The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled in a way that enables the majority of contested judicial ballots cast during the November elections to be counted. As a result, this ruling has far-reaching consequences for the outcome of the contentious election. The court also conducted 60,000 ballot review sessions aimed at determining whether the vote cast in the judicial election for the apex court of North Carolina is maintained.
Disputed Ballots: Licences and Security Numbers
At the core of the dispute was a case initiated by Judge Jefferson Gryphon, a sitting Republican judge on the appeals court. Gryphon argued that a 2004 state law should see in excess of sixty thousand ballots thrown out due to voters’ lack of providing either state-issued driver’s licence or social security numbers in conjunction with filing the basic registration form. This dispute had the potential to completely overhaul the electoral results. Court’s Decision: The Voters Are Not to Blame; the State Board Is
The court’s majority view, led by Republican Justice Trey Allen, sided with the votes from the Democratic candidate, Justice Allison Riggs. The court did not side with the Elections Board as they pointed out the “very concerning” lack of compliance with the law regarding the registration of voters. As a result, the board was assigned the fault, permitting most of the ballot votes to be counted.
Military and Overseas Ballots: A Distinct Classification
These decisions did not apply to all disputed ballots. Military persons and overseas voters whose ballots were disputed due to lack of photo ID fell under a different classification, as they were given 30 days to identify themselves. Should this not happen, their votes would be removed. This classification left open the possibility of these voters being excluded from the electoral process.
Dissenting Opinion: Issues on Disenfranchisement
The only dissenting Democrat, Justice Anita Earls, noted the profound implications of the ruling on both military and overseas voters. She argued the ruling had treated between 2,000 and 7,000 ballots as fraudulent unless disproven. “It is no small thing in a democracy to overturn the results of an election by mindlessly waiving out ballots that were cast legally under all election laws in effect on the day of the election,” wrote Earls, underlining the significance of the court’s decision.
Riggs’ Response: Defence of Military Voters
The judge recused herself from the appeal, but Allison Riggs issued a statement regarding how the decision ignored military voters. “It is disgraceful that the court has made a choice to purposely disenfranchise North Carolinians who are serving our country, whether stationed here or abroad,” claimed Riggs, whose father is a retired 30-year military veteran.
The Election’s Tight Margin: A Dwindling Lead
In an unusual turn of political events, Riggs and Gryphon’s election contest came down to the wire. Gryphon was in the lead at 10,000 votes on the evening of November 5, and after attending elections, Gryphon was even further ahead. However, as ballots continued to be counted, Riggs continued closing the gap until he took the lead by slightly over 700 votes after numerous recounts. Given the razor-thin margin, the importance of the court’s decision concerning the disputed ballots is crucial.
Conclusion: A Contentious Ruling with Far-Reaching Implications
The verdict rendered by the North Carolina Supreme Court marks the end of the election saga Gryphon versus Riggs but adds a legal twist to the long-standing judicial battle. The decision allows the counting of the majority of the challenged ballots but leaves room for other complications, including disenfranchisement of militarised voters and voters from overseas. It is for this reason that we focus on the political consequences, because the legal consequences will still persist for a long period even after the election dispute is resolved and we will focus on the role of the courts in election conflicts.
