In a closely contested North Carolina Supreme Court race, the trailing Republican candidate faced legal setbacks on Friday as a federal judge denied his request to halt the official declaration of victory for his Democratic opponent. U.S. District Judge Richard Myers rejected a motion by Jefferson Griffin’s attorneys for a temporary restraining order to stop the State Board of Elections from certifying that Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs had won the November election.
Meanwhile, the State Board of Elections dismissed election protests filed by Griffin and three GOP legislative candidates in multiple counties. The board’s Democratic majority voted to dismiss these protests, citing that the number of challenged votes in each race was smaller than the leads held by Riggs and the Democratic candidates.
Following recounts, Riggs was leading Griffin, a Court of Appeals judge, by 734 votes out of over 5.5 million ballots cast. The margins in the other contested races ranged from 128 to 228 votes.
The board chair stated that even if all the claims were decided in favor of Griffin and the other protesters, it would not change the election outcome. The Associated Press has not yet called the Supreme Court race or the two General Assembly races that were subject to protests.
Griffin had previously requested judges to rule on a larger number of ballots, arguing that over 60,000 votes should be invalidated. Riggs’ campaign criticized Griffin’s efforts to discount the votes of qualified voters, urging him to concede.
In federal court, Griffin’s attorneys had sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the certification of the race results, but Judge Myers ruled against it. Myers noted that the certification would not occur before Jan. 3.
Griffin had also appealed to the state Supreme Court following the board’s rejection of election protests regarding voter identification issues. The federal court had previously ruled against a similar request to remove ineligible voters from the rolls.
The board’s decisions on Friday were based on claims related to absentee and overseas voters, among other issues.
During the early stages of the election process, there has been debate surrounding the validity of in-person ballots. Some argue that such ballots should not be counted if the voter passed away before Election Day, or if an individual who is still serving a felony sentence cast a vote. Others have raised concerns regarding residency requirements and rejected voter registrations. Within the board, there was a division of opinions, particularly among Republicans who suggested that taking action on Friday may have been premature. Board member Kevin Lewis pointed out a pending court case involving over 60,000 votes, adding to the complexity of the situation. Griffin retains the option to challenge the rulings made on Friday through legal channels. However, for legislative candidates, the alternative would be to seek resolution from the General Assembly chamber they aim to represent in order to determine the rightful winner of the seat.
In an ongoing legislative race where the outcome remains undecided, Republican state Representative Frank Sossamon finds himself behind Democratic challenger Bryan Cohn. A victory for Cohn in this race would result in the Republicans falling short by just one seat of maintaining their current veto-proof majority in the General Assembly, which is set to take effect next month. Prior to the board’s decision on Friday, Sossamon hinted at the possibility of pursuing further action in the House should a legal ruling on the election outcome raise additional doubts.
The discussions surrounding the legitimacy of in-person ballots reflect the broader concerns within the electoral process. The issue of posthumous voting and the participation of individuals with felony convictions raise questions about the integrity of the electoral system. Residency requirements and voter registration rejections further complicate the landscape, creating a need for careful consideration and deliberation in determining the validity of ballots cast.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the potential implications of the decisions made by the board and the subsequent actions taken by the candidates loom large. The outcome of the legislative race between Sossamon and Cohn holds significant weight, as it could tip the balance of power in the General Assembly. The possibility of a single seat making a difference in the veto-proof majority underscores the importance of every vote cast and the impact it can have on the political landscape.
With the specter of legal challenges and appeals looming, the path to resolution remains uncertain. The complexities of the electoral process, compounded by legal disputes and political considerations, highlight the need for transparency and adherence to democratic principles. The decisions made in the coming days will not only shape the outcome of the current election but also have far-reaching implications for the future of governance and representation in the state.
In the midst of these debates and uncertainties, the voices of the voters must not be forgotten. Their confidence in the electoral process and their trust in the integrity of the system are paramount. As the legal battles play out and the political maneuvering continues, it is essential to uphold the principles of fairness and justice to ensure that every vote is counted and every voice is heard.
