- Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin is seeking an injunction against the North Carolina State Board of Elections. He seeks to block the board from certifying Democrat Allison Riggs as winner of the Nov. 5 Supreme Court election.
- A court filing Monday spells out an expedited schedule that could lead to a decision about the injunction during the first full week of January.
- US Chief District Judge Richard Myers issued a ruling Friday refusing to grant Griffin a temporary stay in the election dispute.
Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin filed a motion Monday seeking a preliminary injunction against the North Carolina State Board of Elections. Griffin wants to stop the elections board from certifying results of the Nov. 5 Supreme Court election.
He also seeks an expedited schedule that could lead to a decision on the injunction during the first full week of January.
Griffin hopes to block the elections board from declaring appointed incumbent Democrat Allison Riggs as the election’s winner. Riggs leads Griffin by 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million ballots cast statewide.
A lawsuit from Griffin aims to block the elections board from counting more than 60,000 ballots targeted as “unlawful.” The board has rejected most of Griffin’s protests against those ballots.
A final decision on those protests is expected Friday, according to paperwork Griffin’s lawyers filed Monday. Unless Griffin secures an injunction by Jan. 9, the elections board could vote the following day to certify the election. Such a vote would “moot” Griffin’s legal challenge.
Griffin and the elections board have agreed to a schedule that would have the elections board respond to Griffin’s request for an injunction by Jan. 1. Griffin would file a reply by Jan. 3, and US Chief District Judge Richard Myers could hold a hearing on Jan. 7 or Jan. 8.
The court filing indicates that Riggs’ lawyer also “consents” to the schedule.
“Without a preliminary injunction, mootness will deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider any of the issues presented in this matter,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote in support of their motion for an injunction. “A preliminary injunction, however, will simply stay the Board’s hand. … The Board will not be harmed by that injunction — indeed, North Carolina law contemplates delays in election certifications while judicial review is pending.”
“By contrast, Judge Griffin will be irreparably harmed absent the injunction: his protests will be mooted, and he will lose the election,” the court filing continued. “And preventing the Board’s certification from mooting Judge Griffin’s challenges to unlawful ballots will serve the important public interests in election integrity and the franchise, among others.”
Myers issued an order Friday denying Griffin’s request for a temporary restraining order in the case.
“A motion for temporary restraining may only issue if the movant makes a clear showing of immediate injury,” the federal judge wrote. “[T]he court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a clear showing that he will suffer immediate injury before Defendant can be heard in opposition.”
Griffin filed a complaint last week urging the state Supreme Court to block the state elections board from counting “unlawful” ballots in the race. The elections board responded the following morning by removing the case to Myers’ federal courtroom.
Myers also oversees a lawsuit the North Carolina Democratic Party filed on Dec. 6 dealing with the same ballot challenges Griffin addresses in his complaint. Griffin intervened as a defendant in that case.
Griffin’s complaint highlighted three categories of election protests: voters who registered without providing a driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number, voters who never have lived in North Carolina, and overseas voters who did not provide photo identification.
“In response to these protests, the State Board and the opposing candidate, Justice Allison Riggs, have claimed that Judge Griffin is seeking a retroactive change in the election laws. That flatly mischaracterizes the timeline,” the court filing explained. “Our registration statutes required drivers license or social security numbers back in 2004. Our state constitution has imposed a residency requirement since 1776. And photo identification has been required for absentee voting since at least 2018. The laws that should have governed this election were, therefore, established long before this election. The State Board simply chose to break the law.”
Riggs has filed a motion to intervene in the case. Two groups and three individual voters working with Democratic operative Marc Elias’ law firm also have filed a motion to join the case as defendants.