The North Carolina supreme court paved the way to throw out thousands of ballots in a race for a seat on the court that was decided by just over 700 votes.
The staggering decision is the latest development in a race in which Democrat Allison Riggs defeated her Republican opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin, by 734 votes. After multiple recounts confirmed Riggs’s win, Griffin challenged the eligibility of more than 60,000 votes and courts have blocked certification so far. Last week, the North Carolina court of appeals – the body Griffin sits on – gave the challenged voters 15 days to prove their eligibility.
The state supreme court on Friday dismissed the challenges to 60,000 people who were at risk of being disenfranchised for missing information on their voter application form. But they said thousands of overseas voters, including military members, had to prove their eligibility within 30 days or their votes would be retroactively discarded.
It’s unclear how many voters could be affected, but it is estimated to be several thousand – enough to overturn the result of the race.
The voters at risk are North Carolinia overseas voters who either did not provide voter ID or who never lived in the state. Riggs had argued that federal and state law does not require overseas voters to submit ID when they vote.
The challenged voters who have never lived in North Carolina are children of North Carolina residents living overseas who are legal residents of North Carolina, Riggs argued. She also noted that their eligibility had never been challenged until the 2024 election.
Riggs, a former voting rights attorney appointed to the court in 2023, and other groups have said Griffin is trying to overturn the results of a valid election after the fact.
Riggs said in a statement her lawyers would immediately take action in federal court to try and halt the state supreme court’s ruling.
“While I’m gratified to see the court of appeals reversed on the erroneous decision to potentially disenfranchise the more than 60,000 North Carolinians whose registration my opponent has recklessly challenged, I will not waiver in my fight to protect the fundamental freedoms for which our military service members and their families have sacrificed so much,” she said in a statement.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Anita Earls, the lone Democrat on the court, noted that the challenged ballots were only in heavily Democratic counties. The state supreme court was clearly trying to overturn the election, she wrote.
“It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election,” she wrote. “Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate.”
It is the only race from the November 2024 election that remains uncalled by the Associated Press.
