It was asked of the state Supreme Court to speed up the case Judge Jefferson Griffin brought against the state Board of Elections in his bid to become a judge on the high court, but the court turned it down.
The State Board and Justice Allison Riggs wanted the case to go straight to the Supreme Court from the trial court, which they won. They didn’t want it to go to the Appeals Court. Griffin was against the plan.
In a 4-2 vote on Thursday, the Supreme Court turned down the Board and Riggs’ request.
Griffin, a Republican judge on the Appeals Court, wants to throw out more than 60,000 votes that he says were cast illegally in his bid to replace Riggs, who is currently a Democrat.
Riggs is ahead by 734 votes and has stayed ahead through two recounts.
Riggs has taken herself out of the case. The court has seven people, and she is one of only two Democrats.
Six judges, five Republicans and one Democrat are left to vote.
On the Court of Appeals, Republicans have 12 seats, while Democrats have 3. Three judges work together to hear a case.
Griffin’s case will stand if the Appeals Court rules in his favor and the Supreme Court votes 3-3 with no clear winner. Three of the Republican Supreme Court justices said in a previous order that they are open to Griffin’s points.
Once the Supreme Court agreed to take the case straight from the trial court, a 3-3 split would have meant that the decision in favor of Riggs and the Board would have stood.
The case did not go to the Appeals Court because four Republican judges voted against it.
Griffin’s claims have always been turned down by both Democratic Justice Anita Earls and Republican Justice Richard Dietz. They thought the case should go straight from the lower court to the Supreme Court.
Earls wrote in her dissent that skipping the Appeals Court would have been the right thing to do based on what had happened in other cases.
“There is strong reason for this Court to quickly and openly deal with the important issues in this case that go to the heart of what democracy requires under the state Constitution,” she wrote.
Before he says anything else, Judge Jefferson Griffin says that the Supreme Court shouldn’t take this case because, with only six members, we might split 3-3, leaving the lower court’s decision as the final word on the matter. He wants us not to hear the case because he could lose. This kind of predetermined thinking has no place in a court that is dedicated to the rule of law.
Like most of the other justices, Republican Trey Allen decided against skipping the Appeals Court. He wrote that the Supreme Court needed more information than the three orders from the trial judge that were almost exactly the same on one page.
Allen wrote, “Perhaps influenced by this Court’s order telling it to move quickly, the superior court just ruled against Judge Griffin without explaining why, in his view, his claims should be denied.”
So, if we were to take this case right now, we would do so even though the lower court hasn’t had a chance to really look into those claims. Because this case is so important and the issues it raises are so complicated, I believe the Court would benefit from a careful and well-thought-out review of both sides’ points.
The state courts might not be the last word. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t rule out the idea that federal courts could hear questions related to federal laws and constitutional parts that the State Board says are important to the case.
He said this in a speech Thursday night. “No matter how long this takes, I will keep fighting for the rights of North Carolinians and our state and federal Constitutions.” As people who work for the Constitution, judges must accept what the voters want. People chose to keep my seat more than three months ago because I am dedicated to defending the rule of law.
Leave a Comment