- Democrat Allison Riggs picked up 14 more votes than Republican Jefferson Griffin in a partial hand recount of votes in the recent North Carolina Supreme Court election.
- Griffin would have needed to secure 35 more votes than Riggs to guarantee a statewide hand recount of all ballots. Now that recount will not take place.
- Riggs, Griffin, and the State Board of Elections await word from the state Court of Appeals about the issue of Griffin's ballot challenges. Griffin asked North Carolina's second-highest court to mandate a decision on ballot challenges Tuesday.
- The State Board of Elections is scheduled to address the issue in a meeting Wednesday.
Democrat Allison Riggs picked up 14 more votes than Republican Jefferson Griffin in a partial hand recount in North Carolina’s recent state Supreme Court election. That result announced Tuesday afternoon means the State Board of Elections will not conduct a full statewide hand recount.
After a statewide machine recount, the appointed incumbent Riggs led Griffin by 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million ballots cast statewide.
The partial recount conducted by bipartisan teams in all 100 counties produced 70 more votes for Riggs and 56 more votes for Griffin, according to a state elections board news release.
“Under state law, for a full hand recount to be ordered, Griffin would have had to pick up at least 35 more votes than Riggs in the partial hand count of the ballots in 3% of the Election Day precincts and early voting sites in each county,” the elections board news release explained.
The elections board is scheduled to meet Wednesday to address ballot challenges Griffin has filed in connection with the election. More than 300 protests target 60,000 ballots statewide.
Griffin and the elections board await word from the North Carolina Court of Appeals in connection with the ballot challenges. Griffin asked the state’s second-highest court to order a decision Tuesday about ballot challenges.
The Republican candidate also has intervened in a federal lawsuit filed by the North Carolina Democratic Party connected to the ballot challenges. Democrats want a federal judge to settle the issue. US Chief District Judge Richard Myers is overseeing the case.
“The North Carolina Democratic Party (‘NCDP’) wants this Court to prevent the North Carolina State Board of Elections (‘NCSBE’) from sustaining election protests filed by Proposed Intervenor, Judge Jefferson Griffin. Judge Griffin has a direct and substantial interest in the success of his election protests: It’s the difference between winning and losing the November 2024 general election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote Monday.
“The NCDP’s effort to prevent Judge Griffin from prevailing on his election protests represents an obvious threat to Judge Griffin’s interests, and Judge Griffin cannot rely on the NCSBE to adequately protect those interests,” the court filing continued. “Because the NCDP filed its complaint prematurely, the NCSBE has not yet decided whether it even agrees with the merits of Judge Griffin’s protests. The Court should therefore grant Judge Griffin’s motion to intervene.”
Griffin argued in a separate document against linking the Democrats’ lawsuit to a case already sitting in Myers’ court. In that dispute, state and national GOP groups challenge 225,000 voter registrations in North Carolina involving voters who did not provide a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number.
“With different plaintiffs challenging different agency decisions under different legal theories,” the GOP suit “bears little resemblance” to the Democrats’ case, Griffin’s lawyers argued.
A court order Tuesday moved the case to Myers’ courtroom.
In a separate legal action, the North Carolina Court of Appeals could decide Tuesday whether to mandate that the state elections board issue a decision about Griffin’s protests.
“The State Board has no clear legal duty to decide Judge Griffin’s protests on his preferred schedule,” the elections board’s lawyers wrote Tuesday morning. “Judge Griffin’s counsel conceded as much to the Superior Court, explaining that no statute or rule supports this petition. Moreover, because the State Board would violate the Open Meetings Act if it decided the protests today, Judge Griffin has no clear right to his requested relief.”
“Nor has Judge Griffin established that the State Board is failing to expeditiously resolve his protests,” the elections board’s court filing continued. “In fact, the State Board has already
hastened resolution of this contest and is moving expeditiously to bring it to conclusion. Judge Griffin has shown no good reason for this Court to take the extraordinary and procedurally inapt measures he requests, all to decide an election protest a single day earlier than planned.”