Forgotten in the Fight: How Voters are being Overlooked in the Riggs and Griffin Election Dispute

In the disputed North Carolina judicial race that garnered national attention, one group of individuals are seemingly forgotten in the procedural and political coverage: the voters. These voters are not claimed to have voted fraudulently or improperly, instead, the laws they complied with are being challenged as invalid under state statutes. Ultimately, this begs the questions, why are voters being punished for complying with state election rules and what remedy can the voters be awarded if the regulations they complied with are deemed invalid?

Background on Election Dispute 

Judge Griffin, a candidate for the North Carolina Supreme Court and judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, is seeking to invalidate over 60,000 votes and overturn the election results. The election, which took place in November, declared Judge Riggs the winner by just 734 votes. Judge Griffin is not claiming there was voter fraud or impropriety, instead, he is claiming the election laws promogulated by the North Carolina Board of Elections were inconsistent with North Carolina Statutes.  

Judge Griffin’s Argument 

Judge Griffin challenged ballots cast under three main reasons: (1) votes cast by people who are not legally registered to vote because their voting registrations were incomplete (either missing their social security number or driver’s license); (2) votes cast by people living overseas who were not North Carolina residents and do not live in the United States; and (3) votes cast by military and overseas citizens who failed to provide photo identification with their absentee ballots. Each group of voters Griffin challenges were permitted by election laws set forth by the North Carolina Board of Elections to vote as they did, but Griffin challenges these laws as inconsistent with North Carolina statutes. 

What is the remedy? 

The general rule, identified in Hendon v. North Carolina State Bd. Of Elections, denies relief with respect to past elections. Courts have historically imposed a duty on parties having grievances based on election laws to bring their challenges before the election takes place when possible. The reason why this duty is imposed and why post-election relief is generally unsupported is courts want to discourage disgruntled claims brought by parties after losing an election. If post-election relief was permitted, it would encourage parties who lost to bring subsequent court actions challenging the election. 

In January, the Supreme Court of North Carolina granted Judge Griffin’s petition for an injunction. An injunction prevents the certification of the Griffin and Riggs election and is only awarded when the party requesting it “is able to show likelihood of success on the merits of his case.” This high bar is set on purpose to prevent unsubstantiated claims from continuing. The granted injunction sets a dangerous precedent for future elections in North Carolina. The injunction was granted despite Judge Griffin failing to point to a single fraudulent voter and challenging decades-old election laws. Each voter under the election laws that Griffin is challenging has voted legally and complied with all election rules and regulations. The injunction signals to future losing parties in elections that they can bring a challenge, no matter how frivolous, and the Supreme Court will stay election results until the challenge has been resolved. 

One of the many reasons why courts disfavor post-election challenges is because remedies are difficult, if not impossible, to deliver. If Griffin succeeds in his challenges of the election laws, over 60,000 voters who complied with the rules of the election and registration process, and who many of them have voted in state elections for years, will have their vote thrown out. What is the remedy for these voters? Will they be allowed to re-register under the new election laws? Will their votes be thrown out? This is likely to lead to more litigation challenging their right to vote under the North Carolina Constitution. 

Future Implications 

The implications of the Griffin post-election challenge without identifying one fraudulent voter are grave. This sets the precedent in our state that disgruntled losers of elections can bring frivolous challenges to the election rules and laws that have existed for decades and be taken seriously by the judiciary. As our country, and state, become more polarized and divided along party lines, we can expect more challenges to state elections by losing parties. This means our courts will be clogged with post-election challenges, losing parties will be given a voice and taken seriously, and most importantly, voters will be disenfranchised if a candidate can point to a flaw in a decade-old election regulation. 

Ele McCarter 

Class of 2026, Staff Member