Updated on April 5, 2025
The North Carolina State Board of Elections issued a statement on April 4, 2025 after a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals ruled on Jefferson Griffin’s petition for writ of prohibition.
Incumbent Justice Allison Riggs and Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin ran for Associate Justice of the NC Supreme Court in the November’s 2024 election. Griffin contested the results and after two recounts, “…Riggs led by 734 votes, having received 2,770,412 votes (50.01%) to Griffin’s 2,769,678 votes (49.99%),” according to Griffin v. NC State Bd. of Elections – Opinion of the Court.
Griffin alleges that over 65,000 voters weren’t properly registered to vote in the 2024 General Election.
NC Court of Appeals Judges Fred Gore, John Tyson and Toby Hampson reviewed their colleague’s petition and filed an unsigned opinion on April 4.
The court determined that Jefferson Griffin gave sufficient and adequate notice to the voters whose votes are being contested and concluded that “probable cause exists of an election law violation.”
The court said the board of elections are statutorily required to regularly maintain, review and update the list of registered voters.
The court said voters who registered in 2004 after the effective date of NCGS 163-82.4, who haven’t provided their last four of the Social Security numbers or drivers license numbers to their county BOE’s or who haven’t been given a unique identifier number – “have not qualified as eligible voters in the 2024 election.”
“Griffin contends under both federal law and state statutes; it is unlawful for the Board of Elections to count the votes of purported voters who did not lawfully register to vote by their failure to provide the statutorily required information on their registration application. At oral arguments, Griffin’s attorneys conceded his protests are not challenging eligible voters who registered prior to HAVA” (Help America Vote Act) or the enactment of NCGS 163-82.4 in 2004.
The court reversed the Superior Court’s order and remanded the issue to the State Board of Elections “with instructions to notify and allow the affected voters fifteen business days after notice to provide this required information to cure their ballots,” the court said.
The court instructed the NCSBE to direct the county boards to identify the military and overseas voters who were challenged and notify them of their “failure to abide by the photo ID requirement or equivalent, to allow said voters fifteen business days from the mailing of the notice to cure the defect, and upon verification, to include in the count of this challenged election the votes of those voters who timely cure their failure to abide by the photo ID requirement and to omit from the final count the votes of those voters who fail to timely cure their deficiencies.”
“As to the ‘Never Resident’ voters, we conclude these purported voters are not eligible to vote in North Carolina, non-federal elections, and the votes cast by these purported voters are not to be included in the final count in the 2024 election for Seat 6,” the court said. The court dismissed the Superior Court’s order.
Judge Hampson dissented.
“Every single voter challenged by Petitioner in this appeal, both here and abroad, cast their absentee, early, or overseas ballot by following every instruction they were given to do so. Their ballots were accepted. Their ballots were counted. The results were canvassed. None of these challenged voters was given any reason to believe their vote would not be counted on election day or included in the final tallies. The diligent actions these voters undertook to exercise their sacred fundamental right to vote was, indeed, the same as every other similarly situated voter exercising their voting right in the very same election. Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution,” he said.
The judge said it supports the Board of Election’s ultimate conclusion that the Petitioner “failed to establish probable cause to believe there was any violation of law, irregularity, or misconduct in the administration” of the election.”
Hampson cited the Appeal of Harper which said, “When an unsuccessful candidate seeks to invalidate an election, the burden of proof is on him to show that he would have been successful had the irregularities not occurred.”
“To accept Petitioner’s indiscriminate efforts to call into doubt the votes of tens of thousands of otherwise eligible voters, without any showing any challenged voter was disqualified under existing law from voting is to elevate speculation and surmise over evidence and reason.”
The judge said that the proposition of a significant number of the 61,682 voters will be notified and be able to “take curative measures is a fiction that does not disguise the act of mass disenfranchisement the majority’s decision represents.”
“While the majority’s opinion is unsigned, I note this decision is not per curiam and I dissent in full. The Board’s conclusion was correct. The Superior Court correctly affirmed the Board’s decision.”
