The North Carolina Supreme Court issued an order on Friday that has the potential to hand a win to Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who received fewer votes. In a 4-2 decision, the ruling partially upholds and partially reverses an April 4 order entered by the state’s Court of Appeals.
In the November 2024 election for an open seat on the state’s Supreme Court, Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin lost narrowly to the incumbent Justice Allison Riggs. Following two recounts, Griffin trailed Riggs by 734 votes in an election that saw more than 5 million total ballots cast. Griffin then filed suit in the state court, requesting the removal of more than 60,000 contested ballots.
Griffin contends that 60,000-plus voter registrations were accepted without obtaining statutorily required information, including either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a social security number. In a reversal of the April 4 decision that dismissed these votes, the Supreme Court’s ruling mandates that these ballots be counted. In this decision, the court referenced a precedential 1960 ruling which asserts that an otherwise qualified voter will not be deprived of their vote due to negligence on the part of election officials.
Also in question are several thousand overseas voters who used absentee ballots, but did not include a copy of their photo ID with the ballot. Friday’s ruling upholds the lower court’s order requiring these voters to provide a copy of their ID within 30 calendar days after the “mailing of notice.” The majority opinion cites NC statute § 163-230.1 (Simultaneous issuance of absentee ballots with application) in its decision.
The court justifies its ruling in line with the 2004 case James v. Bartlett: “To permit unlawful votes to be counted along with lawful ballots in contested elections effectively ‘disenfranchises’ those voters who cast legal ballots.” North Carolina Governor Josh Stein sharply criticized Friday’s order on X/Twitter, describing the decision as “unconscionable” and expressing concerns that the court has violated a constitutional right that all voters have to be treated equally under the law.
In a partial dissent, Justice Anita Earls asserted that the Supreme Court misapplied statutory guidance in reaching this decision. Justice Earls argues that the majority opinion leans on a statutory regulation found in Article 20 of the state legislature. In 2019, the state general assembly amended Article 20 to require absentee voters to submit a photocopy of their ID. However, the dissenting opinion notes that the votes in question, consisting of mostly military service members, should instead be interpreted under Article 21A of the state legislature (Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act), meaning that photo identification is not required.
