On Sunday, March 9, 2025, The News & Observer published an article detailing the ongoing legal battles surrounding the contested seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court following the November 2024 elections. The piece highlights the efforts of Judge Jefferson Griffin, the Republican candidate, who is currently contesting his narrow defeat to Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat. After two recounts, Griffin trails Riggs by 734 votes out of over 5 million ballots cast.
Griffin has initiated a legal challenge aimed at disqualifying more than 65,000 ballots on the grounds of alleged registration irregularities and other issues. His legal pursuits have involved multiple court appearances and filings with various judicial bodies, including the State Board of Elections, federal court, Wake County Superior Court, the state Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeals. The substantial legal activities raise questions about the financing of these efforts.
As of the end of last year, Griffin had reported raising $17,200 for his legal expense fund, with expenditures amounting to $14,000. However, there are concerns about the sources of financial support for his legal battle, as the updated disclosures are not due until mid-April. Griffin has not responded to inquiries regarding the funding of his legal expenses.
Justice Allison Riggs is also confronting significant legal costs as she defends her victory against Griffin’s claims. Riggs has been actively soliciting donations via email, emphasizing the necessity of financial contributions to maintain the integrity of voter rights and uphold legal principles. At the end of 2024, her legal fund indicated $22,550 raised, but a campaign representative acknowledged that substantial legal bills exceeding $1 million have already accrued in their defense against Griffin’s challenge.
The article discusses a broader context in which financial contributions to state Supreme Court races are experiencing unprecedented growth. According to a report from the Brennan Center for Justice, interest groups and political parties collectively spent over $100 million on state Supreme Court elections during the 2021-22 election cycle—a figure nearly double previous midterm spending when adjusted for inflation. In North Carolina, candidates in the state Supreme Court races raised $7.3 million, whereas outside organizations contributed an additional $10.3 million.
The ongoing legal disputes and funding dynamics associated with judicial candidates raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Unlike campaign funds, legal expense funds can accept unlimited donations from individuals, opening avenues for contributors to potentially influence judicial decisions. Recent changes in state law also permit political parties to channel funds towards legal expenses from their building funds, complicating the tracking of individual contributions.
Douglas Keith, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center who specializes in state court elections, highlighted ethical concerns with judicial candidates soliciting contributions from parties that may later appear before them in court. The article points out that North Carolina lacks specific ethics rules prohibiting such practices, thereby creating a potential conflict of interest.
Moreover, the issue of judges employing third-party legal representation further complicates the integrity of judicial processes. Questions arise regarding the implications of lawyers appearing before judges they have represented or whether law firms are providing discounted rates to judicial candidates.
Anne Tindall, an attorney affiliated with Project Democracy, expressed concerns about the risks posed to the administration of justice, asserting that reliance on external funding sources for legal battles may undermine judicial impartiality and integrity.
While Griffin’s legal challenge to invalidate the election results remains ongoing, it has underscored the need for stricter regulations on financial contributions to judicial candidates. The discussion around this issue suggests a potential shift towards appointing judges rather than through electoral processes, in a bid to preserve judicial independence and protect the integrity of the legal system in North Carolina.
Source: The News & Observer
