Honest Elections Project backs Griffin at 4th Circuit

Listen to this story (6 minutes)

  • The right-of-center Honest Election Project is backing Republican North Carolina Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin at the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Eight university professors working with the American Civil Liberties Union filed a competing brief opposing Griffin. They linked his election challenge to a concept called "democratic backsliding."
  • Griffin is urging the 4th Circuit to affirm a federal trial judge's decision to send Griffin's lawsuit against the North Carolina State Board of Elections back to the state Supreme Court.
  • The elections board, Democratic candidate Allison Riggs, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and left-of-center activist groups working with Democratic operative Marc Elias' law firm all want the 4th Circuit to order the case to be decided in a federal courtroom.

The right-of-center Honest Elections Project is backing Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin at the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The group filed a brief Wednesday supporting Griffin’s argument that his election dispute belongs in a North Carolina courtroom rather than federal court.

Later that evening, eight university professors working with the American Civil Liberties Union submitted a brief opposing Griffin. They labeled his election challenge an example of “democratic backsliding.”

The 4th Circuit will hold oral arguments in the case Monday in Richmond, Virginia.

Both North Carolina’s highest court and the 4th Circuit are considering Griffin’s legal complaint against the State Board of Elections. Democratic candidate Allison Riggs has intervened in the case supporting the elections board.

Riggs, the appointed incumbent, leads Griffin, a state Appeals Court judge, by 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast statewide in the Nov. 5 election. State election officials have yet to certify Riggs as the winner. Griffin challenges more than 65,000 ballots cast in the election.

While the state Supreme Court considers Griffin’s request for a writ of prohibition blocking the elections board from counting challenged ballots, the 4th Circuit is dealing with requests from the elections board and Riggs to limit the legal action to a federal courtroom. Riggs and the elections board want the federal Appeals Court to reverse a federal trial judge’s Jan. 6 ruling that the case belonged to the North Carolina court system.

“It is curious that a case like this presenting no federal issues would end up in federal court,” wrote Jason Torchinsky, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Honest Elections Project. “Even stranger, it is surprising that this case would be appealed to the Fourth Circuit after a federal district court thoroughly evaluated the underlying issues and found that remand to the North Carolina Supreme Court was warranted.”

Torchinsky’s brief rejected arguments from Riggs and the elections board that a federal court should hear the case because of its link to the federal National Voter Registration Act. “The NVRA has no application to this case, whether as a claim or as a legitimate defense,” Torchinsky wrote.

The NVRA applies only to federal elections, not to a state election like the Supreme Court contest pitting Griffin against Riggs, the brief argued.

“Clearly, the NVRA operates against a background principle of reserved State power over election administration,” Torchinsky wrote. “Indeed, the limited scope of the NVRA is not attributable to any failure by Congress to legislate to the outer limits of its constitutional authority, but instead due to inherent constitutional constraints on congressional power over state elections.”

In contrast to Torchinsky’s arguments, ACLU lawyers wrote on behalf of university professors from outside North Carolina who oppose Griffin’s election challenge. The professors from the University of Chicago, University of California at Berkeley, Harvard, Princeton, Rutgers, and Michigan State warned about the “degradation of free and fair elections and the capture of independent courts or electoral commissions by ruling parties seeking to expand and entrench their own power.”

“Such backsliding is happening now in North Carolina,” according to the academics’ brief. “And Judge Griffin’s effort, to invalidate tens of thousands of votes retroactively and overturn an election in the absence of any evidence of fraud or impropriety, is a dramatic escalation.”

The Honest Elections Project brief and the disourse on “democratic backsliding” arrived on the same day that Griffin faced a deadline to submit his own 4th Circuit brief.  

“This is ‘a textbook case’ for federal abstention,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote, using the term for federal courts declining to hear cases that belong in state courts.

“The Supreme Court of North Carolina was well positioned to decide Judge Griffin’s claims expeditiously — until the [elections] Board removed this case to the district court below. Flouting the Supreme Court’s longstanding directive that ‘[s]tate courts are adequate forums for the vindication of federal rights,’ the Board insisted that only a federal court can resolve the application of North Carolina’s laws in light of related federal interests,” Griffin’s brief continued.

“The district court correctly rejected that premise, recognized that there is no reason this case must be in federal court, and appropriately exercised its discretion to abstain from
venturing guesses about these weighty state-law questions,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote.

Riggs, the state elections board, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and left-of-center activist groups working with Democratic operative Marc Elias’ law firm all filed briefs on Jan. 15 urging the 4th Circuit to return the case to a federal courtroom. They seek a reversal of US Chief District Judge Richard Myers’ decision not to consider the election dispute.

Myers sent the case to the state Supreme Court on Jan. 6. That court issued a temporary stay the following day blocking the elections board from certifying Riggs as the election’s winner.

As legal arguments proceed in the 4th Circuit, the same legal combatants are filing competing briefs with the state Supreme Court. Riggs asked her colleagues this week to schedule oral arguments in the case. She asked for a “peremptory setting,” meaning the arguments would take place before other cases already scheduled. Justices have cases scheduled for arguments from Feb. 11 through Feb. 20.

Griffin faces a Friday deadline to file the final written arguments with the state Supreme Court.

Related