The Controversial Tactics in North Carolina's Supreme Court Election
Jefferson Griffin (left) and Allison Riggs. WUNC.
By Joshua Peters
In recent weeks, the North Carolina Supreme Court race between Republican Jefferson Griffin and Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs has emerged as a focal point for debates on election integrity and the tactics used to challenge electoral outcomes. With Riggs leading by just 625 votes after the initial count, Jefferson Griffin, a judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, has taken steps that have ignited significant controversy.
Griffin has not only requested a recount but also filed protests against over 60,000 ballots, citing issues like incomplete voter registrations, votes allegedly cast by deceased individuals, and ballots from felons on probation. Among those targeted are overseas voters with historical ties to North Carolina and even Riggs' own parents. These actions have led to accusations of voter intimidation and an attempt to sow doubt in the electoral process rather than genuinely addressing voter fraud.
The protests rest on legal theories that have largely been dismissed by both state and federal courts. For example, the insistence on detailed identity information for voter registration was previously challenged by the Republican National Committee and rejected, suggesting that Griffin's approach might be more about contesting the election result than upholding electoral integrity.
Public reaction, as seen on social media platforms like X, has been largely critical, with many viewing these tactics as an assault on democratic norms. Critics, including members of the North Carolina Forward Party and the North Carolina Democratic Party, argue that these moves are not about ensuring a fair election but rather about disenfranchising voters who have adhered to voting protocols.
The timing of Griffin's protests, especially following a machine recount that upheld Riggs' lead, suggests a reluctance to accept the electorate's decision. This approach has been interpreted by some as a sign of desperation rather than a commitment to democratic principles. Personal attacks on voters, including targeting Riggs' parents, further underscore this perception.
The broader implications of these actions are significant. By challenging a substantial number of votes on questionable grounds, Griffin risks undermining public trust in the electoral system, a system which the NC GOP has had significant influence over due to their majority in the General Assembly. Such tactics could lead voters to view elections not as democratic expressions but as legal battlegrounds where results can be contested indefinitely. This is particularly concerning in North Carolina, where election integrity has often been a point of contention.
Griffin's strategy in this election cycle illustrates how attempts to challenge election outcomes can backfire, potentially damaging the very credibility of the electoral system Republicans claim to protect. Instead of reinforcing the integrity of elections, these moves are seen by many as an attempt to subvert the democratic process.
Looking forward, this election offers lessons for enhancing election integrity through genuine reform. The emergence of parties like the Forward Party, which advocates for comprehensive election reform, represents a hopeful sign. The Forward Party pushes for changes that enhance transparency, accessibility, and respect for voter choice, aiming to rebuild trust in the electoral system. The challenge now is to ensure that political actors respect the electorate's decisions, treating elections as true reflections of democratic will rather than opportunities for post-election litigation.