North Carolina Democrat Supreme Court Chief Warns Republicans About Throwing Out Thousands of Votes

As North Carolina Republicans struggle to retain their party’s supermajority on the state Supreme Court, Democratic incumbent and clear winner of the state Supreme Court race, Allison Riggs, is calling the Republicans’ latest ploy an attempt to “change the election rules after the votes are cast and counted.” .

Riggs was up for re-election this fall to a seat on the state Supreme Court, where Republicans already held a 5-2 majority before the election. She was challenged by Republican state Supreme Court nominee and North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, whom she appears to have trailed by just over 700 votes. But Griffin did not accept the result of the race, demanded at least two recounts and filed a petition with the State Election Commission challenging the validity of the 60,000 votes.

In response to Griffin’s challenge, Riggs filed a statement with the State Election Commission on Friday opposing the “statutory and constitutionally improper” ballot challenges filed by her opponent.

“Having failed to win over the voters, Judge Griffin now pleads his case here. He is asking the Board to change the voting rules, decide that tens of thousands of voters did not follow those changed rules, and then throw out their votes because they did not provide for the new rules,” Riggs’ attorney wrote in a brief. “While this request is legally and constitutionally unacceptable, it is wrong on an even more basic level — one that is familiar in every schoolyard in North Carolina.”

“Whether playing a board game, competing in a sport, or running for office, the runner-up cannot pry victory from the mouth of defeat by demanding a rematch under different rules. And yet that is what Judge Griffin is trying to do here,” the memo added.

Last month, Griffin requested a recount in the state Supreme Court race after Riggs led the race by just over 700 votes. A recount is permitted by state law if the difference in votes between candidates is 10,000 votes or less. A recount in the state showed Riggs ahead by 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million votes cast. After the machine recount, Griffin requested a partial recount, which again is permitted by state law.

This type of partial calculation, according to State Election Commission is used to determine “whether there are sufficient discrepancies with the machine recount to require a full direct recount of all ballots submitted in the contest.” This count is not yet complete.

But more troublingly, Griffin is also challenging the validity of 60,000 votes, in what pundits and state Democrats say is an attempt to disqualify enough voters to change the outcome of the election — primarily because Griffin’s challenge reads as another data point in a broader Republican scheme to wreak havoc around voter rolls this cycle. The move could also violate the federal Voting Rights Act.

There are currently six ballot categories being contested, three of which were heard by county election boards last week. The other three categories of petitions will soon be considered by the State Election Commission. Most of these voters are challenged because they allegedly have incomplete voter registration and are missing the last four digits of their Social Security numbers or driver’s licenses from their election files. These election protests were filed at the end of last month and as stated Republican Party of North Carolina argued that they “highlight specific irregularities and discrepancies in the processing and counting of ballots, raising concerns about compliance with established election law.”

Proponents of voting rights disagree.

“I think it falls into the category of one side refusing to accept the outcome,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause North Carolina.

North Carolina Democratic Party on Friday filed a federal lawsuit against the state Board of Elections, seeking an injunction that would block the board from rejecting ballots for weeks after the election and arguing that Griffin’s appeals violated both the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act. Griffin has already taken steps to interfere.

“Simply put, the protesters are demanding that the NCSBE violate federal laws that protect the fundamental right of North Carolinians to have their votes counted.” claim reads “In light of this requirement, and in view of the prospect of further state proceedings by parties aggrieved by the NCBSE’s ruling on the protests, this court should enter a declaratory judgment as to the applicability of federal law to the protests.”

Of course, the timing of these challenges is significant. If there really was a problem with the 60,000 voters who allegedly have incomplete voter registration, they would have been discovered within the last year or two, not weeks after the election. North Carolina’s voter rolls are open, so if there are differences, they can be resolved before the election.

“Any candidate could have looked at these lists and made any legitimate challenges well before the election,” David Becker, executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, told TPM. “This incredibly broad set of issues appears to be deeply flawed, as many individuals have been identified who are clearly valid longtime North Carolina voters.”

This is not the first time Republicans have tried to challenge voter rolls en masse in North Carolina. In October, a federal judge partially dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee that sought to remove 225,000 North Carolina voters from voter rolls based on what they say was incomplete voter registration.

That a similar but separate case was partially dismissed doesn’t necessarily mean the state’s Democratic-majority Board of Elections won’t accept challenges. It’s unclear how the board will rule, but a decision is expected this week. Even if Griffin’s complaints are dismissed by the board, Griffin is expected to appeal.

All of this comes amid a widespread statewide election-related power grab by Republicans who are members of the state legislature. an attempt to deprive of power from newly elected state Democrats, though they still hold the majority for the next few weeks.