RALEIGH, N.C. — A federal ruling has upheld the inclusion of disputed ballots in the ongoing contest for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat, a decision that could solidify the victory of Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs. U.S. District Judge Richard Myers determined late Monday that disqualifying these ballots would violate the constitutional rights of voters.
Myers asserted that any attempts to disqualify ballots cast months after the election would threaten due process and equal protection for residents. His decision prevents state orders aimed at removing potentially thousands of ballots deemed ineligible, which, if enforced, would advantage Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin. The judge emphasized that the State Board of Elections must certify the election results, which after two recounts indicated Riggs won by a mere 734 votes.
The judge’s ruling, however, includes a brief pause, allowing Griffin the option to appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within a week. Myers instructed the election board to finalize the results based on the counts from the canvassing period, disregarding recent state court directives.
The disputed election drew over 5.5 million votes and was one of the last unresolved races from the general election held in November. Griffin, who serves on the state Court of Appeals, has sought to overturn the outcome by contesting ballots he claims were improperly cast. His legal team is currently reviewing Myers’ decision to determine their next steps, according to campaign spokesperson Paul Shumaker.
Riggs expressed confidence following the ruling, stating her commitment to upholding the Constitution and the principles of justice. Griffin had aimed to maintain the state courts’ decisions to disqualify ballots but faced strong opposition from Riggs and state Democratic leaders, who argued that his efforts threaten the integrity of the election process.
Myers condemned Griffin’s actions as attempts to retroactively alter voting laws to disenfranchise specific groups of voters. He noted that such changes would disproportionately affect areas leaning Democratic and would foster confusion, undermining public trust in the electoral system.
The ruling cautioned against the alteration of established election rules post-vote, reinforcing the principle that the framework for elections must be set in advance. Myers pointed out that allowing changes after the election could lead to significant disruption and instability within the electoral process, further highlighting the importance of maintaining consistency in voting laws.
Democrats and advocacy groups have voiced concerns over what they see as a broader trend to manipulate election results, fearing these tactics could set a precedent for similar actions in other states. Conversely, the North Carolina Republican Party maintains that Griffin is simply ensuring that all votes cast are legally valid.
Among the ballots under scrutiny are those submitted by overseas voters with no prior residency in the U.S., as well as military members lacking proper identification documentation. A state law passed in 2011 had permitted some of these individuals to participate in elections, but recent court rulings mandated that they either provide necessary identification or follow a “cure” process to validate their votes.
As the situation unfolds, the implications of this ruling extend beyond individual candidates, potentially shaping the political landscape in North Carolina. With Riggs’ position on the court, a sustained Democratic presence could influence future judicial decisions and electoral regulations. Both candidates have maintained a distance from discussions in their respective courts regarding the election in question, focusing instead on their campaigns.