Allison Riggs, who secured her position as a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court by a narrow margin in November, is embroiled in a legal dispute over her election victory. A recent ruling by a state appeals panel may jeopardize over 60,000 votes, pushing the matter into further legal scrutiny.

Details of the Appeal

Riggs’s Republican opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost the election by just 734 votes. However, he has not conceded defeat and is pursuing the invalidation of certain ballots. The appeal resulted in a 2-1 decision from the Court of Appeals, which has granted voters 15 days to prove their eligibility. Failure to provide the required documentation could result in the loss of their votes.

Riggs’ Response

In light of these developments, Riggs expressed her determination to challenge the court’s decision, describing it as a “deeply misinformed ruling” that risks disenfranchising tens of thousands of eligible voters. She emphasized her commitment to upholding the law and defending the rights of constituents. “I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law, so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state,” Riggs stated.

Possible Outcomes

Due to Riggs’s recusal from the case, only six justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court will be involved in the appeal, raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock. Should such a tie occur, the lower court’s decision would stand, maintaining the Court of Appeals’ ruling.

If Riggs is unsuccessful in state court, she plans to seek recourse at the federal level. The stakes are high; if Griffin prevails, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court would expand from 5-2 to 6-1, complicating the future for Democratic candidates.

Responses from Political Leaders

The appeals court decision has garnered widespread criticism from various Democratic leaders and voting rights advocates. Democratic Judge Toby Hampson raised concerns in his dissent, noting that Griffin has not identified any specific ineligible voters among those he wishes to challenge. He argued that nullifying lawful votes post-election undermines legal principles and electoral integrity.

State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton condemned the ruling, asserting that it prioritizes party allegiance over voter rights. North Carolina House Minority Leader Robert Reives described the situation as a potential theft of the election, while Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that the decision could set a dangerous precedent for elections across the nation.

Bob Phillips, the executive director of Common Cause North Carolina, criticized the ruling as an extreme overreach that favors a losing candidate at the expense of lawful voters, asserting that it could lead to chaos in the electoral system.