On Saturday, March 22, 2025, ABC11 Eyewitness News reported that North Carolina appeals court judges convened to hear arguments regarding the unresolved Supreme Court election in the state. The focus of the hearings was whether tens of thousands of ballots should be included in the final vote tally or discarded.

A panel of three judges from the North Carolina Court of Appeals is tasked with determining if the State Board of Elections acted properly last December when it dismissed formal protests regarding these ballots, protests filed by Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin. A trial judge had previously upheld the Board’s decision last month.

The current situation follows two recounts that revealed Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs leading Griffin by a narrow margin of 734 votes from a total of more than 5.5 million ballots cast in the election. Griffin’s legal team has raised concerns about over 65,000 ballots, arguing that they were cast by ineligible voters. If these ballots are removed from the count, Griffin’s position could potentially shift in his favor.

After 90 minutes of oral arguments, the panel did not issue an immediate ruling. The judges, comprised of two registered Republicans and one Democrat, have not yet set a timeline for their decision. However, there is significant pressure to resolve the matter quickly, as the eight-year term for the Supreme Court seat was expected to commence in early January. Meanwhile, Riggs continues to serve in her position while Griffin remains a judge on the Court of Appeals.

Despite The Associated Press declaring over 4,400 winners in the 2024 general election, the race for the North Carolina Supreme Court remains the only undecided contest. Regardless of how Judges John Tyson, Fred Gore, and Toby Hampson rule, their decision is likely to be subject to further appeals, either to the state Supreme Court or potentially to federal courts.

Griffin has recused himself from participating in the Court of Appeals deliberations concerning this case. The involvement of judges in a matter directly impacting a colleague, as well as Riggs’ previous role as a Court of Appeals judge in 2023, adds to the uniqueness of the situation.

During the hearings, the judges posed numerous questions regarding the three categories of ballots Griffin’s team challenged. The largest group consists of ballots from voters whose registration records were missing either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Additionally, votes cast by overseas voters without a prior U.S. residency and ballots from military or overseas voters who did not provide photo identification were also under scrutiny.

Griffin’s attorneys argue that including these challenged ballots violates state law and the North Carolina Constitution, asserting that the State Board of Elections, which includes three Democrats and two Republicans, failed to adhere to legal protocols. They seek to have these ballots declared ineligible and ultimately excluded from the count.

“This case is not about changing laws after the election,” said Craig Schauer, one of Griffin’s lawyers. “It’s a case about enforcing the laws that were already on the books before the election.”

Conversely, lawyers representing Riggs and the State Board contend that the ballots were cast in accordance with established rules that have governed elections for years, emphasizing that these regulations cannot be retroactively altered. They assert that Griffin did not follow the appropriate procedures for lodging formal protests.

“It is time for this election to come to an end and for voters to know that their votes will count in this state if they follow the rules in place at the time of the election,” asserted Ray Bennett, an attorney for Riggs.

Judge Hampson, the Democrat on the panel, expressed skepticism regarding Schauer’s claim that Griffin’s protests aim to ensure uniform enforcement of voting laws. He pointed out that Griffin is only challenging certain categories of ballots, raising questions about whether this selective scrutiny imposes an unfair burden on voters statewide.

Tyson, a Republican judge, inquired about a 2005 state Supreme Court ruling which determined that specific provisional ballots from the 2004 election were unlawful, despite the state board’s decision to count them. His questions hinted at a potential precedent for invalidating a significant number of ballots post-election.

“Doesn’t the 2005 ruling say that if a voter relied on board guidance that is contrary to the statute that still is not a reason to excuse the noncompliance?” Tyson asked state attorney Nick Brod, representing the State Board. Brod disagreed with this interpretation.

In the lead-up to Friday’s hearing, Riggs’ supporters have organized rallies across North Carolina, urging Griffin to concede the election. Additionally, several external groups filed briefs in support of the Board’s decisions, including voters whose ballots are being contested by Griffin.

 

 

Source: ABC11 Eyewitness News