North Carolina Supreme Court Decides Majority of Votes in Disputed Election Are Valid

The North Carolina Supreme Court has mandated the counting of tens of thousands of ballots in a disputed election for a judicial position.

In a 4–2 decision delivered on April 11, the state’s supreme court indicated that election officials are required to count votes from individuals who have been registered since 2004 but lack driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers on file.

“The Board’s negligence and its failure to adequately align its actions with the law’s stipulations is exceedingly concerning. However, our precedent in this matter is unequivocal,” the majority asserted. “Since the responsibility for any technical deficiencies in voter registrations lies with the Board rather than the voters, entirely invalidating the ballots cast by individuals who subsequently confirmed their identities to the Board by adhering to voter ID laws would compromise the principle that ‘this is a government of the people, where the will of the majority, as lawfully expressed, must prevail.’”

The majority noted that the scenario would differ if evidence emerged indicating “a considerable number of the approximately 60,000 ballots in the first category were cast by individuals whose identities were not verified by voter ID or who were otherwise unqualified to vote.”

This decision pertains to the upcoming 2024 election for a position on the state’s supreme court. As it stands, Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat, is ahead of challenger Jefferson Griffin, an appellate judge, by 734 votes out of over 5.5 million total votes cast.

Related Stories

Riggs did not take part in the recent ruling, which primarily upheld two other aspects of the appellate court’s decision.

The justices chose not to overturn a finding that military and overseas voters who failed to provide photographic ID, or complete identification exception forms, must supply one or the other for their ballots to be counted.

The appellate court granted these voters 15 business days to rectify the situation. The state Supreme Court extended this to 30 calendar days.

The majority also did not modify the ruling that disqualified voters who have never lived in the United States, resulting in the rejection of the ballots they submitted from the overall vote count.

Riggs expressed to the media that “it is intolerable that the Court is opting to selectively disenfranchise North Carolinians who are serving our nation, both at home and abroad.”

The ruling “aligns with what we sought in our initial filing,” a representative for Griffin stated to the press.

Justice Anita Earls, who agreed with some aspects and disagreed with others, remarked that the order regarding overseas voters “forces unequal treatment of North Carolina voters and violates their state constitutional right to vote.”

Justice Richard Dietz, also concurring in part and dissenting in part, critiqued the decision to issue a ruling without oral arguments being heard.

“These matters should be resolved in a declaratory judgment action that seeks prospective relief applicable to future elections,” he stated.