SUMMARY:The North Carolina Supreme Court race between incumbent Justice Allison Riggs (D) and challenger Judge Jefferson Griffin (R) remains unresolved nearly five months after Election Day. Over 65,000 ballots are being challenged, with Riggs currently leading by only 734 votes. On April 4, 2025, the NC Court of Appeals ruled that tens of thousands of challenged voters must prove their eligibility within 15 business days or have their ballots removed from the count for this race only.

---

Latest Updates

APRIL 4, 2025: In a 2-1 decision split along party lines, the NC Court of Appeals ruled that more than 61,000 voters challenged by Griffin have 15 business days to prove their eligibility or have their ballots removed from the Supreme Court race count. Republican Judges John Tyson and Fred Gore formed the majority, with Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissenting.

APRIL 4, 2025: Justice Riggs has announced her intention to appeal the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

---

The Battle for North Carolina's Supreme Court Seat: What's Happening in Griffin v. State Board of Elections

Background of the Case

The dispute stems from the November 5, 2024, election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. After all votes were tallied, Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs led Republican challenger Judge Jefferson Griffin by just 734 votes out of millions cast. This razor-thin margin led Griffin to request recounts and file election protests challenging the validity of approximately 65,000 ballots.

The recounts confirmed Riggs' lead, and the State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin's protests. The Board explained that throwing out the votes as Griffin requested would violate numerous provisions of federal law, including the federal Constitution's Due Process Clause and the National Voter Registration Act. Unwilling to concede, Griffin pursued legal action, and the case has since moved through various state and federal courts.

The Court of Appeals Ruling (April 4, 2025)

The majority ruled on two major categories of challenged voters:

1. Incomplete voter registrations

The court determined that voters who did not provide a driver's license or Social Security number on their registration forms were improperly registered. The blame was placed on the State Board of Elections for not updating registration forms to require this information in accordance with the federal Help America Vote Act.

2. Overseas and military voters without photo ID

The court ruled that military and overseas voters must provide photo identification with their absentee ballots, contrary to the State Board's interpretation that these voters were exempt from the ID requirement.

The court's decision gives these voters 15 business days from notification to provide the required information. If they fail to do so, their votes will be removed from the count for the Supreme Court race only, but not other races.

In his dissent, Judge Hampson argued that this decision effectively changes election rules months after Election Day and threatens to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters who followed the rules as they understood them at the time.

Legal Challenges

Griffin's election protests focus on three main categories of voters:

1. Voters with Incomplete Registration Information

Griffin challenged approximately 60,000 voters whose registration records did not include a driver's license or Social Security number. These voters still had to prove their identity at the polls to vote in November, but Griffin argued their registrations were invalid because they lacked this specific identifying information.

The State Board of Elections acknowledged that it had not updated voter registration forms to make this information required until 2023, after the issue was identified. However, the Board did not go back and contact registrants who didn't provide this information previously.

2. Military and Overseas Voters Without Photo ID

Griffin challenged approximately 5,500 overseas voters who cast absentee ballots without providing photo identification. The State Board of Elections had interpreted North Carolina's Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act as exempting these voters from the photo ID requirement, since UMOVA is contained in a separate statute from the one including photo ID requirements.

The Court of Appeals disagreed with this interpretation, ruling that all voters are subject to the photo ID requirement.

3. "Never Residents"

Griffin also challenged votes from "Never Residents" – overseas U.S. citizens who were born outside the country and whose parents or legal guardians' last residence was North Carolina. North Carolina law includes an exception to the state constitution's residency requirement for this small subset of voters.

The appellate court ruled that this statute violates the state Constitution and invalidated these votes. This was the smallest category of challenged votes.

Key Parties Involved

Timeline of Events

Arguments From Both Sides

Griffin's Arguments

1. Voter Registration Requirements: Griffin argues that federal law requires certain identifying information (driver's license or Social Security number) for voter registration, and voters who didn't provide this information were improperly registered.
2. Photo ID Requirements: Griffin contends that all voters, including military and overseas voters, are subject to North Carolina's photo ID requirement.
3. Constitutional Residency Requirements: Griffin challenges the state statute that allows "Never Residents" to vote, arguing it violates the state constitution's residency requirements.
4. Legal Right to Challenge: The appeals court majority opinion agreed with Griffin that he "has a legal right to inquire into this outcome through the statutorily enacted and post-election procedures available to him."

Arguments Against Griffin's Position

1. Due Process Concerns: The State Board and others argue that disenfranchising voters who followed the rules as they understood them would violate due process rights.
2. Selective Challenges: Judge Hampson's dissent noted that Griffin's challenges only include early and absentee voters, since that was the information available when he filed the protests, creating equal protection concerns. Additionally, the overseas and military photo ID protest only includes Guilford County ballots.
3. Timing Issues: Critics question the timing of Griffin's protests, as the statutes and Board interpretations being challenged have been in place for several election cycles.
4. No Proof of Ineligibility: Judge Hampson argued that Griffin "hadn't identified any voter who was ineligible to vote under current laws."

What's at Stake

This case could have significant implications beyond determining who sits on the North Carolina Supreme Court:

What Happens Next

With the Appeals Court ruling now in place, several potential next steps could occur:

Frequently Asked Questions

---

Sources and Further Reading

Brennan Center for Justice | ACLU | Carolina Public Press

Keywords: North Carolina Supreme Court election, Griffin v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, Allison Riggs, Jefferson Griffin, voter eligibility, photo ID, military and overseas voters, election challenges, 2024 election, voter disenfranchisement, election law