On Friday, April 4, 2025, ABC 7 Chicago reported that a North Carolina appeals court ruled in favor of Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin in a tightly contested state Supreme Court election. This decision could potentially alter the outcome of the only undecided race from the 2024 general elections.
In a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals determined that a significant number of ballots—estimated to be in the tens of thousands—were improperly included in the vote tally. The court instructed that voters whose ballots were in question must provide additional documentation within three weeks to have their votes counted. This ruling favors Griffin, who has been trailing Democratic candidate Allison Riggs by 734 votes following two recounts, with over 5.5 million ballots cast in the election.
The judges found that the State Board of Elections made erroneous decisions in December when it dismissed Griffin’s challenges regarding the validity of certain ballots. As a result, the ruling is likely to be appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
Griffin, currently serving on the Court of Appeals, raised concerns about over 65,000 ballots, questioning their compliance with state law. The Court of Appeals concluded that specific categories of ballots should not have been counted, reversing a previous decision made by a trial judge who upheld the State Board’s actions.
Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore, both Republicans, stated that the right to free elections under the North Carolina Constitution includes an accurate counting of votes. They emphasized that Griffin has the legal right to challenge the election results through established post-election procedures.
The court’s opinion directed the State Board of Elections to allow voters in two challenged categories 15 business days to submit missing identification or information. If voters comply, their ballots could still be counted. Griffin’s legal team has asserted that removing the disputed ballots would likely result in a victory for him, as many of those ballots originate from Democratic-leaning counties. However, it remains uncertain how many voters will be able to provide the necessary information.
In a third category involving overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S., the judges ruled that those ballots should not be counted. Riggs’s legal representatives contended that the ballots in question were cast in accordance with long-standing state laws and that retroactive changes to counting procedures would be unjustified.
Riggs’s supporters have organized rallies throughout North Carolina, urging Griffin to concede the election, claiming he is attempting to overturn the results of a fair electoral process. Judge Toby Hampson, a Democrat who dissented from the majority opinion, criticized Griffin for failing to identify any specific voters who were ineligible to participate in the November elections.
Hampson expressed concern that Griffin’s actions to question the legitimacy of thousands of votes without solid evidence undermined the electoral process. He argued that doing so would prioritize speculation over substantiated claims.
The eight-year term for the elected Supreme Court position was slated to begin in early January, with Riggs continuing to serve in her role. She has also recused herself from preliminary discussions related to the ongoing protests that have been submitted to the Supreme Court.
As the case progresses, five of the six remaining justices on the Supreme Court are registered Republicans, which may influence the outcome of any appeals. Riggs’s legal team has indicated they will pursue federal court options if they do not prevail in state court and Griffin takes the lead in the vote tally.
The ruling has left many voters, including individuals like Robyn Caplan-Forman, confused and concerned about their ballots’ status. Caplan-Forman, who moved to Durham from New York, discovered that her name was included among the challenged voters without being notified. She is worried about the potential complications stemming from the court’s decision, as she believes there is no clear process for those impacted to prove their ballots are legitimate.
Former Justice Bob Orr expressed his apprehension about the implications of this ruling, stating it could place an undue burden on voters who have complied with the regulations. He voiced concerns that the ongoing litigation might set a troubling precedent for future elections, especially in North Carolina, where electoral outcomes are often closely contested.
As the situation unfolds, the state Supreme Court election remains the only race from the 2024 general elections yet to be resolved, amidst increasing tensions and uncertainty surrounding the voting process.
Source: ABC 7 Chicago
