North Carolina Elections Board Seeks To Bypass Appeals Court in State Supreme Court Election Challenge
The North Carolina State Board of Elections filed a bypass petition Monday asking the state Supreme Court to decide an ongoing 2024 election dispute — currently before the state court of appeals — in which GOP candidate Jefferson Griffin is seeking to overturn his loss to incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs.
Following a recent Wake County Superior Court ruling rejecting Griffin’s bid to throw out 65,000 votes, the losing state Supreme Court candidate — and sitting state appeals court judge — took his case to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. But in yesterday’s petition, the state board of elections asked North Carolina’s highest court to bypass the court of appeals and take up the case in order to promptly resolve the weighty election-related matter that’s been proceeding for months.
“Immediate review is appropriate because the subject matter of this appeal has significant public interest, the appeal involves legal principles of major significance, and delay in this Court’s review is likely to cause substantial harm,” the petition reads. Riggs — who is recused from the case — expressed her support for the bypass petition, while Griffin said he opposes it.
If the justices grant the board’s petition and hypothetically deadlock in a 3-3 split on the merits of Griffin’s arguments, then the Wake County Superior Court’s denial of his challenge would remain in place. However, if the justices reject the bypass petition and allow the Republican-dominated court of appeals to hear the case first, then an evenly divided ruling from the high court would allow the appeals court’s ultimate decision to stand.
As freelance North Carolina journalist Bryan Anderson explained on Bluesky: If Griffin’s case goes straight to the state Supreme Court, he would need a 4-2 ruling in his favor to reverse the Wake County Superior Court’s decision. But if his case first proceeds in the court of appeals — a venue more favorable to him — Griffin could theoretically prevail in overturning his election loss with a 3-3 split from the justices. In turn, the high court’s granting of the bypass petition at this stage in the case would likely be beneficial to Riggs and the board.
At least three Republican justices have suggested a willingness to entertain Griffin’s arguments, while one GOP member — Justice Richard Dietz — alongside Democratic Justice Anita Earls has expressed disapproval of Griffin’s post-election efforts to retroactively change the rules and throw out scores of ballots.
Despite the fact that two separate recounts confirmed Griffin’s election 734-vote loss to Riggs, he has relentlessly attempted to throw out three categories of ballots cast in the November 2024 election. The three buckets of contested ballots included those cast by overseas voters who did not submit a copy of their photo IDs, voters who never previously resided in North Carolina and individuals whose voter registrations were allegedly incomplete.
Since Jan. 7, certification of Riggs’ victory has remained paused due to a court order from the Republican-dominated state Supreme Court. Riggs is currently holding over in her seat pending a resolution of Griffin’s challenge.
All the while, there exists a possibility that a federal court could weigh in on the case down the line. In a Feb. 4 ruling, the 4th Circuit ultimately concluded that Griffin’s case should first play out in state courts, but held that it could return to federal court for resolution of outstanding claims if necessary. The state board of elections, as well as Riggs, maintain that Griffin’s election protests implicate voting rights, due process and equal protection concerns under federal law and the U.S. Constitution.
It’s been over 100 days since the November 2024 general election, and the judicial race at issue is the last uncertified statewide contest in the nation. Just yesterday, hundreds of North Carolinians attended rallies across the state to protest Griffin’s legal efforts to disenfranchise lawful voters and undo the results of a legitimate election.