On Friday, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a ruling that largely upholds a lower appeals court decision siding with Republican challenger Judge Jefferson Griffin in the ongoing Supreme Court race. The court’s decision prevents the invalidation of ballots from voters with incomplete registrations, though some changes were made, and the decision sparked strong dissent from two justices.
In a six-page special order, the court ruled that voters with incomplete registrations should not face penalties due to missing information that was not collected by the state Board of Elections. This decision overturned a prior ruling from the North Carolina Court of Appeals that had required these voters to rectify their registration to avoid having their ballots disqualified.
Additionally, the court granted military and overseas voters an extended 15-day period to correct absentee ballots by submitting photo ID copies. However, it maintained most of the Court of Appeals’ decision and declined to review other parts of the case, which focused on the challenges filed by Judge Griffin after his narrow defeat in the November 5 election to Justice Allison Riggs.
The election protests targeted three groups: voters with incomplete registrations, military and overseas voters without photo ID, and citizens living abroad who were allowed to vote due to their parents’ residency in North Carolina. The Court of Appeals had ruled that ballots from “never-residents” should be discarded, while allowing other voters to correct their registration details.
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s majority ruling was written by Justice Trey Allen, who emphasized the need to quickly resolve the dispute while ensuring that only lawful votes are counted. Justice Allen noted that technical defects in voters’ registrations, due to the failure of the elections board to collect required data, should not invalidate otherwise lawful votes.
However, dissenting justices Anita Earls and Richard Dietz voiced sharp criticism. Justice Earls expressed concern about the fairness and legal principles of the decision, arguing that it unfairly targets certain voters based on county registrations and could lead to disenfranchisement. She also denounced the rushed nature of the court’s order.
Justice Dietz, while acknowledging the election board’s shortcomings, argued that the court should not be changing election outcomes post-election and warned against the implications of such judicial intervention in future elections.
Following the ruling, Justice Riggs expressed her disappointment, particularly in regard to the disenfranchisement of military and overseas voters, calling the court’s decision “unacceptable.” In contrast, Matt Mercer, spokesperson for the North Carolina Republican Party, celebrated the ruling, calling it a “win for our state’s voters” and emphasizing that it brought the election closer to a conclusion in favor of counting every legal vote.
This decision represents a significant moment in North Carolina’s election-related legal battles and continues to shape the ongoing dispute over the results of the state’s Supreme Court race. The case remains under review, with future developments expected to follow.
