- Left-of-center activist groups working with Democratic operative Marc Elias' law firm ana a group of more than 40 former North Carolina county elections directors are among the groups hoping to contribute arguments to the state Supreme Court election dispute.
- Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin wants to see more than 65,000 ballots thrown out of his recent election against Democratic Justice Allison Riggs.
- A series of court filings Thursday at the state Court of Appeals raised concerns about Griffin's legal arguments.
Left-of-center activist groups working with Democratic operative Marc Elias’ law firm hope to take part in the state Court of Appeals’ consideration of an election dispute involving a seat on the state Supreme Court. The case prompted court filings Thursday from the Elias clients and at least four other groups, including more than 40 former county elections directors.
The Elias Law Group filed paperwork Thursday seeking permission for the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans, VoteVets Action Fund, and three individual voters to intervene in Appeals Court proceedings. The same groups have been taking part in the case in federal court.
The lawsuit pits Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin, a state Appeals Court judge, against the State Board of Elections and Democrat Allison Riggs, the appointed incumbent in the Nov. 5 high court election. Riggs leads Griffin by 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast statewide. But Griffin is asking state courts to throw out more than 65,000 ballots he has labeled “unlawful.”
A state Supreme Court stay issued on Jan. 7 has blocked the state elections board from certifying Riggs as the winner.
A “nonpartisan group” of 42 former county elections directors filed a separate document to submit an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief in the case. The former elections officials focused on the “impact that a post-election change would have on the fair and transparent administration of elections.”
The Washington, DC-based Campaign Legal Center and former Democratic state Supreme Court candidate Lucy Inman filed a brief on behalf of groups called Secure Families Initiative and Count Every Hero. Those groups argue that Griffin’s ballot challenges “would cause harm to and disenfranchise military and overseas North Carolina voters and frustrate their ability to participate in the democratic process.”
The Southern Coalition for Social Justice filed a brief on behalf of other left-of-center activist groups and individual voters. “[E]ach of the Impacted Voters have an interest in the outcome of this matter both as to their challenged ballot in the 2024 General Election and their broader faith in North Carolina elections should their lawful vote be canceled due to no fault of their own,” according to the court filing. “Judge Griffin’s protests also disproportionately impact the Black and brown constituents and members of the Organizational Amici, whose voting rights are under consistent attack in the state of North Carolina.”
The Brennan Center for Justice filed a brief on behalf of the US Vote Foundation, Association of Americans Resident Overseas, and six individuals. “Amici have an interest in ensuring that all eligible American voters — especially service members stationed abroad and civilians living abroad — can participate in our democracy,” according to the brief. “Amici are deeply concerned that a ruling in [Griffin’s] favor would not only unfairly discard their members’ valid votes in the 2024 general election, but also raise uncertainty about their ability to vote in future elections.”
The state elections board and Riggs filed briefs Thursday responding to Griffin’s arguments.
A Wake County Superior Court “was right” to dismiss Griffin’s ballot challenges for three reasons, according the elections board brief filed by North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park. First, Griffin’s “request that this Court retroactively change election rules to alter the result in his recent election violates North Carolina’s version of the Purcell principle,” a federal standard that urges courts not to alter election rules during an election contest.
Second, Griffin’s “requested remedy would violate longstanding North Carolina Supreme Court precedent holding that it is fundamentally unfair, and therefore unlawful, to retroactively cancel votes that were cast in compliance with official guidance from election officials,” the elections board’s lawyers wrote.
Third, Griffin’s “protests should be denied because he failed to provide voters with adequate notice that he was challenging their votes.”
“After failing to win over the voters, Judge Griffin tried to change the election rules,” Riggs’ lawyers wrote in a separate court filing. “Each of these rules has been applied, without controversy, for years. They applied in every primary and general election race in 2024. But Judge Griffin tried to change the rules for his race only. The effect of his requested rule changes would be to retroactively disenfranchise more than 65,000 eligible North Carolina voters who followed the rules.”
“It gets worse,” Riggs’ lawyers added. “Judge Griffin adopted a flood-the-zone but cut-procedural-corners strategy, rushing out hundreds of protests targeting tens of thousands of
North Carolinians.”
Griffin filed his opening brief with the Appeals Court Monday. He 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.
“The State Board is an administrative agency that has broken the law for decades, while refusing to correct its errors,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote in the brief. “At bottom, this case presents a fundamental question: who decides our election laws? Is it the people and their elected representatives, or the unelected bureaucrats sitting on the State Board of Elections?”
“If the Board gets its way, then it is the real sovereign here,” Griffin’s court filing continued. “It can ignore the election statutes and constitutional provisions, while administering an election however it wants.”
Griffin “seeks to restore the supremacy of the democratic process and the preeminence of the rule of law,” his lawyers wrote. His election protests “challenge the State Board’s lawless administration of his electoral contest.”
Riggs filed paperwork Tuesday asking for the full Appeals Court to hear the case in a rare en banc hearing. Riggs also asks for Appeals Court Judge Tom Murry’s recusal from the case. Murry’s campaign committee contributed $5,000 to Griffin’s legal defense fund.