Late last week, a federal judge sided with Allison Riggs, the Democratic candidate. She needs to be officially certified as the victor of the recent North Carolina Supreme Court election, certifying her razor-thin victory over Republican opponent Jefferson Griffin. Riggs ultimately won that election, beating Griffin by a razor-thin margin of 734 votes. The race was so contentious that Griffin unsuccessfully contested the validity of more than 60,000 ballots.
Griffin’s challenges were aimed almost exclusively at voters from heavily Democratic counties. He targeted three specific groups: voters whose records lacked a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers; individuals labeled as “never residents,” who had turned 18 while living abroad; and a smaller segment of overseas voters who had failed to provide photo identification. That decision was later narrowed by the North Carolina Supreme Court to about 1,500 contested ballots.
In his ruling, Federal Judge Richard Myers II condemned Griffin’s maneuver as an $859,000 effort to change election rules after the fact. As he explained, “This case tests whether the federal constitution permits a state to alter election rules after the fact, and whether such retroactive changes can be made only for a targeted class of voters, thus distinguishing them from other similarly-situated persons. This case is about whether a state may redefine its class of eligible voters but offer no process to those who may have been misclassified as ineligible.”
Griffin’s challenges even included Allison Riggs’ parents as some of those interrogated about their voter qualifications. Griffin, required by the North Carolina Court of Appeals to have over 60,000 voters prove their eligibility. Myers’ federal ruling only overstepped and determined the result of Riggs’ election.
“You establish the rules before the game. You don’t change them after the game is done,” Myers emphasized, highlighting his concerns about the implications of allowing post-election challenges to stand.
The decision has already begun to raise concern among experts about the damage that would be done if courts begin to hear such baseless post-election attempts. Millions are rightly concerned that this would create a dangerous new norm for future elections, opening the door to such challenges against long-proven voting standards.
After the ruling, Riggs said she was pleased with the result. “Today, we won. I’m proud to continue upholding the constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina’s supreme court justice,” she stated.
That judicial ruling also requires North Carolina’s election officials to certify Allison Riggs the rightful winner of her state supreme court race. With this move, she further cements her legacy on the state’s highest court.