On Monday, January 6, 2025, The Carolina Journal reported that a federal judge returned Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin’s election lawsuit to the North Carolina state court system. Chief District Judge Richard Myers made the decision, citing the importance of state sovereignty and the right of states to resolve matters of significant public concern.
Griffin, who is contesting the results of the November 5 election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, is seeking to prevent the State Board of Elections from certifying the victory of Democrat Allison Riggs. Riggs leads Griffin by 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast in the election. Griffin’s complaint challenges over 60,000 ballots that were cast statewide.
The ruling from Judge Myers came just days before the State Board of Elections was scheduled to certify the election results. Following the judge’s decision, the elections board filed an appeal late on Monday night. Griffin, who serves as a judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, initially filed his complaint with the state Supreme Court on December 18. The case was subsequently transferred to federal court the following day by the state elections board.
In his 27-page order, Myers stated that Griffin’s case involves a request for a writ of prohibition, which is a form of judicial relief permitted by the state constitution. This writ seeks to prevent the state board from counting votes that Griffin claims were cast in violation of state law. Myers questioned whether a federal court should adjudicate such disputes, emphasizing the need to respect state authority in these matters.
“Myers abstained from ruling on Griffin’s motion, remanding the case back to North Carolina’s Supreme Court,” the order explained. The judge noted that the issues raised in Griffin’s lawsuit involve unsettled questions of state constitutional and statutory law, which are directly tied to North Carolina’s right to self-governance.
The State Board of Elections had contended that the case warranted federal jurisdiction due to its connection to the Help America Vote Act of 2002. However, Myers rejected this argument, clarifying that while the federal law was relevant, it did not transform the case into a federal issue. He maintained that the legal questions at hand pertain solely to state law and should be addressed by state courts.
Myers pointed out that the North Carolina General Assembly had established a uniform registration system for both state and federal elections, but emphasized that this system does not negate the distinction between federal and state election matters. He stated that the dispute should be resolved by a state tribunal, which is fully capable of upholding federal constitutional rights.
In his order, Myers outlined four reasons for abstaining from the case. First, he noted that the issues involved are complex and relate directly to state law, which is vital for North Carolina’s governance. Second, he highlighted the existence of a designated state dispute resolution process that should not be disrupted by federal intervention. Third, he reiterated that Griffin’s claims are rooted entirely in state law. Lastly, he argued that the federal interest in the case is minimal, reinforcing the competence of state courts in handling such matters.
Myers concluded his order by underscoring the need for federal courts to respect the principles of federalism. He reiterated that a sitting state court judge is seeking relief under state law, and thus, it is prudent for the federal court to abstain from involvement.
Source: The Carolina Journal
