- The North Carolina Court of Appeals has revealed the names of the bipartisan panel that issued a ruling against fellow Judge Jefferson Griffin in December.
- Chief Judge Chris Dillon and fellow Judges Tobias Hampson and April Wood issued a Dec. 10 order rejecting Griffin's request to mandate a decision from the State Board of Elections about election ballot challenges.
- Court rules required the names of participating judges to remain confidential for 90 days.
Three months after its decision, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has revealed the names of judges who ruled against colleague Jefferson Griffin in December during the early stages of his election dispute.
Chief Judge Chris Dillon and Judges Tobias Hampson and April Wood issued a unanimous Dec. 10 order against Griffin. Dillon and Wood are Republicans. Hampson is a Democrat.
Appeals Court rules required the names of participating judges to remain confidential for 90 days. Now the names are listed publicly on the state court system’s website.
Griffin, a sitting Appeals Court judge, had asked the second’s state-highest court to force the State Board of Elections to issue a decision by Dec. 10 about his challenges against thousands of votes cast in the Nov. 5 election state Supreme Court election. After judges refused Griffin’s request, the state elections board eventually rejected all of Griffin’s ballot challenges.
Griffin trails appointed incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes in a race for a state Supreme Court seat. Recounts have confirmed Riggs’ lead. A Jan. 7 stay from the state Supreme Court has blocked the elections board from certifying Riggs as the winner.
The legal action returned to the Appeals Court last month after the case moved to North Carolina’s highest court, multiple levels of federal court, and Wake County Superior Court.
Superior Court Judge William Pittman issued three orders on Feb. 7 rejecting Griffin’s request to throw out ballots the Republican candidate has labeled “illegal.” Griffin appealed that ruling.
Griffin, Riggs, and the elections board all have filed briefs with the Appeals Court. The court has yet to decide whether it will hear Griffin’s latest arguments in a three-judge panel or a rare “en banc” hearing of the full court.
Republicans outnumber Democrats, 12-3, on the court. With Griffin agreeing not to participate in the case, the partisan split is 11-3. Riggs also has requested Republican Judge Tom Murry’s recusal from the case. Murry’s campaign committee contributed $5,000 to Griffin’s legal defense fund connected to the election challenge.
Griffin filed a document last week objecting to Riggs’ recusal request for Murry. In a separate filing, Griffin opposed Riggs’ request for the full Appeals Court to hear the case now.
“As Appellate Rule 31.1 states, en banc hearings are ‘not favored.’ This case is no exception. Justice Riggs’ motion for initial en banc hearing should be denied,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote.
Griffin focused on the fact that Pittman’s orders offered no analysis of the decision to reject the ballot challenges.
“Initial en banc hearing does not make sense given the absence of a reasoned opinion from the superior court,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote. “[T]here are 31 issues presented in this case. There may be a time for en banc rehearing after a panel decision on those issues, and the en banc Court could decide to narrow the issues that the full Court will reconsider to ensure expeditious review. But 31 issues does not meet the required standard that the questions in the case be ‘concisely stated.’”
The number of issues “could extend the time needed for and overwhelm en banc review,” Griffin’s lawyers added. If multiple judges decide to issue opinions in the case, “review would be slower, not faster, than a panel decision.”
“[T]here’s also the chance that initial en banc hearing would deprive Judge Griffin of his first shot at meaningful appellate review,” the court filing continued. “With Judge Griffin recused, the en banc court would have an even number of judges, which could lead to deadlocking.”
“It’s not even clear what would happen at that point. Would the superior court’s decision be automatically affirmed? Or would the case be referred back to a three-member panel for initial decision? Regardless, there’s no need to invite that kind of procedural chaos in a case of such public importance,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote.
Riggs filed her motions on Feb. 25 seeking the en banc review and Murry’s recusal. The State Board of Elections “does not object” to a hearing by the full Appeals Court, Riggs’ lawyers wrote.
Republicans hold a 5-2 majority at the state Supreme Court. Riggs has recused herself from the case, giving Republicans a 5-1 margin. Republican Justice Richard Dietz has split from the majority in two recent decisions involving the election dispute. Votes in both instances split the court, 4-2.
Griffin challenges the State Board of Elections’ decision to count three types of ballots in the recent election: more than 60,000 votes cast by people whose voter registration records appeared to lack a driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number, more than 5,500 overseas voters who provided no proof of photo identification, and 267 voters who have never lived in North Carolina.
Riggs continues to serve on the Supreme Court during the legal dispute, while Griffin continues his work on the Appeals Court.