North Carolina state appeals court judge and Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin filed a legal brief on Tuesday with the state Supreme Court, laying out his latest argument for why the court should toss out November ballots and overturn the results of the state Supreme Court Race in his favor.
Tuesday’s filing is the latest development in a larger legal saga over Jefferson’s attempt to overturn the results of a fair election that saw Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs win reelection in November.
In this most recent filing before the very court he seeks to sit on, Griffin shifted his strategy in trying to invalidate tens of thousands of votes in order to steal the election from Riggs.
In the Tuesday filing, Griffin urged the court to first invalidate 5,509 overseas ballots, who, he argues, did not show photo identification when they voted, before considering the rest of the 60,000 ballots that he is protesting. Griffin argued that throwing out these 5,509 overseas ballots could be enough to change the results of the election, and if this is the case, the other 60,000 voters might not even need to be considered.
To be clear, Griffin is not conceding his belief that the 60,000 ballots are problematic. Instead, he is just suggesting that the court consider his protest claims in a specific order.
“It seems like Griffin is in a desperate position to find a path forward that allows him to steal this state Supreme Court seat in a way that is palatable to the state Supreme Court,” Policy Director with Common Cause North Carolina Ann Webb said in an interview with TPM. “The proposal that he’s making to the court in this brief is a path that is easier for the court to make a decision in his favor.”
Griffin has not yet been able to present any proof of voter fraud, his arguments have merely raised speculation about verification of voter identities in the state and he is using that potential uncertainty to try to overturn the election in his favor.
“By reviewing one set of protests at a time, the Court could determine that a first set of protests was ‘successful’ (i.e., meritorious and likely outcome-determinative) and order a re-tabulation of the vote count before deciding whether it needs to address the other protests,” the latest filing said. “If, after re-tabulation, the first set of protests changes the election’s outcome, then it would moot the other protests. The other protests would merely increase the prevailing candidate’s margin.”
Although Griffin is challenging 60,000 ballots total, he argues in his latest filing that if the court tosses out overseas ballots due to his claims that there is a voter verification issue, the bulk of the 60,000 could be ignored as they might no longer be “outcome-determinative.”
“The Court could dismiss the remainder of the petition as moot and the State Board would certify the election based on its re-tabulation,” he said in the filing.
In essence, Griffin is attempting to convince the court to slowly chip away at vote totals until enough ballots have been tossed to secure a Republican victory. He goes on to argue that if this one category of protests does not invalidate Riggs’ lead, then the court should indeed consider the other categories of protests.
Voting rights experts told TPM this is a strategy that allows him to camouflage his true intentions: disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters in order to win.
“Griffin is realizing that disenfranchising 60,000 North Carolinians is not going to be good for him or his party,” Webb added.
Regardless of the specifics of the strategy, however, Griffin’s larger goal of changing the outcome of November’s election remains the same. The election subversion attempt has garnered attention from national Democrats.
“Her [Allison Riggs) opponent Jefferson Griffin and his Republican allies can’t stand the fact that Justice Riggs won,” DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said during a virtual press briefing on Monday. “They can’t stand the fact that they were rejected by North Carolina voters fair and square. They have become more and more desperate as the weeks have dragged on.”
Former North Carolina Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper during the Monday press briefing also highlighted the larger consequences of Griffin’s attempt to steal this election.
“The eyes of the entire country are on this race because the implications of having free and fair elections that are being questioned and potentially overturned are devastating, not just for Justice Riggs and the millions of North Carolinians who voted for her but for any election in the future.”
“If Republicans are successful in invalidating fair and legal votes past the election date like this, this will have broad implications across the county,” Cooper added.
Griffin’s brief comes in response to the GOP-dominated state Supreme Court’s order last week that temporarily blocked the North Carolina State Board of Elections from certifying Riggs as the winner of the election. Instead, the order allows for the court to hear Griffin’s challenge to determine if 60,000 ballots will be tossed out or not.
The State Election Board, which last month rejected Griffin’s 60,000 ballot challenges, now needs to file a brief in response to Griffin’s brief by January 21. Griffin will need to file a reply by January 24.
This all runs parallel to a separate effort by Riggs and the State Election Board to get a federal court to intervene after a federal judge remanded the case back to the state Supreme Court earlier this month. An appeal is currently pending in the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
And as noted in the Carolina Journal, if the election does not get certified, Riggs would continue to serve on the state Supreme Court when the court hears cases on February 11.
Source link
