Navigating the crossroads of democracy and the broader implications of election disputes
Judge Jefferson Griffin and Justice Allison Riggs
By Joshua Peters
North Carolina's history of election disputes provides a compelling lens through which to explore the evolution of its political and electoral systems. From early 20th-century voter suppression tactics to modern legal challenges involving ballot irregularities, the state has been at the forefront of contentious debates over democratic governance. This historical analysis briefly traces these disputes, concluding with a discussion of the recent Griffin-Riggs election controversy.
Early 20th Century Disputes
In the early 1900s, North Carolina, like much of the American South, adopted an array of legal and procedural barriers aimed at systematically disenfranchising African American voters. The introduction of literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses formed a trifecta of suppression that disproportionately affected black citizens, effectively erasing the political gains made during Reconstruction. These measures were not implemented in isolation but were part of a broader effort by the political elite to entrench white supremacy under the guise of electoral reform.
Local governments, often complicit in these efforts, manipulated voter rolls, intimidated potential voters, and wielded administrative technicalities to deny ballot access. The political calculus of the era relied heavily on reducing black voter turnout to maintain control over state and local institutions. These measures also marginalized poor white voters, though to a lesser extent, consolidating power in the hands of the wealthier and more politically connected elite.
The disenfranchised were not silent, however. Civil rights organizations, grassroots activists, and some progressive legal advocates began challenging the legality and morality of these practices. Their efforts faced significant obstacles, including unsympathetic courts and public hostility. Despite these challenges, their persistence gradually began to erode the foundations of these discriminatory systems, setting the stage for transformative legal and social changes in the mid-20th century. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, though decades away, was rooted in these early battles for electoral justice.
Mid-20th Century Controversies
By the mid-20th century, North Carolina's election disputes often revolved around issues of enforcement and local governance. One notable example occurred in 1950 in Madison County, where incumbent Sheriff Hubert Davis refused to concede defeat after losing his re-election bid. This standoff highlighted the challenges of ensuring smooth electoral transitions, particularly in rural areas where local authorities held significant sway. The Madison County controversy exemplified how entrenched political power could disrupt democratic processes.
Late 20th Century Gerrymandering Issues
The latter part of the 20th century saw North Carolina become a national battleground over gerrymandering, as the state’s political landscape increasingly became a reflection of the broader tensions over race, representation, and partisanship. One of the most infamous examples was the state’s 12th congressional district, which critics derisively referred to as a “snake-like” district due to its narrow, meandering shape. This district was drawn to concentrate African American voters, ostensibly to enhance minority representation but also to dilute their influence in surrounding districts.
The legal challenges to the 12th district, notably in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Easley v. Cromartie (2001), brought North Carolina’s redistricting practices under intense national scrutiny. In Shaw v. Reno, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the district’s shape was so irregular that it suggested racial considerations had subordinated traditional redistricting principles. This marked a significant precedent, as the Court emphasized that while race could be considered in redistricting, it could not dominate the process to the extent of violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The subsequent Easley v. Cromartie case, however, complicated the narrative. The Court determined that partisan considerations, rather than purely racial motives, had driven the creation of the district’s boundaries. This ruling underscored the often-blurred lines between race and partisanship in redistricting battles, particularly in a state like North Carolina, where race and political affiliation were deeply intertwined.
These cases set important legal and political precedents, illustrating the fine balance between ensuring fair representation for historically marginalized groups and adhering to constitutional limits on racial considerations in policymaking. They also highlighted the evolving tactics of political parties, which increasingly relied on sophisticated data analysis to craft districts that maximized partisan advantage while navigating judicial scrutiny.
The 12th district’s legal saga became a microcosm of the broader national debate over gerrymandering, paving the way for more recent disputes that have focused not just on racial gerrymandering but also on the equally contentious issue of partisan gerrymandering. These battles continue to shape North Carolina’s political map, influencing the state’s elections and its broader role in the national political landscape.
21st Century Election Disputes
The 21st century has seen North Carolina continue to grapple with election controversies. Among the most high-profile cases was the 2018 election for the 9th congressional district. The race between Republican Mark Harris and Democrat Dan McCready was plagued by allegations of absentee ballot fraud orchestrated by Harris’s campaign operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless. Dowless was accused of illegally collecting and tampering with absentee ballots, primarily in Bladen and Robeson counties, to benefit Harris.
The fraud allegations led the State Board of Elections to refuse to certify the results, ultimately ordering a new election. This marked the first time in decades that a congressional election was invalidated due to fraud. Harris, citing health reasons and amid mounting public scrutiny, declined to run in the re-election, which saw Republican Dan Bishop narrowly defeat McCready. The case underscored the vulnerabilities in the absentee voting system and led to calls for reform to prevent similar abuses in the future.
Meanwhile, disputes over redistricting persisted throughout the 2010s and 2020s. Legislative and congressional maps drawn by the Republican-controlled General Assembly were repeatedly challenged in court as unconstitutional gerrymanders. State and federal courts ruled in several instances that the maps either diluted minority voting power or unfairly entrenched partisan advantage, leading to multiple rounds of redrawing. These legal battles not only shaped North Carolina’s political landscape but also contributed to the broader national discourse on the need for redistricting reform.
Recent Griffin-Riggs Election Dispute
The 2024 election for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court has emerged as one of the most contentious in recent memory. Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs currently leads Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin by a razor-thin margin of 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million cast. However, Griffin has challenged the results, alleging that over 60,000 ballots were cast by ineligible voters and should therefore be discounted.
The State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin's protests, citing insufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. Nevertheless, the dispute has escalated to the judiciary, with Griffin appealing to both the federal appeals court and the North Carolina Supreme Court. The state Supreme Court, which has a Republican majority, issued a stay preventing the certification of Riggs as the winner. This stay allows the court time to consider Griffin's legal challenges, which could have far-reaching implications for the state’s electoral processes.
Justice Riggs recused herself from the case to avoid any appearance of bias, and the court has scheduled expedited proceedings to address the legal arguments. The controversy underscores the high stakes of judicial elections in North Carolina, where the state Supreme Court often plays a pivotal role in resolving disputes over redistricting, election laws, and other politically charged issues.
Broader Implications
The Griffin-Riggs dispute is emblematic of broader national debates over election integrity, voter access, and the role of courts in resolving electoral conflicts. North Carolina's history of election disputes demonstrates that these issues are not new but rather part of a long-standing struggle to balance fairness, representation, and the rule of law. As the state continues to navigate these challenges, its experiences offer valuable lessons for the rest of the country.
In the end, North Carolina’s electoral history is a testament to the resilience of democratic institutions in the face of adversity. From the disenfranchisement of African American voters in the early 20th century to the modern-day controversies surrounding ballot eligibility, the state has repeatedly confronted and adapted to the evolving demands of democracy. The resolution of the Griffin-Riggs case will undoubtedly shape the next chapter in this ongoing story, highlighting the importance of transparency, accountability, and public trust in the electoral process.