Protracted dispute surrounding the N.C. Supreme Court election may set precedent for future election disputes, cautions concerned parties.

Here's a fresh take on the article:

Got a hankering for some legal drama? Six months ago, the results of North Carolina's Supreme Court election were up in the air and yet to be called, primarily due to the relentless litigation from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin.

Griffin, who lags behind Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs by approximately 700 votes, has justifiably stirred up a storm by challenging over 65,000 ballots. If his endeavors manage to succeed, they'd likely sway the election results. But even if things don't go quite as planned, critics contend that the approach sets a dangerous precedent—one that potentially enables future candidates to flout election results by filing dubious challenges whenever races are decided by narrow margins.

"This is a blatant attempt to manipulate the law and the courts into modifying an election result by altering the rules post-election," asserted Ann Webb, a policy director for the North Carolina chapter of Common Cause, a government watchdog group.

Griffin's arguments, Webb went on to say, require the courts to agree that changing the rules after the election has concluded is kosher. This, in turn, opens up a can of worms as there's nothing stopping future politicians from employing the same strategy, implying a possible future of increasingly contentious and potentially unfounded election disputes.

Riggs, for her part, called Griffin's legal strategy "insidious" and warned that its success would likely spark imitators. "It's a North Carolina problem today, but it's Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia's problem tomorrow," she said, referencing other battleground states.

Even some Republicans have deemed it time for Griffin to throw in the towel. Former GOP Governor Pat McCrory told ABC11 this week that Griffin had been vanquished at the ballot box. "Enough already! You abide by the rules before the election. It's like altering a penalty call after the Super Bowl is over. You just don't do that," McCrory asserted, emphasizing that voters cast their ballots based on the existing rule set.

In addition, Republican-led organizations have begun airing ads in the state urging Griffin to terminate his litigation. As for Griffin's response, his team remained silent on NBC News' inquiries for this story.

Meanwhile, members of both parties have expressed concerns over the long-lasting ramifications of Griffin's approach, believing it could chip away at electoral legitimacy, voter confidence, and judicial independence.

Months of Litigation

Riggs secured her position ahead of Griffin in November's election, albeit only by a slim margin. Following a full machine recount as well as a partial hand recount, Riggs still led Griffin by 734 votes out of the 5.5 million ballots cast.

Griffin, unyielding in his pursuit, subsequently launched legal challenges across the state, alleging that over 65,000 ballots had been cast illegally. The campaign to disqualify votes targeted three categories of voters. The first group consisted of individuals with no driver's licenses or Social Security numbers on file in their voter registration records. The second category involved overseas voters who no longer resided in North Carolina. The final category comprised overseas voters who failed to provide photo identification with their ballots.

Long-term Consequences

Critics contend that Griffin's approach contradicts several entrenched notions in election law. The most prominent issue concerns the principle that rules governing an election should be fixed prior to voting taking place—a dictum that Griffin seems eager to disregard in his quest to disqualify thousands of votes. Moreover, only Griffin is taking issue with the ballots in question, while other Republican candidates remain silent.

"Republicans are targeting voters who did nothing wrong," North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton asserted in a recent press call. "If they genuinely believe that there's been electoral malpractice, then why aren't all Republican candidates challenging the same election results that Jefferson Griffin is right now?"

Over two hundred judges, government officials, attorneys, and legal scholars—including some Republicans—signed a letter to Griffin last month, urging him to call a halt to his litigation. "The arguments you have posited ask our judicial system to change the rules in place for the 2024 election after it has run its course," they wrote. "If you prevail, tens of thousands of voters will lose their voice after they've voted. For the sake of our judicial system, we implore you to withdraw your litigation immediately."

Griffin's legal team responded by stating, "That's not what the courts said. They held that the 'plain language' of the state constitution barred voters who had never resided in North Carolina from voting in state elections. And the North Carolina Supreme Court found that the state election code required overseas voters to provide photo identification with their ballots. As part of its remedy, the court provided a 30-day cure period for those voters to fix the defect."

Griffin's critics acknowledge the value of legal recourses post-election, but argue that any concerns should have been raised long before the election if he found the rules objectionable.

"It's crucial to have avenues for post-election challenges if there are genuine errors or cases of fraud," said Webb of Common Cause. "But in this scenario, Republicans are taking advantage of the post-election escape valve to challenge parts of the law they couldn't challenge before the election."

The North Carolina elections in November saw a close contest between Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin and Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs, with Riggs securing the win by a narrow margin, yet Griffin's relentless litigation imposes concerns about electoral legitimacy, voter confidence, and judicial independence.
Critics argue that Griffin's approach, which targets thousands of ballots and alters rules post-election, contradicts established norms in election law, setting a dangerous precedent for future candidates to manipulate election results by filing dubious challenges when races are decided by slim margins.
In a nuanced political environment filled with war-and-conflicts, policy-and-legislation, general-news, and crime-and-justice, the North Carolina Supreme Court election outcome has drawn attention to the need for electoral fairness and judicial integrity, with even some Republicans questioning Griffin's strategy.
The long-lasting implications of Griffin's tactics have raised eyebrows within political circles, with both Democratic and Republican parties voicing concerns about the potential for reduced voter confidence, assaults on judicial independence, and the erosion of electoral legitimacy if similar strategies are employed in the future.
As the legal drama unfolds in the courts of North Carolina, the approach taken by Griffin serves as an example of the complexities that underpin politics, demonstrating how issues like the campaign strategy, malpractice, and elections can become deeply intertwined in the intricate web of the criminal justice system, policy, and legislation.