Vote

Griffin v. North Carolina Board of Elections (Amicus)

Location: North Carolina
Status: Closed (Judgment)
Last Update: May 5, 2025

What's at Stake

This case arises from the November 2024 election for state supreme court justice in North Carolina. Incumbent State Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs defeated Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Griffin has filed a petition seeking to invalidate more than 60,000 votes from the election. He argues that the state Board of Elections impermissibly allowed over 60,000 people to register without providing their driver’s licenses or social security numbers, and that the Board impermissibly allowed thousands of overseas voters to cast absentee ballots without photo identification. The petition has resulted in both federal and state litigation, and the Ƶ has submitted amicus briefs in both venues. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Ƶ’s Voting Rights Project and the Ƶ of North Carolina filed an amicus brief explaining that the petition’s attempt to cancel tens of thousands of votes threatens democratic backsliding in North Carolina. Separately, in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the Ƶ’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the Ƶ of North Carolina submitted an amicus brief explaining that, even if the Board did make mistakes, cancelling votes as a consequence of those mistakes would violate the popular sovereignty provision of the North Carolina Constitution because voters relied on the Board to know how to register and vote.

Summary

Justice Allison Riggs won election to the North Carolina Supreme Court by 734 votes. Her opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin, refused to concede and instead filed hundreds of election protests, all of which were rejected by the State Board of Elections. The Board explained that throwing out the votes, as Griffin requested, would violate numerous provisions of federal law, including the federal Constitution’s Due Process Clause and the National Voter Registration Act. After the Board rejected his protests, Griffin went directly to the North Carolina Supreme Court—skipping over the state’s trial and appellate courts—challenging the Board’s decision. Griffin’s petition asks North Carolina’s courts throw out more than 60,000 votes.

The Board removed the case to federal court, but the federal court, at Griffin’s request, sent the case back to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Board then appealed that decision to the federal court of appeals, asking the appeals court to step in and put an end to Griffin’s anti-democratic gambit.

In that federal appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Ƶ and Ƶ of North Carolina filed an amicus brief on behalf of eight political scientists—Erica Frantz, Tom Ginsburg, Jacob Grumbach, Aziz Huq, Robert Kaufman, Pippa Norris, Kim Lane Scheppele, and Susan Stokes—who are experts in what’s known as “democratic backsliding.” Democratic backsliding is the degradation of free and fair elections by ruling parties seeking to expand and entrench their own power. Our amicus brief framed what is happening in North Carolina as an egregious sign of democratic backsliding rather than a normal legal dispute and sounded the alarm in the voice of scholars and experts who study the subject. However, on February 4, 2025, the Fourth Circuit issued a decision allowing the state court litigation to proceed, at least for now.

Following the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the litigation continued in state court, and in early March 2025 the Ƶ's State Supreme Court Initiative and the Ƶ of North Carolina filed an amicus brief on their own behalf in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The state court amicus brief argues that even if the state Board of Elections had implemented unlawful procedures—which it did not—otherwise eligible voters should not pay for procedural errors committed by government officials. That’s because negating over 60,000 votes cast in reliance on government instructions is not just unfair, it is foreclosed by the North Carolina Constitution, which contains a popular sovereignty provision vesting all political power with the people. The amicus brief also argues that throwing out over 60,000 votes cast in reliance on government-prescribed procedures would violate multiple decisions of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which hold that otherwise qualified voters cannot be deprived of their right to vote based on procedural irregularities arising from government mistakes.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals then issued a decision invalidating over 60,000 votes, subject to a 15-day period for some affected voters to cure their ballot. Riggs appealed that decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which narrowed the lower court’s ruling but nonetheless continued to invalidate over 1,500 ballots cast by overseas voters.

Litigation then resumed in federal district court, which had retained the authority to determine whether the invalidation of already-cast votes violates federal law. The federal court ruled that the selective invalidation of votes in only some North Carolina counties—even though similarly cast ballots would be counted in other counties—violated equal protection. In addition, the retroactive invalidation of ballots (effectively changing the rules of an election after votes have been cast) is prohibited by the Due Process Clause. Finally, invalidating ballots based on a purported residency issue, without affording those voters a chance to respond, is also inconsistent with due process.

The federal court therefore prohibited state officials from nullifying ballots and ordered the state to certify the election. No appeals were taken, and the election was certified with Riggs as the prevailing candidate.

Press Releases

Support our on-going litigation and work in the courts

Learn More Ƶ the Issues in This Case