On Tuesday, February 25, 2025, The Carolina Journal reported that State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs requested the full North Carolina Court of Appeals to hear a significant election dispute involving her and Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin. This case arises from the recent elections, where Riggs narrowly leads Griffin by 734 votes out of over 5.5 million ballots cast. Griffin is contesting the validity of more than 65,000 ballots, which he claims are unlawful.
Riggs’ appeal to the full 15-member Appeals Court also includes a motion for the recusal of Judge Tom Murry. Murry’s campaign committee had previously contributed $5,000 to a legal defense fund that supports Griffin’s challenge, raising concerns about impartiality.
The ongoing dispute has been complicated by a stay issued by the state Supreme Court on January 7, which has prevented the State Board of Elections from certifying Riggs as the election winner. The case is currently before the Appeals Court, which typically deliberates in panels of three judges. Riggs filed her motion on Tuesday for the entire court to consider the matter en banc, highlighting several key reasons for this request.
In her legal filing, Riggs emphasizes the importance of the issues at stake, referencing Chief Justice Paul Newby’s remarks about maintaining public trust and confidence in the electoral process through adherence to the law. Riggs’ legal team argues that the case warrants full court consideration due to its exceptional importance and the potential for delays if the matter were decided by a smaller panel.
Moreover, Riggs points out that a deadlock in the Supreme Court could result in the Appeals Court’s opinion being the final adjudication on crucial state law issues. Riggs’ lawyers assert that thorough review by the full court is necessary to provide clear guidance on these legal questions, rather than allowing a three-judge panel to render a decision.
The State Board of Elections has indicated no objection to the request for an en banc hearing, while Griffin has expressed opposition to it. Riggs’ motion for Murry’s recusal is positioned as a precautionary measure, aimed at ensuring the integrity of the proceedings. Her legal representatives argue that Murry’s donation to Griffin’s defense fund raises reasonable questions about his impartiality, particularly given the direct connection between the contribution and the ongoing legal dispute.
The court filings also clarify that the State Board of Elections does not take a stance on the recusal motion, while Griffin is expected to respond to Riggs’ claims no earlier than March 5. The absence of Griffin from the case would significantly alter the balance of power on the Appeals Court, leaving Republicans with a 10-3 majority if Murry were to recuse himself.
The backdrop of this legal battle is the ongoing challenge by Griffin to the State Board of Elections’ decision to count ballots cast by individuals with questionable voter registration details. Griffin has specifically targeted three categories of ballots: those from voters lacking a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number, overseas voters without photo identification, and individuals who have never resided in North Carolina.
Griffin’s legal team contends that the State Board has historically violated election laws and has failed to rectify its past mistakes. They argue that the fundamental question at the heart of this case is the authority over election laws—whether it lies with the public and their elected officials or with the unelected officials of the State Board of Elections.
The urgency of the situation is underscored by a compressed timeline for the Appeals Court. Both the State Board of Elections and Riggs must submit their responses to Griffin’s legal arguments by Thursday, with Griffin submitting his final written brief by March 3. Oral arguments in the case have yet to be scheduled.
The legal proceedings have seen a series of developments since Wake County Superior Court Judge William Pittman dismissed Griffin’s ballot challenges on February 7. After Griffin appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals, the elections board sought a bypass petition from the state Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied by a 4-2 vote.
As the case unfolds, Riggs continues her duties on the Supreme Court, while Griffin remains active on the Appeals Court, both awaiting the next steps in this contentious legal battle that could have significant implications for the future of elections in North Carolina.
Source: The Carolina Journal
