Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S.
This news analysis was originally distributed in Votebeat’s free weekly newsletter. Sign up to get future editions, including the latest reporting from Votebeat bureaus and curated news from other publications, delivered to your inbox every Saturday.
With voter confidence reportedly on the rise, it might be tempting to think that the battles over election integrity are over.
But there’s one contest from the November 2024 general election that isn’t settled yet, even though it’s now March. And what’s happening in the North Carolina Supreme Court race is sending a clear signal that losing candidates will continue to contest the rules under which elections are conducted.
Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, lost his bid for election to the court by just 734 votes to incumbent Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat who was appointed to a vacant seat in 2023 and then ran for a full term.
A statewide machine recount and a partial hand-to-eye recount confirmed Riggs' narrow victory. But Griffin is in court challenging more than 65,000 ballots, claiming they should have been ruled ineligible. His challenges have followed a complicated path through the courts, the State Board of Elections, and a Wake County judge, but they have escalated into a high-stakes legal fight with far-reaching consequences that seems destined to land before the same state Supreme Court the candidates are fighting for a seat on and where Riggs continues to serve.
Griffin, currently an appeals court judge, argues that the ballots should be invalidated due to missing voter ID details, such as a driver’s license or Social Security number. Some are ballots from overseas voters who did not submit photo identification, because existing rules did not require it and they were told they didn’t need to.
Election officials and voting rights advocates say these ballots were legally cast by voters who did nothing wrong, and throwing them out now would amount to disenfranchising voters based on what are likely administrative or data entry errors, and changing the rules after the election is conducted.
Riggs and voting rights advocates warn that allowing post-election challenges based on voter eligibility disputes could set a dangerous precedent, enabling losing candidates to ask the courts to erase legally cast votes. Such a shift would undermine trust in the electoral process.
In a recent brief filed with the state’s high court, the Brennan Center for Justice said Griffin’s argument “risks opening the floodgates to similar post-election protests on innumerable issues after every contest.”
“This Court is duty-bound to guard against such chaos and erosion,” the center wrote.
The North Carolina Supreme Court has declined to fast-track the appeal, ensuring the case will drag on, but the stakes are clear: If Griffin succeeds, he could establish a playbook for future losing candidates to overturn elections by contesting ballots long after results are certified.
An added concern is that the Republican-controlled court — Riggs has recused herself from this case — could make a politically motivated ruling. Beyond this single race, the outcome could determine the balance on the court itself, affecting future rulings on voting rights, redistricting, and election laws, issues the court has already swung on in recent years.
As this case unfolds, it will serve as a national test of such election challenges. And the result will tell us a lot.
Jessica Huseman is Votebeat’s editorial director and is based in Dallas. Contact Jessica at jhuseman@votebeat.org.
