- State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs is asking the full North Carolina Court of Appeals to consider the election dispute pitting the Democrat Riggs and the State Board of Elections against Republican Jefferson Griffin.
- Riggs also seeks Judge Tom Murry's recusal from the case. Murry's campaign committee contributed $5,000 to a legal defense fund supporting Griffin's election challenge.
- Without Griffin or Murry, Republican judges would outnumber Democrats, 10-3, if the full Appeals Court considers the case.
State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs is asking the entire North Carolina Court of Appeals to hear the election dispute pitting challenger Jefferson Griffin against Riggs and the state elections board. Riggs is also seeking Judge Tom Murry’s recusal from the case.
The Democrat Riggs, an appointed incumbent, faced the Republican Griffin, an Appeals Court judge, in the Nov. 5 election for a state Supreme Court seat. Riggs leads Griffin by 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast last fall. But Griffin is asking state courts to throw out more than 65,000 ballots he has labeled “unlawful.”
A Jan. 7 stay from the state Supreme Court has blocked the State Board of Elections from certifying Riggs as the winner.
The dispute sits now with the 15-member Appeals Court. That court typically hears cases in three-judge panels. Riggs filed a motion Tuesday asking the full court to consider the case in an en banc hearing. In a separate court filing, Riggs seeks recusal from Murry, a Republican elected to the Appeals Court last November.
“While en banc hearing ‘is not favored,’ it is appropriate when ‘the case involves a question of exceptional importance that must be concisely stated,’” Riggs’s lawyers wrote in the motion for the full Appeals Court hearing. “This appeal meets that standard, and it merits initial en banc consideration for three reasons.”
“First, the issues presented are important. As Chief Justice Newby put it in related proceedings, this case ‘is about preserving the public’s trust and confidence in our elections through the rule of law,’” Riggs’ motion explained.
“Second, initial hearing en banc is consistent with the Supreme Court’s instruction ‘to proceed expeditiously,’” Riggs’ lawyers added. “If this appeal is decided by a panel of this Court, the disappointed party or parties will have the right to seek rehearing en banc. Any such request will cause further delay even if the full Court denies that request.”
“Third, as Judge Griffin highlighted, the prospect of deadlock in the Supreme Court means that this Court’s opinion could stand as the final adjudication of the important state-law issues presented here,” Riggs’ lawyers wrote. “This potential for deadlock reinforces the importance of thorough review and a concise articulation of state law by the full Court, rather than from a three-judge panel.”
“And because no party knows how this Court will resolve those state-law issues, this request for initial en banc consideration does not risk the type of ‘outcome-determined reasoning’ that ‘has no place in a court committed to the rule of law,’” the motion continued.
The State Board of Elections “does not object” to an en banc hearing, but Griffin opposes the idea, according to Riggs’ court filing.
Riggs filed a motion for Murry’s recusal from the case “out of an abundance of caution,” her lawyers wrote. The motion would apply “if he is not already recused.”
Murry’s campaign committee contributed $5,000 in December to a legal defense fund set up to help Griffin with his election challenge.
“Justice Riggs takes no position on the propriety of the $5,000 contribution but respectfully submits that recusal is warranted here because Judge Murry’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned,” Riggs’ lawyers wrote.
“Recusal is also warranted because the $5,000 contribution appears to be directly related to the dispute before this Court,” the court filing continued. “Judge Griffin’s legal defense fund was formed after the November 2024 general election, as Judge Griffin was seeking to overturn Justice Riggs’s apparent victory. By contributing to that legal defense fund, Judge Murry’s campaign committee provided material aid to Judge Griffin and showed a preference for Judge Griffin in this specific dispute.”
The State Board of Elections “takes no position” on the recusal motion. Griffin opposes the idea. Riggs’ lawyers indicated that Griffin planned a response “no earlier than March 5.”
Without Griffin, Republicans outnumber Democrats, 11-3, on the Appeals Court. A recusal from Murry would leave Republicans with a 10-3 majority.
Riggs’ latest court filings arrived the day after Griffin explained to the Appeals Court his case challenging more than 65,000 ballots cast in the Nov. 5 election.
Griffin is asking state courts to throw out challenged ballots. Removing the ballots could flip the result of the Supreme Court race. Riggs leads the race by 734 votes, a result confirmed by two recounts.
The case sits in the Appeals Court after the state Supreme Court decided on Feb. 20 to reject a request from the elections board, supported by Riggs, to bypass the state’s second-highest court.
Republicans hold a 5-2 majority at the state Supreme Court. Riggs has recused herself from the case, giving Republicans a 5-1 margin. Republican Justice Richard Dietz has split from the majority in two recent decisions involving the election dispute. Votes in both instances split the court, 4-2.
Griffin 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 a brief filed Monday. “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.”
Under a compressed Appeals Court timeline, the state elections board and Riggs face a Thursday deadline to respond to Griffin’s legal arguments. Griffin can file a final written brief on March 3. The Appeals Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments in the case.
Wake County Superior Court Judge William Pittman rejected all three sets of Griffin’s ballot challenges on Feb. 7. After Griffin appealed Pittman’s decision to the Court of Appeals, the elections board sought a bypass petition from the Supreme Court.
The high court rejected that request, 4-2, with Dietz joining Democratic Justice Anita Earls in dissent.
Riggs continues to serve on the Supreme Court during the legal dispute, while Griffin continues his work on the Appeals Court.