Last month, the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected the state Board of Election’s request to speed up the lawsuit over Judge Jefferson Griffin’s attempt to toss out 65,500 votes cast in the state’s November Supreme Court race.
The State Board of Elections wanted to fast-track the case by skipping the Court of Appeals and going directly to the state Supreme Court.
Republicans hold a majority of seats on the Court of Appeals, where Griffin currently serves. Four of the Republican justices concurred, while two justices — one Republican and the lone Democrat considering the case — dissented.
Republican Justice Richard Dietz and Democratic Justice Anita Earls have consistently rejected Griffin’s arguments. Both justices were in favor of having the case move directly from the trial court to the state’s highest court.
“There is strong justification for this Court to expeditiously address, with transparency, the significant issues in this case that go to the heart of what democracy requires under the state Constitution,” Justice Earls wrote.
“Judge Jefferson Griffin’s opposition to the bypass petition begins by asserting that this Court should not hear this case because, as a Court of six members, we might split 3-3 leaving the lower court’s ruling as the final ruling in the case. In other words, he asks us not to hear the case because he might lose. Such outcome-determined reasoning has no place in a court committed to the rule of law.”
The decision to keep the case in the state Court of Appeals further extends the almost four months-long case over Griffin’s loss to Justice Allison Riggs, whose 734-vote victory has been twice confirmed by recounts.
Griffin is asking the state Supreme Court to toss out over 65,500 votes, targeting military servicemembers, young and Black voters, and ballots cast from Democratic-leaning counties.
Following the court’s rejection of the state election official’s request, Riggs said she would continue fighting to have North Carolinians’ votes acknowledged.
“No matter how long this drags out, I will continue to defend our state and federal Constitutions and North Carolinians’ fundamental freedoms,” Riggs stated. “As constitutional officers, judges must respect the will of voters. My commitment to upholding the rule of law is why voters elected me to keep my seat more than 3 months ago.”
The case will now be with the 15-member Appeals Court. Last week, Riggs filed a motion for Judge Tom Murry, who is on the Court of Appeals, to recuse himself from the case. According to WUNC, Murry contributed $5,000 to a legal defense fund supporting Griffin’s ballot challenge to throw out 65,500 votes.
WUNC reports that Murry’s campaign committee, “Join Tom Murry for NC Attorney General”, transferred the money to Griffin’s fund on Dec. 5, according to publicly available data from the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
“Justice Riggs takes no position on the propriety of the $5,000 contribution but respectfully submits that recusal is warranted here because Judge Murry’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned,” Riggs’ lawyers wrote.
“Recusal is also warranted because the $5,000 contribution appears to be directly related to the dispute before this Court. Judge Griffin’s legal defense fund was formed after the November 2024 general election, as Judge Griffin was seeking to overturn Justice Riggs’s apparent victory. By contributing to that legal defense fund, Judge Murry’s campaign committee provided material aid to Judge Griffin and showed a preference for Judge Griffin in this specific dispute”.
