Federal judge weighs in on last undecided 2024 election

A federal judge has ordered the North Carolina Board of Elections to begin implementing a state Supreme Court decision in the last unresolved 2024 election in the country. 

The North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision on Friday that partially overturned a ruling from a week earlier by a panel of the intermediate-level Court of Appeals that had favored Republican Jefferson Griffin. Griffin is trailing Democratic Associate Justice Allison Riggs by a razor-thin margin of 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million cast last fall in the election for a seat on the state’s highest court. Griffin formally protested more than 65,000 ballots covering three categories.

The largest category of challenged voters — roughly 60,000 — included ballots cast last fall by people who have been registered to vote since 2004, but their records lack a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number.

Friday’s prevailing opinion said the Court of Appeals got it wrong by declaring these ballots shouldn’t have been counted. The opinion said the blame rests with the State Board of Elections for failing for years to properly collect those numerical identifiers, not the voters. These voters ultimately proved their identity by complying with the state’s new photo ID law, and longtime legal precedent says such mistakes by election officials cannot result in cast votes being voided, the order reads.

FEDERAL JUDGE KICKS BATTLE OVER NC SUPREME COURT ELECTION BACK TO STATE COURT

The state board of elections said in a statement on Monday that it will provide, “as soon as possible,” detailed instructions “to the affected counties and voters on how to comply with the decision.”

“The Supreme Court decision removed from the protest voters whose voter registration forms did not include a driver’s license number or last four digits of a Social Security number (and didn’t check the box indicating they lacked these numbers). Those voters – the largest group of voters challenged by the protest – no longer must provide that information to their county boards of elections to ensure their votes for the supreme court contest count in the 2024 general election,” the state board said. 

But a majority of justices — all registered Republicans — let stand the lower court’s determination that additional ballots from two other categories that Griffin contested were wrongly allowed in the tally. Some of these voters, potentially thousands who serve in the military or live overseas, would still get a chance to turn in a photo identification or an ID exception form for their choice in the race to remain in the count, the court’s prevailing order says. 

The state Supreme Court also agreed to throw out votes from people who had never lived in North Carolina or the United States altogether. 

“The Supreme Court decision, however, would require challenged military and overseas-citizen voters who submitted an absentee ballot to provide a copy of their photo identification, or a Photo ID Exception Form, to ensure their votes for the supreme court contest count in the 2024 general election,” the state board of elections said Monday. “The decision would also require certain county boards of elections to identify and remove from the count – in the Supreme Court contest only – the votes from U.S. citizen voters who have never lived in the United States but have parental connections to North Carolina.” 

Riggs and the State Board of Elections, which had previously thrown out Griffin’s formal protests of the more than 65,000 ballots, had previously signaled plans to return to federal court if necessary, if the justices sided with Griffin to potentially plead violations of federal elections and voting rights laws. Riggs’ attorneys filed a motion late Friday in U.S. District Court in Raleigh asking a judge to issue an injunction preventing the state appeals court decisions from being carried out immediately.

DEM TAKES AIM AT TRUMP IN 2026 SENATE LAUNCH VIDEO FOR ‘TANKING OUR ECONOMY’

U.S. Chief District Judge Richard Myers – who was nominated by President Donald Trump during his first term – on Saturday ordered the state board of elections to comply with the plan set forth by the Supreme Court to resolve the election dispute. Meyers set an April 15 deadline for the state board of elections to “provide notice to the court of the scope of its remedial efforts, including the number of potentially affected voters and the counties in which those voters cast ballots.” 

The judge also gave both parties until April 20 to submit opening briefs and until April 28 to submit final briefs in the case. 

Myers ordered the state Supreme Court not to certify the election results “pending further order of this court.” It’s unknown whether the outstanding ballots that could ultimately get taken out of the count could flip the result to Griffin, himself a current Court of Appeals judge. Griffin did not sit on the three-judge panel whose majority ruled for him last week, and Riggs did not participate in the Supreme Court deliberations.

Riggs, meanwhile, hosted a “Protect Our Votes” rally in the state capital of Raleigh on Monday. 

“I will not give up on my fight to protect those fighting for us,” Riggs, whose father and brother served in the military, said, according to WRAL. “This presents a very real burden and threat to North Carolina voters in uniform, North Carolina voters who are missionaries serving on the mission field, foreign service officers, students studying abroad The threat is real, the burden is real, and we’re going to do everything we can to make sure that their vote counts.”

Republican strategist Paul Schumaker issued a statement on behalf of Griffin saying Friday’s ruling “is consistent with our request, and clearly, the matter warrants a thorough review, which the Courts have set forth. “

“What is most disturbing is Justice Riggs’ desire to hold interviews and rallies to litigate this case outside of the Courts,” Schumaker said, according to WRAL. “Justice Riggs clearly is a judicial activist who believes judges should make new laws, not interpret the laws enacted by the state legislature.” 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.