He detailed the reasons why they should affirm the Superior Court orders.
He said the postcard that were sent to challenged voters only provided a QR code, which denied them of the right to notice of the proceeding.
“The Purcell principle and other equitable principles demand we do not change the rules of an election midstream or after votes are tallied to disenfranchise qualified North Carolina voters,” he said.
“Under longstanding law, qualified voters whose voter registration data may be incomplete are not disqualified from voting,” he said.
Judge Hampson said, “Military and overseas voters are not subject to constitutional or statutory voter identification requirements and are governed by a separate statute designed to promote uniformity across the states and federal elections.”
“US citizens living overseas who meet North Carolina residency requirements through their parents or guardians have a right to vote in North Carolina elections,” he said.
The judge said, “Fundamental principles of equal protection demand these absentee and early votes be counted in this election.”
He said remanding the matter to the Board of Elections is improvident where the Petitioner hasn’t met “his burden of proof to demonstrate any factual issue that would result in altering the outcome of his election under existing rules.”
“The majority imposes this remedy without thought or care for its impact on the people its decision truly impacts: the voters.
He said the votes of voters who have died since election day should count.
He said the votes of “servicemembers abroad sacrificing their lives and safety in remote locations unable to jump through the judicial hoops the majority now puts in their way” should count.
He said the votes of overseas voters who only learned of this process second-hand due to lack of any service should count.
The judge said voters in every county who may have moved and “have not learned of this proceeding, or are sick, immobile, elderly, transient, away on extended business travel, traveling on school breaks with their children, or are simply overwhelmed by the unrelenting attack on their voting rights” votes should counts. They did everything they were required to do. Their votes were accepted as valid votes on election day and through the canvassing process. Make no mistake: should the majority’s decision be implemented; the impact will be to disenfranchise North Carolina voters even though they were eligible to vote on election day.”
Giving Griffin “a second bite at the apple serves no legitimate purpose,” he said.
He said there was nothing showing that the voters were ineligible to vote.
By the majority skipping over the quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing process, the majority “erroneously places the burden of proof in this election protest on the individual voters and not the protestor.”
Judge Hampson said there is no probable cause to believe that any of the protests before the court were violations of the law, misconduct or irregularity in the administration of the general election for Associate Justice of the NC Supreme Court.
He dissented from the majority opinion.
Statement from the NC State Board of Elections
A statement from the NC State Board of Elections said, “The court’s decision may require the county boards of elections to contact voters whose voter registration forms did not include a driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number, and to allow those voters to provide that information to their county board of elections, to ensure their votes for the supreme court contest count in the 2024 general election.”
The NCSBE said the court’s ruling may require the county Board of Elections to contact the military and overseas citizens “who used absentee ballots to provide a copy of their photo identification, to ensure their votes for the supreme court contest count in the 2024 general election. This protest does not affect these voters’ selections in any other contest on the ballot.”
“The court’s decision is not yet in effect and is likely to be appealed. If the court’s decision does go into effect, the State Board of Elections will provide instructions to affected voters on how to comply with the court’s decision,” the statement said.
“Regardless of the ultimate outcome of this ongoing legal dispute, any voter who is concerned that their voter registration information is incomplete or is not up to date should submit an updated voter registration form. Submitting an updated voter registration form is easy. Any voter who has a license from the DMV can go to payments.ncdot.gov to fill out a voter registration application. If you’re already registered, submitting this information will merely update your existing voter registration. You don’t need to create a special account with the DMV. You can select “Continue as Guest” on the DMV’s website and proceed directly to submitting your voter registration.”
“If you don’t have a license from the DMV, you can download a voter registration form at ncsbe.gov/register-mail, and then print, sign, and submit that paper form to your county board of elections. Contact and address information for the 100 county boards of elections is available here: vt.ncsbe.gov/boeinfo,” the statement said.
Feb. 26, 2025
Citizens protest judge’s efforts to invalidate over 65,000 votes
The North Carolina Supreme Court Associate Justice seat remains the only statewide race in the country that hasn’t been certified.
