Democratic incumbent Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs and her Republican challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin. (Courtesy photos)
Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs asked a federal judge to deny Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin’s request for a preliminary injunction in his election case.
Riggs, a Democrat, leads Griffin, a Republican, by 734 votes in the race to retain her seat on the state’s highest court.
A quick resolution to the case is in the public interest, Riggs’ brief says. Under state law, Riggs keeps her seat until the election is decided. But there’s a risk that someone, including Griffin, could argue that decisions are being made by an improperly elected official, the brief says.
“That risk is particularly unacceptable for election protests that seek to disenfranchise thousands of North Carolina voters by changing the rules after the election concludes.”
Griffin wants to throw out more than 60,000 votes he says were cast by people who are ineligible. Most of the ballots he objects to were cast by people he claims did not provide driver’s license or partial Social Security numbers on their voter registration applications. Republican lawyers argue these voters are not legally registered.
He has also challenged overseas and military voters because they did not submit photo IDs with their ballots, and has challenged overseas voters who have never lived in the state but whose parents were eligible North Carolina voters before they left the country.
The State Board of Elections has rejected all of Griffin’s protests, but has not yet certified the results. Griffin asked US District Judge Richard Myers II for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Board of Elections from certifying the results, which would mean Riggs’ reelection.
In the brief opposing the preliminary injection, a lawyer for Riggs wrote that those votes Griffin wants to throw out must be counted.
“Every voter targeted by Judge Griffin complied with settled election law when they voted,” the brief says. “Judge Griffin’s effort to throw out their ballots violates both federal and state law.”
Griffin had asked the state Supreme Court to intervene and throw out the ballots. The court filing said that Griffin anticipates winning if those votes are excluded. Republicans hold a 5-2 majority on the Supreme Court.
The state Board of Elections moved the case to federal court. Griffin wants it transferred back to state court.
Bipartisan support for keeping the case in federal court
A bipartisan group of former congressmen oppose moving the case back to state court. In their request to file a “friend of the court” brief, they said the questions involve federal law, including the Help America Vote Act, which they helped pass.
“Judge Griffin’s claim runs directly through these HAVA requirements,” their brief said. “In order to decide this case, the Court must determine whether an alleged failure by a voter to provide the information required by HAVA results in the vote being discounted. This places the federal question front and center.”
Last year, Myer partially dismissed a Republican lawsuit that sought to purge 225,000 voters from the rolls, or require them to vote provisionally, based on the issue of incomplete voter registration forms. Myers sent part of the case back to state court, but the State Board of Elections was able to keep it in federal court.
North Carolina judges have rejected Republican attempts to block some overseas voters.