The elections have been over for weeks. But one winner might have the rug pulled out from under them.
As a Supreme Court ruling being prepared would reverse the results of the election entirely.
Contested Election for North Carolina Supreme Court Raises Questions on Judicial Impartiality and Campaign Contributions
A closely contested election for North Carolina’s state Supreme Court has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly given campaign contributions made by the spouses of sitting justices to the challenger. The outcome of this election, which saw incumbent Associate Justice Allison Riggs narrowly edge out her opponent, Jefferson Griffin, may hinge on a court decision involving justices whose spouses have financially supported Griffin’s campaign.
In November, Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat, secured a slim victory over Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin, a current judge on the state Court of Appeals. The election result was tight, with Riggs leading by only 734 votes after two recounts, out of more than 5.5 million ballots cast. However, Griffin, who has served on the Court of Appeals, promptly filed a legal challenge, contesting the validity of over 60,000 mail-in and early in-person votes. This led to a series of legal proceedings, including Riggs’ recusal from the case due to potential conflicts of interest.
The North Carolina Supreme Court, which has a 5-2 Republican majority, initially denied Griffin’s request to fast-track the case, sending it instead to a lower state court. Despite this, the state Supreme Court also ordered that the election board refrain from certifying Riggs’ victory until the matter was resolved. As the case continued to bounce between state and federal courts, it became clear that where the case would ultimately be decided might significantly impact the outcome. Riggs has advocated for the case to remain in the federal courts, while Griffin has sought to have it fast-tracked by the state Supreme Court, where the conservative majority may be more sympathetic to his position.
Riggs has criticized Griffin’s legal challenge, calling it “baseless,” and emphasized the importance of resolving the issue swiftly. “We have always known that Griffin’s baseless challenges should be heard and decided in federal court,” she said in a statement. “Voters decide elections and deserve a swift resolution from our federal courts.”
The makeup of the state Supreme Court is a crucial aspect of the dispute. Griffin’s preference for the GOP-controlled court has raised eyebrows, particularly because his relationships with key justices may be a factor in his legal strategy. Griffin has described Chief Justice Paul Newby as a mentor, and campaign finance records reveal that Newby’s wife, Macon Newby, donated $6,400 to Griffin’s campaign in June 2023. Additionally, Associate Justice Tamara Barringer’s husband, Brent Barringer, also contributed at least $6,400 to Griffin’s campaign. Despite these contributions, both justices have thus far refrained from recusing themselves from decisions related to the case, and Newby has publicly expressed support for Griffin’s position.
Newby, in a written opinion, pointed out that Griffin had been ahead by nearly 10,000 votes on election night before trailing Riggs by a mere 734 votes after the final tally. “That is a highly unusual course of events. It is understandable that petitioner and many North Carolina voters are questioning how this could happen,” he wrote. Questions surrounding sudden changes in vote tallies have come front and center since the 2020 election cycle.
Griffin’s legal challenge has also drawn attention because he himself has previously used absentee ballots in elections, including military absentee ballots, a category of voting he now seeks to challenge. Critics have pointed out the apparent contradiction in his actions, as they involve questioning the legitimacy of the very ballots he himself has used.
While the donations to Griffin’s campaign by the spouses of two conservative justices may raise questions about potential conflicts of interest, they do not appear to violate North Carolina’s judicial code of conduct. The code specifically allows judges’ spouses to engage in political activity, including making campaign contributions. However, the code also emphasizes that judges should be vigilant in ensuring that their personal relationships do not influence their judicial conduct or decisions. “A judge should not allow the judge’s family, social or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment,” the code states.
Importantly, the issue of campaign contributions and judicial impartiality is not exclusive to the court’s conservative justices. Records also show that Charles Walton, the husband of Associate Justice Anita Earls, a Democrat and Riggs’ ally, contributed over $1,800 to Riggs’ campaign in 2023 and 2024. This raises questions about the extent to which political contributions from family members may influence the perceived impartiality of judges across the political spectrum.
The involvement of justices whose spouses have donated to one of the parties involved will likely remain a focal point of public scrutiny. While such donations are not prohibited by state law, the question of whether they could potentially affect judicial objectivity will continue to be a topic of debate.
Election fraud is not acceptable under any circumstance. With 60,000 voters cast illegally, that was not a fair election.
Allison Riggs should get off her high horse, and the North Carolina Supreme Court should rule that the 60,000 illegal votes do not count. pic.twitter.com/JipOd73Pi8
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) January 9, 2025
The Conservative Column will bring you any updates to this developing story.
