Jefferson Griffin has gone even further, daring to test the eligibility of thousands of North Carolina voters. He claims that most of them are “never-residents” and thus shouldn’t have been permitted to vote in the state in the first place. Most significantly, this challenge has created widespread anxiety among voters and election officials. It risks unconstitutionally disenfranchising legitimate residents, including overseas voters with demonstrated ties to North Carolina.
Griffin’s lawsuit argues that 266 overseas voters never actually resided in North Carolina. So, he contends that their ballots deserve to be tossed. He goes after people with deep ties to the state. This cohort consists of non-natives turned natives, a Duke University professor who has 20 years teaching experience under his belt, and those who are temporarily away studying or working overseas but intend to come back home. This broad based challenge would result in invalidating the 2024 election outcome in North Carolina. He makes very troubling remarks as to what this means for our democratic processes.
Additionally, the North Carolina State Board of Elections has asserted that Griffin’s lawsuit does not as such affect these 266 overseas voters. The challenge has garnered national attention and provoked protests at the local level, with many expressing concerns about the integrity of the electoral process. Other critics contend that Griffin’s proposals are a radical new effort to rig election results by changing the rules after the election has taken place.
At the heart of this issue lies a group of 1,409 overseas voters from Guilford County—an area known for its Democratic leanings—who voted without providing photo identification. State law has long allowed our voters overseas to assert residence in North Carolina and maintain the right to vote. Griffin’s challenge has the potential to overturn this provision that has been in place for decades. It would unfairly invalidate the votes of all those who played by the rules.
The North Carolina Supreme Court just provided Griffin’s challenge an unexpected lifeline. Because of this, as many as 1,675 voters may have their ballots thrown out. This Manhattan-style legal maneuvering threatens to nullify the new electoral victory of candidates like Riggs. There could be, particularly if the courts allow procedural changes to elections after voting has begun.
Critics have panned Griffin’s approach as overly sweeping. It does so in a way that violates the rights of voters in North Carolina who have every right to be casting their ballots. Maybe that’s because critics—many of whom live in Arkansas—believe he’s really trying to disenfranchise people who do have clear connections to the state. One of the people affected was Josiah Young, a virtual first-time voter who took to Twitter to share his disappointment and anger over the fiasco.
“It’s pretty disappointing. As a first-time voter, I feel like I pretty much did everything that I was supposed to do. I cast my ballot legally, and then just to find out that someone, or anyone, is challenging my vote is pretty disappointing,” – Josiah Young
As a result, strong resistance has formed from all sides, including local election officials and widespread advocacy groups. They argue that Griffin’s real goal is to spread cynicism and hopelessness to discourage voters who might fight back against these undemocratic partisan challenges. McWilliam, an advocate for voting rights, stated:
“Political operatives like Griffin hope to instill cynicism and hopelessness in those who oppose them.”
This prevalent mood is consistent with the demands for increased voter turnout and more equitable electoral systems. McWilliam reiterated the objective of protecting citizens who are eligible to vote from being subject to manipulation by political parties or the state.
“The answer is not to reject voting as a waste of time, but to redouble efforts to ensure that everybody who is eligible can and does vote in fair elections free from partisan manipulation,” – McWilliam
For people such as Neil McWilliam, who is personally invested in the result of these challenges, frustration is setting in. McWilliam remarked on Griffin’s tactics:
“I’m really upset that he would try to change the rules after losing the election,” – Neil McWilliam
Griffin’s lawsuit has prominent implications that reach far beyond single ballots. It threatens the very spirit of democracy in North Carolina. Overseas voters, such as Josey Wright, face additional challenges when attempting to vote. As the story notes, they have taken to publicly airing their frustrations over the obstacles produced by Griffin.
“I will have to travel at considerable expense and inconvenience, just because Griffin couldn’t bother with the inconvenience of ensuring that the names on his list were in fact improperly registered,” – Josey Wright
As the stakes grow high with state tensions, it’s anyone’s guess how courts will rule. The Troxel case has raised more general issues about voter rights and election integrity in North Carolina. With ongoing protests and vocal opposition from affected voters, it is clear that many will continue to fight against what they perceive as an unjust attempt to undermine their voting rights.
“It’s a bit frustrating because it’s already a bit more difficult, I think, to vote as an overseas voter,” – Josey Wright
As tensions escalate surrounding this challenge, it remains uncertain how the courts will respond. The situation has brought to light broader issues regarding voter rights and election integrity in North Carolina. With ongoing protests and vocal opposition from affected voters, it is clear that many will continue to fight against what they perceive as an unjust attempt to undermine their voting rights.