A recent decision by North Carolina’s highest court could lead to the disqualification of certain ballots in a closely contested state Supreme Court race. The ruling has prompted legal pushback and concerns about voter rights and electoral integrity.
Ballot Disqualification Ruling Opens Controversy
North Carolina’s Supreme Court ruled on Friday to potentially disqualify certain ballots in a contested 2024 state Supreme Court election, reviving a challenge from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin. Griffin, who lost by fewer than 1,000 votes to incumbent Democrat Justice Allison Riggs, has argued that tens of thousands of votes were improperly cast.
Griffin’s Legal Challenge Explained
Griffin, a state appellate judge, claims that roughly 65,000 ballots should be thrown out. His objections focus on three voter groups:
- Voters with incomplete registration data
- Military and overseas voters who failed to meet ID requirements
- “Never-residents” — typically family members of U.S. service members or expats who have never lived in North Carolina
Although initially broad, the court’s decision has narrowed the scope but still leaves key ballots vulnerable to disqualification.
Court Decision Details
The North Carolina Supreme Court has a 5-2 Republican majority. Justice Riggs recused herself from the case. The court ruled:
- Ballots from voters with incomplete registration data will be counted. The court placed the responsibility on the state election board.
- Military and overseas voters without proper ID must verify their identity within 30 days via a “cure process.”
- Ballots from never-residents will be disqualified, though they make up only a few hundred votes.
Dissents From Both Political Sides
Two justices—Democrat Anita Earls and Republican Richard Dietz—issued strong dissents.
Justice Dietz stated, “By every measure, this is the most impactful election-related court decision our state has seen in decades.”
Justice Earls criticized the inconsistency of the ruling, saying it could lead to a voter’s ballot being counted in one county but tossed in another.
Political and Legal Fallout
Democrats condemned the decision and pledged to challenge it in federal court. The North Carolina Democratic Party warned that the ruling could undermine public confidence in elections, stating:
“Elections must mean something — but if this precedent holds, any candidate who doesn’t like losing will litigate American democracy into the ground.”
It remains unclear how many votes may ultimately be affected or if they will alter the outcome of the election.
Outlook and Broader Implications
The case highlights ongoing tensions in American election law, especially around post-election ballot scrutiny. Legal experts and civil rights advocates argue that retroactive disqualification risks setting a precedent for challenging unfavorable results, which could have national implications.
COMMENTS