Judge Jefferson Griffin and Justice Allison Riggs are vying this November for a seat on the NC Supreme Court. (Courtesy photos)
Three Republican state senators have accused Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs of “blatantly violating” the state Code of Judicial Conduct in her campaign for election to state’s highest court.
Senators, Buck Newton, Amy Galey, and Danny Britt, filed a complaint with the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission on October 14, accusing Justice Riggs making public statements about how she would rule on cases that could come before the court.
“As attorneys who value the integrity of our judicial process, it has become clear that Justice Riggs is guided more by the politics of winning an election rather than honoring the Code of Judicial Conduct,” the senators wrote.
Riggs responded forcefully to the accusations Monday on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, saying she would not be “intimidated” by the attacks.
“Let me be clear: I will not be intimidated by these Republican attacks on judicial independence and free speech,” Riggs said in the statement. “All voters deserve to cast an informed vote, which means knowing about my values and seeing the receipts on my opponent’s record.”
At issue: abortion rights
The senators took issue with a campaign ad Riggs released last month in which Riggs said she will protect abortion rights. “She is currently running attack ads against Judge Jefferson Griffin, outlining her position on specific issues that may appear before the court while stating what she perceives to be her opponent’s position.”
The complaint was made a week after Riggs’ Republican opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin, similarly accused her of advancing a liberal agenda through the courts and violating the judicial code of conduct. “My opponent has staked out her position on issues. She has explicitly said how she would vote on cases, and these are all clear violations of our Code of Judicial Conduct,” Griffin said at a GOP judicial candidate forum earlier this month. “It’s been frustrating to watch as a citizen, as a jurist, as a lawyer, to watch how far she would take judicial elections down, and it goes back to that first point is because their ideas, their judicial philosophy, don’t work.” Griffin didn’t specifically mention which statements he was referring to.
Despite his complaints, Griffin, whose campaign website identifies him as an adherent to the controversial conservative judicial concepts of originalism and textualism, has made his own stance on abortion rights clear. In October of 2023, he joined a Court of Appeals decision which held that a mother could have her parental rights terminated for crimes she committed during pregnancy based on the court’s determination that “life begins at conception.” The highly controversial and much criticized ruling was withdrawn a month later.
Last month, Riggs released a campaign ad in which she says: “Mark Robinson says he wants to ban abortion with no exceptions, and my opponent could decide if his ban becomes law. I will fight for your right protecting families like mine and yours.”
The ad prompted critics to charge that Riggs was violating the judicial code, which says judges should “abstain from public comment about the merits of a pending proceeding in any state or federal court dealing with a case or controversy arising in North Carolina.”
In the October 14 letter, Newton requested a “full investigation” from the state Judicial Standards Commission. The letter also called for senators to “monitor any future actions she may take between now and election day.”
“If judicial candidates are allowed to run campaigns on legislating from the bench, then we legislators will need to take action in the upcoming session to prevent such a breach of judicial conduct from ever happening again.”
Riggs pushed back in her statement on X.
“This is a troubling moment for judicial independence in our state. Members of the legislature should never be able to weaponize the nonpartisan Judicial Standards Commission to assist a political ally in winning a judicial election,” Riggs wrote.
Riggs, whose campaign website lists her guiding principles as “integrity, transparency, consistency and empathy,” is a longtime civil rights attorney and one of only two Democrats on the state’s high court. She was appointed by fellow Democrat Gov. Roy Cooper in 2023 to fill the vacancy left by Associated Justice Mike Morgan, who retired, just nine months after she was appointed to the Court of Appeals.
Earlier this month, responding to Griffin’s comment, Riggs campaign said that she would not be deterred from speaking up about abortion rights.
“As the youngest woman to serve on the NC Supreme Court, and the only woman of childbearing years serving on any of the state’s appellate courts, Justice Riggs has been, and will continue to be, outspoken about her values on reproductive freedom. All North Carolinians should be able to start and grow their families in safety and peace,” her campaign said.
In her statement on X, Riggs reiterated that position.
“But this moment reminds all of us about what’s at stake in this election–integrity, transparency, and the separation of powers,” she added. “Over the next fifteen days—and beyond—I will continue to speak boldly and fearlessly to make sure that North Carolinians can hold judges accountable.”
Not a new debate
The debate over what can be said during a campaign about a judicial candidate’s beliefs on important societal matters is nothing new. In 2023, Republicans repeatedly attacked Wisconsin state Supreme Court candidate Janet Protasiewicz over her publicly stated belief in abortion rights. She was nonetheless elected by a wide margin.
And though it was not the direct work of his campaign, in 2012, then North Carolina Supreme Court candidate (and current Chief Justice) Paul Newby was the beneficiary of the famous “banjo” television ad in which a singer lauded his tough stances on crime, as well as a late-campaign mailing from the group Americans for Prosperity that voiced support for his positions on taxes.
Even if Riggs wins, Democrats will not gain control of the court this year, but it would be a key step in their aim to reclaim a majority prior to next round of legislative and congressional redistricting in 2030. Given the likelihood of legal challenges to that process, it’s widely assumed that the composition of the court will be extremely important.