Court Orders 65,000 NC Voters to Prove Eligibility in Razor-Thin Supreme Court Race

Paul Riverbank, 4/6/2025In a dramatic turn for North Carolina's Supreme Court race, an Appeals Court has mandated verification of 65,000 disputed votes, potentially affecting the razor-thin margin between Griffin and Riggs. This ruling raises crucial questions about balancing voter access with electoral integrity in our democratic process.

Let me break this down: A state Appeals Court panel, voting 2-1 along party lines, just ordered something unprecedented – the verification of more than 65,000 votes in a race separated by just 734 votes out of 5.5 million cast. Democrat Allison Riggs holds that razor-thin lead over Republican Jefferson Griffin, but now everything's up in the air.

Here's what's really at stake: The panel's ruling gives voters whose eligibility was challenged 15 business days to prove they're legitimate voters. We're talking about folks whose registration records might be missing a driver's license number or the last four of their Social Security. Some are military personnel stationed overseas who now need to demonstrate their North Carolina ties.

The Republican majority's argument hinges on a compelling point – that even a single improper ballot effectively cancels out a legitimate vote. But let's be clear about the timing: This comes five months after Election Day, after multiple recounts already confirmed Riggs's lead.

I've covered enough election disputes to know this isn't just about procedure. The lone Democratic judge on the panel didn't mince words, calling this what it is – an attempt to change the rules after the game's been played. Riggs's team is already preparing an appeal, and honestly, who can blame them?

What makes this particularly fascinating is where it's headed next: the very Supreme Court whose future composition hangs in the balance. Think about that – the court might have to rule on a case that determines its own makeup. In my 20 years covering state politics, I can't recall a more peculiar situation.

The mechanics of this verification process are daunting. County boards must immediately start contacting affected voters, giving them 15 business days to provide documentation. Having watched similar efforts in other states, I can tell you this is no small undertaking.

Griffin's team has been relentless, filing hundreds of challenges across North Carolina's 100 counties. But here's what fascinates me: These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. These are real voters – your neighbors, maybe even your family members – whose votes are suddenly in limbo.

The timing here matters enormously. This ruling overturns a February lower court decision that had dismissed the case. With the current Supreme Court holding a 5-2 Republican majority, we're watching a legal drama that could reshape the state's judicial landscape for years to come.

In my view, this case exemplifies the tension between election security and voter access that defines modern American democracy. As this story continues to unfold, I'll be watching closely – not just for the immediate outcome, but for what it tells us about the future of voting rights in North Carolina and beyond.

North Carolina's already contentious Supreme Court race took a dramatic turn yesterday that could affect tens of thousands of voters. As a veteran observer of state judicial politics, I've rarely seen a post-election dispute with such far-reaching implications.Let me break this down: A state Appeals Court panel, voting 2-1 along party lines, just ordered something unprecedented – the verification of more than 65,000 votes in a race separated by just 734 votes out of 5.5 million cast. Democrat Allison Riggs holds that razor-thin lead over Republican Jefferson Griffin, but now everything's up in the air.Here's what's really at stake: The panel's ruling gives voters whose eligibility was challenged 15 business days to prove they're legitimate voters. We're talking about folks whose registration records might be missing a driver's license number or the last four of their Social Security. Some are military personnel stationed overseas who now need to demonstrate their North Carolina ties.The Republican majority's argument hinges on a compelling point – that even a single improper ballot effectively cancels out a legitimate vote. But let's be clear about the timing: This comes five months after Election Day, after multiple recounts already confirmed Riggs's lead.I've covered enough election disputes to know this isn't just about procedure. The lone Democratic judge on the panel didn't mince words, calling this what it is – an attempt to change the rules after the game's been played. Riggs's team is already preparing an appeal, and honestly, who can blame them?What makes this particularly fascinating is where it's headed next: the very Supreme Court whose future composition hangs in the balance. Think about that – the court might have to rule on a case that determines its own makeup. In my 20 years covering state politics, I can't recall a more peculiar situation.The mechanics of this verification process are daunting. County boards must immediately start contacting affected voters, giving them 15 business days to provide documentation. Having watched similar efforts in other states, I can tell you this is no small undertaking.Griffin's team has been relentless, filing hundreds of challenges across North Carolina's 100 counties. But here's what fascinates me: These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. These are real voters – your neighbors, maybe even your family members – whose votes are suddenly in limbo.The timing here matters enormously. This ruling overturns a February lower court decision that had dismissed the case. With the current Supreme Court holding a 5-2 Republican majority, we're watching a legal drama that could reshape the state's judicial landscape for years to come.In my view, this case exemplifies the tension between election security and voter access that defines modern American democracy. As this story continues to unfold, I'll be watching closely – not just for the immediate outcome, but for what it tells us about the future of voting rights in North Carolina and beyond.