote, and the rules commission of the Republican-controlled state legislature supported the exemption.
-
Nearly 300 “Never Residents” voters — those who have never lived in North Carolina but are registered to vote there. These voters typically include children of military parents who turn 18 while their family is stationed abroad; missionaries; or people working in other countries for an extended stretch of time. A state law passed on a bipartisan vote in 2011 allows such people to vote in North Carolina, but Judge Griffin has argued otherwise.
-
Judge Griffin had also challenged the votes of about 60,000 people who, he said, did not provide proof of identity — either the last four digits of a Social Security number or a driver’s license number — when they registered. But the State Supreme Court said those votes had to be counted, because the missing information was due to mistakes made by election officials.
Where does the case stand now?
Judge Griffin had initially asked the State Supreme Court, which is dominated by Republicans, to immediately take up his case. But the court said that Judge Griffin would first have to go through lower courts. (Justice Riggs, one of two Democrats on the seven-member court, has recused herself from the case.)
In February, a Wake County Superior Court judge ruled against Judge Griffin. But on April 4, a state appeals court panel of three judges, two of whom are Republicans, ruled in Judge Griffin’s favor, ordering tens of thousands of voters to promptly verify their eligibility or have their ballots thrown out. The majority on the panel also ruled that the “Never Residents” voters should have their ballots tossed.
Justice Riggs appealed that decision to the State Supreme Court. In an April 11 ruling, the court narrowed the number of ballots that should be reviewed.
-
Military and overseas voters who did not provide an ID when casting an absentee ballot — which one justice estimated to be 2,000 to 7,000 voters — would have 30 days to fix any issues or have their ballots tossed, the court said.
-
The roughly 300 “Never Resident” votes should be tossed out entirely, the court said, citing the State Constitution.
-
As for the 60,000 ballots from voters who, through no fault of their own, had information missing in their registration, the court ruled that they must be counted.
But the State Supreme Court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals were vague about which military and overseas votes had to be cured. So the State Board of Elections said on April 15 that it interpreted the ruling as applying only to about 1,600 voters from Guilford County, which includes the city of Greensboro.
The basis for that interpretation, the board said, was that Judge Griffin’s election protest in Guilford County was the only one he completed by the challenge deadline.
But Judge Griffin’s lawyers said that he filed ID protests in five other counties, and have argued that those challenges — which would total more than 5,000 votes — should also be included in the curing process.
If the board’s interpretation is upheld, it raises the chances of Justice Riggs maintaining her win. If not, Judge Griffin would very likely emerge the winner, voting rights experts said, given the cumbersome curing process and the low likelihood of thousands of voters verifying their ballots, especially those in the military serving overseas.
In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that if the federal legal questions in the case remained unresolved by state proceedings, the case could continue at the federal level. In her appeal, Justice Riggs asked the court to consider “the federal issues remaining after resolution of the state court proceedings.”
Why is this race important?
The State Supreme Court race was already one of the most bitterly contested in the state. Both parties view the court, which has a 5-to-2 Republican majority, as crucial to upholding or overturning the state’s gerrymandered election districts, which now heavily favor Republicans.
But the case is also unique in an era of hyperactive post-election challenges. Not since Bush v. Gore in 2000 has a legal challenge after a winner was declared come so close to overturning the results long after an election.
Should Judge Griffin ultimately prevail, it could spawn a litany of copycat challenges in close elections, especially as President Trump and his supporters continue to challenge the integrity of American elections.
Does the case affect other races?
No. Only the State Supreme Court race could be affected because it is the only one that hasn’t been certified in the state.
Eduardo Medina is a Times reporter covering the South. An Alabama native, he is now based in Durham, N.C.
Nick Corasaniti is a Times reporter covering national politics, with a focus on voting and elections.
The post What to Know About the Legal Battle Over a North Carolina Supreme Court Race appeared first on New York Times.
