Judge Jefferson Griffin and Justice Allison Riggs (Courtesy photos)
The state Supreme Court has rejected a request to speed up the case Judge Jefferson Griffin brought against the state Board of Elections in his attempt to win a seat on the high court.
The State Board and Justice Allison Riggs wanted the case to go right from the trial court, where they won, to the Supreme Court, skipping the Appeals Court. Griffin opposed the move.
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Board and Riggs’ request in a 4-2 vote.
Griffin, a Republican Appeals Court judge, is seeking to throw out more than 60,000 votes he claims were illegally cast in his attempt to replace Riggs, the incumbent Democrat.
Riggs leads by 734 votes and has maintained the lead through two recounts.
Riggs has recused herself from the case. She is one of two Democrats on the seven-member court.
That leaves six justices voting, five Republicans and one Democrat.
Republicans hold a 12-3 seat margin on the Court of Appeals. Judges hear cases in teams of three.
If the Appeals Court rules in Griffin’s favor, and the Supreme Court splits 3-3, the Appeals Court decision will stand. In a previous order, three of the Republican Supreme Court justices indicated they are open to Griffin’s arguments.
If the Supreme Court had split 3-3 after agreeing to take the case directly from the trial court, the trial court’s decision in favor of Riggs and the Board would have stood.
Four Republican justices voted against having the case skip the Appeals Court.
Democratic Justice Anita Earls and Republican Justice Richard Dietz have consistently rejected Griffin’s arguments. They were in favor of having the case move directly from the trial court to the Supreme Court.
In her dissent, Earls wrote that skipping the Appeals Court would have been in keeping with past practice in other cases.
“There is strong justification for this Court to expeditiously address, with transparency, the significant issues in this case that go to the heart of what democracy requires under the state Constitution,” she wrote.
“Judge Jefferson Griffin’s opposition to the bypass petition begins by asserting that this Court should not hear this case because, as a Court of six members, we might split 3-3 leaving the lower court’s ruling as the final ruling in the case. In other words, he asks us not to hear the case because he might lose. Such outcome-determined reasoning has no place in a court committed to the rule of law.”
Republican Justice Trey Allen voted with the majority against skipping the Appeals Court. In his concurring opinion, he wrote that the Supreme Court needed more to go on than the three nearly identical one-page orders produced by the trial judge.
“Perhaps influenced by this Court’s order directing it to move expeditiously, the superior court simply ruled against Judge Griffin without explaining why, in his view, his claims should be denied,” Allen wrote.
“Consequently, if we were to take this case now, we would do so in the absence of any meaningful examination of those claims by a lower court. Given the significance of this case and the complexity of the issues raised, I think this Court could benefit from a well-reasoned and thorough examination of the parties’ arguments.”
The state courts may not have the final say. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals left open the chance that federal courts could take up issues concerning federal laws and constitutional provisions the State Board has maintained are central to the case.
In a statement Thursday night, Riggs said. “No matter how long this drags out, I will continue to defend our state and federal Constitutions and North Carolinians’ fundamental freedoms. As constitutional officers, judges must respect the will of voters. My commitment to upholding the rule of law is why voters elected me to keep my seat more than 3 months ago.”