RALEIGH, N.C. (CN) — In a 4-2 decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an order on Friday upholding the validity of over 60,00 ballots cast in its associate justice race, requiring thousands of others to be cured and discarding almost 300 ballots.
North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin has challenged over 65,000 ballots after trailing behind his opponent, Associate Justice Allison Riggs, in the election over a seat on the state’s highest court. He claims that over 60,000 ballots cast by voters who have data missing in the state’s voter roll database should be removed or cured and that the state should also require ballots cast by overseas and military voters to be cured, as it did not require them to provide photo ID to vote. Furthermore, Griffin has pushed that several hundred ballots cast by U.S. citizens residing abroad who have never resided in the United States — dubbed “never residents” — should be invalidated in his race. Many of these voters could potentially be ineligible to vote, Griffin has said, although he has not been able to prove any ballots were falsely cast.
Last week, Griffin saw a major win after his colleagues on the state Court of Appeals found in his favor, deciding that his race results must be recalculated and that over 60,000 voters needed to cure their ballots, along with military and overseas voters, and throwing out ballots cast by “never residents.”
Today’s decision by the state’s highest court found that voters with missing data in the database — over 60,000 — do not need to cure their ballots. They had previously been given 15 business days to cure their ballots for their vote to be counted in Griffin’s race. The justices noted that it would be a different case if North Carolina’s voter ID law were not in effect, as all voters were required to present photo ID at the polls or fill out a photo exemption form.
These voters are impacted by the state election board’s “inattention and failure to dutifully confirm its conduct to the law’s requirements,” Associate Justice Trey Allen wrote in the order, calling the incomplete registrations the board’s responsibility, not that of voters.
“Under this court’s longstanding precedent, mistakes made by negligent election officials in registering citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote ‘will not deprive the [citizens] of [their] right to vote or render [their] vote[s] void after [they have] been cast,’” Allen wrote.
“Because the responsibility for the technical defects in the voters’ registrations rests with the board and not the voters, the wholesale voiding of ballots cast by individuals who subsequently proved their identity to the board by complying with the voter identification law would undermine the principle that ‘this is a government of the people, in which the will of the people the majority legally expressed, must govern,’” the justice said.
The court ordered that military and overseas voters will be required to cure their ballots but given a longer deadline: 30 business days after the notices are mailed, instead of the Court of Appeals’ 15 business days. Thousands of voters abroad may be impacted.
So-called never residents, of which there are 267, will not have their ballots counted, as the court denied review of the Court of Appeals’ decision to discard them. The justices also dissolved a stay they issued earlier this week, halting the curing process, and sent the case back down to the Court of Appeals.
“It is unacceptable that the court is choosing to selectively disenfranchise North Carolinians serving our country, here and overseas,” Riggs said Friday. “While I’m gratified to see the Court of Appeals reversed on the erroneous decision to potentially disenfranchise the more than 60,000 North Carolinians whose registration my opponent has recklessly challenged, I will not waiver in my fight to protect the fundamental freedoms for which our military service members and their families have sacrificed so much.”
In an emergency motion filed shortly after the order was published, Riggs requested a federal judge step in and issue an injunction, asking that the state Supreme Court’s order not be enforced while federal voting issues are weighed.
Associate Justice Anita Earls, whose seat is up for reelection in 2026, had a scathing dissent to the majority, calling the order “impossible” to administer and pointing toward the two recounts in the race as a sign of the election’s legitimacy. She concurred in part — agreeing with the decision to issue summary reversal — but disagreed with the majority decision to deny review to never residents and issue a special order instructing the board of elections to cure thousands of overseas ballots.
“It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election,” she wrote. “Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate.”
“I have no doubt that this special order, upending years of precedent, violating due process, resulting in the discarding of thousands of legitimate votes, and issued with unseemly haste as though quickly ripping the bandage off the deep wound to our democracy will hurt less, marks one of the lowest points of illegitimacy in this court’s 205-year history,” she said.
“Apparently,” she wrote, “this court believes it is something that needs to be done quickly, preferably in the equivalent of the dark of night, without debate or discussion.”
Republican Associate Justice Richard Dietz also dissented in part, writing that the court should have heard the case and disagreeing with the decision reached for never residents and military and overseas voters, while concurring with the court’s finding over the voter registration issue.
“The door is open for losing candidates to try this sort of post-election meddling in state court in the future,” he said. “We should not allow that.”
Griffin had been opposed to the Supreme Court hearing the case, after his arguments successfully found hold after having been denied by both the state board of elections and Raleigh court. He initially introduced his arguments directly before the Supreme Court, and the court halted his election certification before sending his case down to follow the proper procedural process.
His legal challenges have also been heard in federal court and before the Fourth Circuit, and attorneys for the state board of elections have indicated their intent to bring the case back to federal court once state issues are resolved.
Griffin did not reply to a request for comment.