Citizens rallied in protest of Jefferson Griffin’s efforts to discard tens of thousands of ballots on Feb. 22, 2025 at Fort Totten Park in New Bern, NC.
NC Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin ran for the justice seat in November 2024 and lost to the incumbent Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs by 734 votes, according to the NC State Board of Elections website. Unsatisfied with the results, Griffin filed several election protests with the State Board of Elections and after two recounts, the results remained the same.
According to court documents, he alleged that ballots were cast by people who weren’t legally registered to vote due to incomplete voter registrations. He claimed ballots were cast by overseas citizens who weren’t NC residents and did not live in the US. He alleged that military and overseas citizens did not provide a photocopy of their ID Exception Form or photo ID when they cast their absentee ballots.
The Board of Elections determined “that the protests did not substantially comply with the service requirements and did not establish probable cause to believe that a violation of election law or irregularity or misconduct occurred in the protested elections.” The protests were dismissed.
Jefferson Griffin also alleged that people voted while serving felony sentences, ballots were cast by people who were deceased on Election Day and ballots were cast by voters whose registration were denied or removed.
The NCSBE dismissed the protests after concluding that the law requires a person to provide adequate notice to voters when their votes are challenged. “That was not done for all the voter-eligibility protests addressed in this decision.” It was noted that even if they received adequate notice, the “protests failed to establish substantial evidence to believe that a violation of the election law or other irregularity or misconduct that affected the outcome of the election occurred in those contests for the reasons outlined in this decision.”
Judge Griffin appealed the Board of Elections decisions by petitioning the NC Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition on Dec. 18, 2024, according to court documents. The writ would prevent a lower court from proceeding in a pending matter, according to Ch. 35: Appeals, Post-Convictions Litigation, and Writs published here.
He alleged “5,509 overseas voters who purportedly violated state law by not providing photo ID; 267 voters who were born abroad and have never resided in this state; and 60,273 voters who failed to provide required information when they registered to vote,” according to documents dated Jan. 22, 2025.
He asked the Supreme Court to prohibit the Board of Elections from counting over 65,000 ballots that he challenged. He requested a stay to block the board from certifying Allison Riggs as the winner. The petition was renewed on Jan. 7, 2025.
The NCSBE removed the petitions to the US District Court for the Eastern District of NC for judicial review and the following day, Griffin “split the claims into parts and filed three petitions for judicial review in this (Supreme) Court,” according to the brief.
Jefferson Griffin asked for Griffin I to be moved back to the state Supreme Court. That same day, the court decided to move Griffin II from the US District Court to the Superior Court of Wake County.
The Supreme Court ordered a temporary stay and dismissed the petition for writ of prohibition so the Wake County Superior Court could proceed with judicial review.
Justice Earls dissented in part, because it leaves the stay in place. She said the court effectively ordered a preliminary injunction that will keep the NCSBE from certifying the race for the Supreme Court seat.
She said the temporary stay prevents the Wake County Superior Court from deciding whether Jefferson Griffin “is likely to succeed on the merits and whether a stay is justified—a decision which state law vests in that court specifically,” Earls said.
“Faithfully executing the law here means that the trial court should…be deciding whether a stay is warranted. If, however, the court still believes that allowing the stay to continue is not a reflection of the likelihood of success on the merits, that opens a different Pandora’s Box. It means that an injunction to prevent the certification of an elected official is warranted any time a losing candidate decides to appeal an adverse decision on an election protest from the State Board of Elections to the Superior Court. If any losing candidate can make any sort of argument about votes in the election, no matter how frivolous, and automatically receive a court-ordered stay on appeal, preventing the winning candidate from being certified, nothing stops litigious losers from preventing duly elected persons from taking office for months or longer,” she said.
Earls said it would incentivize “costly litigation of baseless claims for those candidates who can afford it, undermines confidence in our democratic system, and has no support in existing law.”
