North Carolina Judge Election Set to Shift After Court Rules (1)

A GOP challenger to a sitting North Carolina justice won a state appeals court ruling Friday that tosses or requires the “curing” of more than 60,000 votes.

In a race decided by fewer than 1,000 votes, the ruling almost certainly gives a victory to appeals court Judge Jefferson Griffin (R) over North Carolina Justice Allison Riggs (D), given the skew in favor for Democrats among the ballots he challenged.

Two Republican judges on the panel ruled that “never residents"—adults who were moved out-of-North Carolina abroad by their parents before turning 18—who voted in the November 2024 race weren’t entitled to cast ballots. The remainder of the challenged ballots—either overseas voters who didn’t supply a photo ID, or local voters whose registrations didn’t include a driver’s license or social security number—would be given 15 business days after state election officials contact them to cure their registrations.

“Today, the N.C. Court of Appeals vindicated the election integrity protests of Judge Jefferson Griffin,” North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Jason Simmons said in a post on social media site X. “This decision and order finally holds the N.C. State Board of Elections accountable for their actions and confirms every legal vote will be counted in this contest.”

Griffin didn’t respond to a request for comment through his attorney.

“It’s very disappointing that judges could make a ruling like this that is going to potentially disenfranchise thousands of legal voters that cast legal votes,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause of North Carolina. “What we’re seeing in North Carolina could a the recipe used across the rest of the country.”

The unprecedented decision could lead to chaos if election officials have to scramble to notify voters of the extra hoops they need to jump through to save their ballots, said Samuel Davis, a clinical instructor at Harvard’s Election Law Clinic, and former clerk to a Democratic North Carolina Supreme Court Justice.

“This undoubtedly raises serious federal questions—both statutory questions under laws governing registration and also deep constitutional questions about whether it’s legal to disenfranchise 10s of thousands of voters,” he said. “It’s almost certain the federal courts will have to answer that question.”

Riggs issued a statement saying she’d continue the legal battle.

“We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people,” she said.

Targeted Votes

The Griffin campaign challenged the registrations of only early in-person votes—a group that disproportionately includes people of color and young voters who vote mostly for Democrats.

Analysis of the challenged pool indicates that in a state with a roughly 65% White population, White voters made up less than half of the challenged ballots. All of the in-state voters presented ID, verifying their identity, when they cast their ballots.

The majority held that precedent allowed them to disallow votes cast by voters with incomplete registration forms, but it was giving these and challenged military voters three times the state’s normal curing period to save their votes.

“To permit unlawful votes to be counted along with lawful ballots in contested elections effectively ‘disenfranchises’ those voters who cast legal ballots, at least where the counting of unlawful votes determines an election’s outcome,” the majority said, quoting from from North Carolina Supreme Court precedent.

The challenges to the ballots are further complicated by federal litigation over the case, which was paused while the state courts tackled the issue. Riggs’ counsel has indicated that they would restart their case in federal court if the outcome wasn’t resolved in her favor.

UCLA School of Law Professor Rick Hasen said the decision, which comes roughly five months after votes were cast, could raise claims under the US Constitution.

“There also may be a revival of the Fourth Circuit federal case—to me this has remedies of Roe v. Alabama, where a state court appeared to violate due process in changing the rules for a state election after the fact,” he said. “The state courts may be violating federal law by disenfranchising voters in this way.”

The case is Griffin v. North Carolina State Bd. of Elections, N.C. Ct. App., No. 25-181, 4/4/25.