- Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin seeks to expedite the North Carolina Court of Appeals' consideration of his challenges of more than 65,000 ballots cast in the Nov. 5 election.
- Griffin filed paperwork Tuesday requesting a timeline that would conclude written briefing in the case by Feb. 25.
- The State Board of Elections, Democratic candidate Allison Riggs, or both plan to file a bypass petition asking the state Supreme Court to take the case, Griffin's lawyers wrote.
- A Wake County Superior Court judge ruled against Griffin on Friday.
Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin is asking the North Carolina Court of Appeals to expedite its timeline for considering his challenges of thousands of ballots cast in the Nov. 5 election.
Meanwhile, a court filing Tuesday from Griffin indicates that the State Board of Elections, Democratic candidate Allison Riggs, or both will seek to bypass the Appeals Court and have the case resolved by North Carolina’s highest court.
Riggs leads Griffin by 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast statewide three months ago. Yet Griffin is challenging more than 65,000 ballots cast in the election. His court filings indicate he believes throwing out those ballots would swing the election result in his favor.
A Jan. 7 state Supreme Court order has blocked the state elections board from certifying Riggs as the winner.
Wake County Superior Court Judge William Pittman issued three orders Friday rejecting Griffin’s three distinct challenges to votes cast in the election. Griffin filed notices of appeal on Monday.
Now, Griffin is requesting that the Appeals Court shorten its normal schedule for addressing the appeal.
“The typical deadlines set forth in the Rules of Appellate Procedure are not consistent with the Supreme Court’s mandate that this action proceed expeditiously,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote. “The parties have acted under expedited briefing schedules in each of the many actions involving this election dispute, including proceedings before the State Board, the Supreme Court, the superior court, a federal district court, and the Fourth Circuit. Expedited treatment of the dispute remains appropriate.”
Griffin recommends a schedule that would begin with a first court filing on Thursday and end with final written briefs on Feb. 25. Griffin is the case’s “appellant.” Both the state elections board and Riggs are designated as “appellees.”
The appellees suggest a longer timeline for briefing, Griffin’s lawyers wrote. Instead of eight days for written arguments, appellees suggest 17 days.
“Appellees also informed Appellant that they intend to file a bypass petition with the [state] Supreme Court and want to postpone briefing until after a ruling on the bypass petition. Appellant believes that postponing briefing is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s order to proceed expeditiously,” Griffin’s lawyers added.
All parties in the case agree that three lawsuits representing three types of ballot challenge could be consolidated into one appeal, the court filing continued.
Pittman issued his rulings Friday afternoon, hours after holding a hearing attended by Griffin and Riggs. One-page orders in each case upheld the State Board of Elections’ December decision rejecting three different groups of ballot protests.
“The Court concludes as a matter of law that the Board’s decision was not in violation of constitutional provisions, was not in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, was made upon lawful procedure, and was not affected by other error of law,” Pittman wrote.
The state Supreme Court voted 4-2 last month to grant the stay in the case. Four state Supreme Court Republicans supported the stay. Republican Justice Richard Dietz and Democratic Justice Anita Earls voted against the stay. Riggs, an appointed incumbent, took no part in the decision.
Last week’s hearing took place after the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals refused to grant requests from Riggs and the elections board to seek to have the case returned to federal court. A unanimous 4th Circuit panel agreed on Feb. 4 that US Chief District Judge Richard Myers had the authority to abstain from hearing the case.
Yet the 4th Circuit ruling opened the door for the case’s possible return to federal court. Citing a US Supreme Court precedent in a case called Pullman, appellate judges ruled that Myers must address any federal legal issues that remain once state courts have ruled on all state law issues in Griffin’s ballot challenges.
Both Riggs and the elections board filed notice of an “England reservation.” That legal maneuver signaled their intent to return the case to Myers’ court if state courts rule against the elections board and Riggs.
Griffin is pursuing three categories of ballot challenges. The largest category of more than 60,000 ballots involves voters whose registration records appear to lack a required driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number. Griffin also challenges more than 5,500 ballots from overseas voters who provided no photo identification. He targets 267 “never residents,” people permitted to cast ballots in North Carolina elections despite never living in the state.
Republicans outnumber Democrats, 5-2, on the state Supreme Court. A Riggs victory would lead to no change in the partisan split. A win for Griffin would boost Republicans’ majority to 6-1.
Riggs serves on the state high court as it hears oral arguments and makes rulings in different legal disputes. Griffin continues to serve in his role as a state Appeals Court judge as his case continues.