On Friday, March 7, 2025, The Carolina Journal reported that Republican North Carolina Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin is opposing a request from Democratic candidate Allison Riggs for the full state Appeals Court to review Griffin’s challenges to over 65,000 ballots from the recent election. Griffin also objected to Riggs’ motion seeking the recusal of Judge Tom Murry from the case, citing a $5,000 contribution from Murry’s campaign committee to Griffin’s legal defense fund.
The ongoing legal dispute follows a decision by a Wake County Superior Court judge who dismissed Griffin’s challenges against the ballots cast in the November 5 election. Griffin is trailing Riggs by 734 votes among more than 5.5 million ballots cast, with two recounts confirming Riggs’ lead. A stay issued by North Carolina’s highest court has prevented the State Board of Elections from certifying Riggs as the winner pending further legal review.
Griffin’s objections were formally filed in response to Riggs’ motions. He argued that the request for an en banc hearing, which involves the full Appeals Court rather than a three-judge panel, is not warranted in this case. His legal team stated that en banc hearings are generally disfavored under Appellate Rule 31.1 and should be denied in this instance.
In his filing, Griffin highlighted that the orders from Judge William Pittman, which rejected his ballot challenges, did not include a detailed analysis of the decisions made. He emphasized that there are 31 issues raised in the case, suggesting that the volume of issues does not meet the standard for concise presentation required for an en banc review. Griffin’s attorneys argued that the complexity and number of issues could potentially delay the review process rather than expedite it.
Additionally, Griffin’s legal team contended that the recusal motion targeting Judge Murry was premature, as the composition of the panel to decide the appeal has not yet been determined. They stated that there is no current indication that Judge Murry would be part of the panel.
Riggs’ motion for Murry’s recusal is based on accusations that his political contributions to Griffin’s legal fund violate Canon 7 of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, which addresses judges’ political activities. However, Griffin’s attorneys countered that the canon does not require recusal simply for making political contributions. They also questioned whether the contributions to a legal expense fund constituted a prohibited contribution under the law.
Riggs filed her motions on February 25, seeking both the en banc review and Murry’s recusal, and noted that the State Board of Elections does not oppose a full court hearing. The case now rests with the Appeals Court, where Griffin currently serves as a judge, amidst ongoing scrutiny regarding the electoral process and the legitimacy of the ballots in question.
As the situation develops, Riggs remains on the Supreme Court, while Griffin continues his responsibilities on the Appeals Court. The legal proceedings are being closely monitored in light of the significant implications for the recent election and the potential outcomes that could arise from the Appeals Court’s decisions. The Republican Party holds a majority on the state’s second-highest court, with an 11-3 lead over Democrats, which may influence the dynamics of the ongoing legal battle.
Source: The Carolina Journal
