Griffin isn’t claiming that tens of thousands of voters broke the rules. Instead, most of his challenges claim the votes shouldn't count because their registration forms didn’t include the voter's Social Security number or another identifying number. The rules at the time didn't require that information. And it's worth noting that everyone who voted at the polls had to show a photo ID this year.
Democrats filed a federal lawsuit, asking a federal district court to order the state to certify the election result. But last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Myers, who was appointed by Donald Trump, remanded the case back to the state Supreme Court, which has a partisan GOP majority that has repeatedly ruled in favor of Republican politicians.
Myers rejected the argument that cancelling 60,000 votes retroactively would violate the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and ruled that the federal law doesn't apply to the state election. He said the issues at stake “go to the heart of North Carolina’s sovereign right ‘to establish and maintain its own separate and independent government.’” Democrats appealed to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
One Republican on the North Carolina court, Justice Richard Dietz, dissented from its decision on Wednesday. Dietz described the case as “post-election litigation that seeks to remove the legal right to vote from people who lawfully voted.” And he warned that Griffin’s lawsuit will “fuel an already troubling decline in public faith in our elections.”
Justice Anita Earls, the only Democrat hearing the case since Riggs recused herself, wrote a fiery dissent that charged Griffin with seeking to “retroactively rewrite the rules of the election to tilt the playing field in his favor.” Earls also called out Griffin for forum-shopping and submitting his case directly to the high court, circumventing the normal process under state law. She argued, “A party’s apparent hope that they are more likely to get their way with a specific court, and quicker than they might through the appropriate channels, hardly meets the ‘irreparable harm’ standard” for the court to intervene.
Justice Trey Allen wrote a concurrence that noted the public interest in the case and declared that the justices were open-minded and hadn’t made up their minds about Griffin’s petition. But Democrats have good reason to question that.
The high court's GOP majority has been a reliable vote in favor of Republicans. In 2023, they overturned a ruling that banned partisan gerrymandering under the state constitution, paving the way for election districts that are biased in favor of the GOP. The court also ruled for Republicans in cases related to the 2024 election.
The justices upended early voting in the weeks before the election, just to remove Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s name from the presidential ballot. Dietz dissented and argued that state law didn't require new ballots. He argued, "I believe this Court’s role is to follow the law as it is written."
The other GOP justices have toed the party line in high-profile cases. In fact, Chief Justice Paul Newby has gone after Democrats on the court. Justice Allen is Newby’s protege. Justice Phil Berger Jr. is the son of Republican state Senate leader Phil Berger Sr. and has ruled in his father’s favor in several cases. Justice Tamara Barringer is herself a former GOP legislator. Unless and until the Fourth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, these justices will get the final say.
Before the state Supreme Court’s order came down, progressives rallied over the weekend in Raleigh to demand that Griffin concede. They called on the state to protect the rights of voters. Riggs rallied the crowd in freezing temperatures. She told her supporters, "We will not stop until we have put this election fully to bed. ... We will make sure that our government is led by people who will protect your right to vote.”
Anderson Clayton, who chairs the North Carolina Democratic Party, declared that Riggs has won her seat. She argued, "These votes deserve to be respected. These votes deserve to be counted. These votes deserve to be left alone." Progressives and campaign finance reform groups have publicly shamed Griffin with billboards and other ads.
All eyes will now be on the court, as justices decide whether to undo the outcome of an election by changing the rules retroactively. Until they decide, North Carolinians who are among the 60,000 challenged voters will continue speaking out and demanding that their votes count. As one of them, Christy Clausell, told protesters on Sunday: “I’ve never been targeted in any dirty political scheme, but this feels very much like that.”
