Court Battle Continues over Effort to Steal the Votes Cast by 60,000 NC Citizens in 2024
Losing Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin continued his attempt to have 60,000 North Carolina citizens’ votes thrown out months after they were legally cast. The contest for this key NC Supreme Court seat is now the only statewide race in America from 2024 in which a winner has not yet been officially certified, due to Griffin’s unconscionable after-the-fact voter disenfranchisement campaign.
The Battle Rages in Federal Court
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments last Monday from attorneys for Griffin, his winning opponent Justice Allison Riggs, the NC State Board of Elections, and other parties. The Court’s ruling is still uncertain on the key procedural question of whether the case will be heard in federal or state court. At stake are a consistent interpretation of federal voting rights protection laws, not to mention the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, both of which argue for a decision in federal court.
The inherent conflicts of interest involved in leaving the case in state court were highlighted by campaign contribution information which was brought to light last week. In our state, all members of the Supreme Court have run, fundraised, and been elected as either Republicans or Democrats. The spouses of most of the members of the Court have contributed substantial sums to the campaigns of one or the other contestant in the race. In the case of two of Griffin’s fellow Republican judges, the contributions were for the state’s maximum allowed individual contribution amount ($6,400 per election).
Partisan Elections for Judges
Democracy advocates have pointed out the inherent problems created by holding partisan elections for judges who are then expected to be impartial arbiters of justice in cases that will often involve the economic interests of large campaign contributors.
Arranging for a state’s highest judicial authority to make the final decision on its own membership, in a case with voting rights law and the credibility of democratic elections on the line, seems to many observers to represent borderline political insanity.