She said it would set courts up “to be the arbiters of election outcomes instead of voters and weakens faith in the democratic processes of this state. In seeking to invalidate the votes of over 60,000 voters, Judge Griffin cannot identify a single voter who fraudulently cast a ballot without being duly qualified under the laws of this state to do so.”
On Feb. 7, the Wake County District Court heard Griffin’s “Incomplete Voter Registration,” “Never Resident” and “Lack of Photo Identification for Overseas Voters” protests. The court concluded that the State Board of Elections decision “was not in violation of constitutional provisions, was not in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, was made upon lawful procedure, and was not affected by other error of law.” Judge Pittman ruled that the NCSBE’s decision “should be, and hereby is, affirmed.”
The Board of Elections petitioned the Supreme Court for a discretionary review prior to determination by the NC Court of Appeals on Feb. 20. The court voted 4-2 to deny the request with Republicans Chief Justice Paul Newby, Associate Justices Philip Berger, Jr., Tamara Barringer and Trey Allen concurring. Democrat Justices Anita Earls and Republican Justice Richard Dietz dissented. Democrat Justice Allison Riggs was recused from voting.
Justice Earls said Judge Griffin’s opposition to bypass the petition asserts that the Supreme Court shouldn’t hear the case because the court might be split 3-3, which would leave the lower court’s ruling as the final ruling.
“In other words, he asks us not to hear the case because he might lose. Such outcome-determined reasoning has no place in a court committed to the rule of law,” Earls said.
In a filing on Feb. 25, Griffin accused the state elections board of breaking “the law for decades while refusing to correct its errors.”
A Brief by Interventor Allison Riggs, addresses Judge Griffin’s previous claims.
It states, Judge Griffin did not serve affected voters with a “copy of the relevant protest, as required by state law. Instead, he sent thousands of junk-mail postcards with a QR code and an ambiguous warning that the recipient’s vote ‘may be affected.’ Not only did that postcard violate state law but it was constitutionally deficient as it failed to give North Carolinians adequate notice that their fundamental right to vote was being directly challenged.”
“While the NC Administrative Code provides that these voters are ‘not required to submit a photocopy of acceptable photo identification.’” It says, Griffin argued that the rule conflicts with NC statutory law, the brief states.
It says the actions are flawed and violate substantive and procedural due process, and voter equal protection rights.
The brief states Congress passed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee in 1986 which consolidated federal laws that govern overseas voting and established a uniform system of military members, their families and civilian voters who live overseas. The UOCAVA was later amended to require states to accept a Federal Postcard Application for registration. The federal forms and instructions don’t tell voters to include a photo ID.
“The Eastern District of North Carolina concluded it had jurisdiction in Griffin I and Griffin II, but abstained, and remanded. Those remand decisions are on appeal to the Fourth Circuit and are fully briefed and argued; a final decision in those appeals is likely imminent,” according to the brief.
Justice Allison Riggs filed a motion on Feb. 25 asking the North Carolina Court of Appeals to hear the case en banc and asked for expedited consideration of the request. Her request was denied.
Three months after the November election, citizens joined Common Cause NC, Democracy NC, Craven County NAACP and other organizations for a rally in New Bern to call for the state’s highest court to reject Jefferson Griffin’s efforts to invalidate over 60,000 ballots, which would overturn the election, according to a press release.
“Multiple recounts and careful election audits confirmed that Justice Allison Riggs won the most votes to keep her seat on the NC Supreme Court. But rather than concede and respect the will of voters, losing candidate Jefferson Griffin is demanding that the courts do the unthinkable: throw out the lawful ballots of 60,000 North Carolinians – with young people and Black voters challenged at higher rates by Griffin – as he outrageously tries to overturn the election,” the release says.
Find out if Jefferson Griffin is challenging your vote by visiting the NCSBE’s website here.
Food for thought:
The 65,000 ballots that Judge Jefferson Griffin alleges to have been unlawfully cast include Unaffiliated, Democrat and Republican voters. The ballots were counted in local, state and federal races that have already been certified.
By Wendy Card, Editor. Send an email with questions or comments.