North Carolina Supreme Court’s Controversial Decision on Voter Disenfranchisement
On a recent Friday, four Republican justices from the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an order that could potentially disenfranchise over 5,000 voters. This action is linked to a broader strategy led by Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican who lost a recent election against Democratic Justice Allison Riggs, aiming to overturn her victory.
The Context of the Ruling
The justices’ decision focuses on unseating Justice Riggs and reinstating Griffin, the candidate who was unsuccessful in his bid for her position. Riggs won her election narrowly, with a margin of just 734 votes, making the disenfranchisement of thousands particularly significant in altering the outcome.
Historical Parallels: Bush v. Gore
This unfolding situation not only draws attention to contemporary electoral processes but also invites comparisons to the infamous Bush v. Gore case from 2000, which involved a razor-thin presidential election in Florida. In that instance, George W. Bush secured a victory with a margin of 537 votes, leading to a contentious Supreme Court decision that halted a recount.
Similar to Bush’s contested election, the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling in Griffin v. North Carolina State Board of Electors has raised concerns over potential constitutional violations, particularly regarding the uniformity of election rules.
Discrepancies in Treatment of Voters
The order specifically targets voters in four North Carolina counties, all of which lean Democratic, while leaving voters in other regions unaffected. This lack of uniformity mirrors the situation in the Bush case, where different procedures were applied across select counties, leading to a Supreme Court mandate for consistent election regulations throughout the state.
Details of the Disenfranchisement
The disenfranchisement primarily affects military and overseas voters who utilized absentee ballots. North Carolina law typically mandates photo ID for voting; however, military voters are exempt from submitting a photocopy of their ID when casting absentee ballots. Consequently, many of these voters, who used an online portal for ballot submission—where ID submission was not required—are now at risk of having their ballots deemed invalid.
Legal Implications of the Ruling
The North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling on disenfranchising these voters raises significant constitutional questions. Legal precedent from various federal appeals courts suggests that states cannot alter election rules retroactively, as established in cases like Griffin v. Burns in 1978. The Supreme Court has yet to provide definitive guidelines on retroactive changes to election procedures, leaving this aspect open to interpretation.
The Way Forward
Currently, a federal judge has temporarily halted the enforcement of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision, prohibiting the state from certifying election results until the matter has been fully resolved in court. The implications of this case extend beyond the immediate realm of North Carolina, with potential repercussions for election law and constitutional rights nationally.
As legal proceedings unfold, the Fourth Circuit, which oversees North Carolina and has a Democratic majority, may provide a framework that counters the Supreme Court’s previous interpretations, particularly regarding the uniform treatment of voters. However, uncertainties linger as to whether the Republican-controlled Supreme Court will intervene, which complicates the prediction of future outcomes.
