- Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin renewed his request Monday for action from the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Griffin seeks a court order setting a Tuesday deadline for state elections officials to address his challenges of ballots cast in the recent election.
- A Wake County Superior Court judge rejected Griffin's request Monday.
- The North Carolina Democratic Party filed a lawsuit Friday to ensure a federal judge reviews challenges of 60,000 ballots cast in the election that ended Nov. 5.
Republican North Carolina Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin renewed his request Monday for action from the state’s second-highest court. A Wake County Superior Court judge turned down Griffin’s request to mandate a deadline for state election officials to address Griffin’s election ballot challenges.
In a court filing Monday, Griffin’s lawyers resubmitted a request for a writ of mandamus from the state Court of Appeals. Griffin serves on that 15-member court, which typically addresses cases in three-judge panels.
The court issued an order Monday afternoon setting an 8 a.m. Tuesday deadline for responses to Griffin’s request.
He trails appointed Democrat Allison Riggs by 734 votes in the race for a state Supreme Court seat. A hand recount in the election is scheduled to be complete Tuesday.
Griffin filed his initial request with the state Appeals Court Friday. His latest request followed Superior Court Judge William Pittman’s Monday ruling favoring the state elections board.
“Today, the Wake County Superior Court entered a ruling denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. As stated in Judge Griffin’s earlier petition filed with this Court, Judge Griffin had filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the superior court last Friday, 6 December 2024. That petition was heard on an emergency basis this morning by the superior court, and the superior court denied it,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote.
“By denying that petition, the State Board of Elections is now permitted to decide the election protests on any arbitrary deadline,” the court filing continued. “And the time for action by the Board is likely to be arbitrary. Eighteen years ago, the General Assembly commanded the State Board to issue rules that govern the ‘the timing of deliberations and issuance of decisions.’”
“In defiance of this statute, the Board has not issued any such rules. In its brief to the superior court on the mandamus action, the Board flaunted its own violation of the statute, asserting, ‘There are no statutory or rule-based timelines for the State Board to consider protest appeals.’ The superior court said the same in its order,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote.
“There are supposed to be rules, but there aren’t, and the fault lies with the State Board. Now that the superior court has failed to hasten the State Board, Judge Griffin renews his request for immediate relief from this Court,” the court filing continued.
As Griffin moves forward with his complaint, the state Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit to ensure that a federal court addresses challenges of 60,000 ballots cast during the recent election. Democrats filed suit Friday. They plan to hold a news conference Tuesday related to the ongoing legal action.
The State Board of Elections plans to discuss Griffin’s challenges Wednesday. Griffin criticized that timeline in a document filed Friday with the state Court of Appeals.
“The foot-dragging is inexcusable,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote.
Griffin and state Republican Party officials are pursuing a series of challenges involving 60,000 ballots cast statewide.
“Specifically, Judge Griffin seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the State Board of Elections to issue a final decision on his three categories of election protests pending before that Board by 5:00pm on 10 December 2024,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote. “The immediate issuance of a final decision is necessary so that any aggrieved party can seek judicial review of that decision and the winner for the open seat on our Supreme Court can be certified.”
“Public trust in our electoral processes depends on both fair and efficient procedures to determine the outcome of our elections,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote. “By failing to give a timely decision, the State Board continues to undermine the public interest, just as it has done in its mismanagement of the 2024 general election.”
Griffin filed election protests on Nov. 19 in all 100 North Carolina counties. He filed six categories of protest. His request to the Appeals Court addresses three. First, Griffin targets “incomplete voter registrations,” meaning people who registered to vote without providing a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number.
“In the Supreme Court contest, over 60,000 people cast ballots, even though they had never provided the statutorily required information to become lawful voter registrants. Under state law, unless someone is lawfully registered to vote, he cannot vote,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote.
Second, Griffin targets “never residents.” “Our state constitution limits voters for state offices to people who actually reside in North Carolina,” the candidate’s lawyers wrote. “Nonetheless, the State Board allowed approximately 289 people to vote in the protested election who have never resided in North Carolina or anywhere else in the United States. These voters self-identified themselves as such, stating on a form ‘I am a U.S. citizen living outside the country, and I have never lived in the United States.’ Counting these ballots is unlawful.”
Third, Griffin lists “no photo ID” as a protest category. “It’s well known that photo identification is required for all voters, both those voting absentee ballots and those voting in person,” his lawyers wrote. “Yet the State Board decided not to require photo identification for absentee ballots cast by voters who live overseas. State law, however, doesn’t exempt overseas voters from the photo-identification requirement. Thousands of such ballots were unlawfully cast in the election.”
Griffin sought a similar order from Wake County Superior Court before turning to the Appeals Court. The Superior Court had not addressed the request Friday when Griffin first filed paperwork with the Appeals Court.
“A disputed election to our state’s highest court is itself an exceptional circumstance of immense public interest,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote. “A speedy determination of that contest is not just important to the candidates, but is critical to the public’s trust in the electoral process. Everyone has a strong interest in the fair and speedy determination of election results.”
“This Court need not let the public trust in the electoral process crumble further,” the court filing argued.