Democratic incumbent Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs and her Republican challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin. (Courtesy photos)
Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin is opposing a request to bar a Republican colleague whose campaign fund contributed to his legal defense from considering his Supreme Court election lawsuit.
Griffin, a Republican, wants to throw out more than 60,000 votes cast in last fall’s election in an attempt to unseat incumbent Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs. Her 734-vote lead was confirmed by recounts, but the election remains undecided while Griffin’s case moves through the courts.
His case has reached the state Court of Appeals. Republican Judge Tom Murry was elected to a seat on the Appeals Court in November.
Murry contributed $5,000 to Griffin’s legal defense fund from a campaign account he’d set up for an Attorney General campaign. Murry announced a run for Attorney General before he switched to a Court of Appeals race.
Last month, Riggs’ lawyers filed a motion to have Murry recused from hearing the case. Murry’s contribution appears to be directly related to Griffin’s court case, the Riggs’ brief said.
“By contributing to that legal defense fund, Judge Murry’s campaign committee provided material aid to Judge Griffin and showed a preference for Judge Griffin in this specific dispute,” the brief said.
Murry did not return a Tuesday phone call seeking comment.
Republicans hold a 12-3 majority on the court. Griffin has recused himself. The Appeals Court usually hears cases in teams of three.
Griffin’s lawyers said in a court brief that it was premature to ask that Murry be prevented from hearing the case because members of the three-judge panel haven’t been announced, and “there is currently no reason to believe that Judge Murry will be on the panel.”
The Judicial Code of Conduct does not require recusal for making political contributions and it’s unclear whether a contribution from a campaign fund to a legal defense fund is prohibited, the Griffin brief said.
Riggs’ lawyers made the request to bar Murry from hearing the case on the same day they asked the full Appeals Court to hear it. Having the first hearing before the full Appeals Court is unusual.
Riggs’ brief said an initial full-court hearing is warranted because the case involves “an issue of exceptional importance that must be concisely stated,” and having the full-court hearing would be quicker. Parties can ask for a full-court hearing after a loss before a three-judge panel.
Griffin’s lawyers opposed the request to have the entire court hear the case at the outset, saying it would invite “procedural chaos.”
With Griffin recused, a full-court might result in a deadlocked 7-7 decision, and it’s not clear what would happen after that, Griffin’s brief says.
Griffin is challenging three sets of ballots. He claims more than 60,000 votes were cast by people who are not legally registered because they did not include partial Social Security numbers or driver’s license numbers on their registration applications. In the last few months, voters Griffin is challenging have come forward to declare they did include the information, but it was not attached to electronic voter rolls due to data mismatches or typos.
Griffin is challenging about 5,500 military and overseas absentee voters because they did not include photo ID with their ballots. The state Board of Elections does not require these voters to submit photo ID.
His is also challenging voters who have never lived in North Carolina but are connected to the state through their parents.
Last year, the state Appeals Court rejected an appeal from the NC GOP and the Republican National Committee, which wanted elections officials to set aside ballots from some overseas voters and reject some of their registration forms. Republicans claimed that the Board of Elections allowed people living overseas who are ineligible to vote to register.