Dispensing with a need for additional briefs or oral arguments, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled Friday in the high-profile dispute over last November’s closely contested election for an associate justice seat on the high court.
If implemented without further action by the federal courts, it appears the ruling could overturn the election result that has been confirmed by two recounts in which incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs defeated her Republican challenger, state Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, by 734 votes.
The unsigned opinion was agreed to by four justices — all Republicans — Chief Justice Paul Newby and Associate Justices Trey Allen, Tamara Barringer, and Phil Berger, Jr. Two associate justices — Republican Richard Dietz and Democrat Anita Earls — concurred in part and dissented in part.
The ruling partially upholds and partially reverses a 2-1 Court of Appeals ruling issued last Friday on three key issues:
It reverses the Court of Appeals on the matter of throwing out 60,000-plus ballots cast by voters whose voter registration forms did not include a driver’s license number or last four digits of a social security number. While the Supreme Court opinion castigated the Board of Elections for what it called “inattention and failure to dutifully conform its conduct to the law’s requirements” by failing to fix flawed records, it said that throwing out those votes of voters for mistakes that were not their own (and, it emphasized, who had displayed photo ID while voting) would violate established precedent. It upheld the Court of Appeals ruling on the question of certain military and overseas-citizen voters who used absentee ballots, but did not provide a copy of their photo ID with their ballot — something the Board of Elections has never required. Under the ruling, those voters will have to come forward to show their photo ID within 30 days “after the mailing of notice.” It upheld the Court of Appeals on the question of so-called “never residents” — a few hundred absentee voters who have never lived in North Carolina, but who are connected to the state through their parents. The ruling says these voters should not have been allowed to vote.In their opinions, both Justices Dietz and Earls concurred with the ruling on the 60,000-plus voters but issued blistering dissents on the other two categories, saying the court’s acceptance of the idea of changing voting rules after the election is violative of long-established precedent.
In blasting the court’s ruling on military voters — which only applies to a small number of predominately Democratic-leaning counties — and voters connected the through their parents who have long voted in the state, Justice Earls wrote:
“It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election. Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate.”
Justice Dietz wrote the court should hear arguments in the case and rule that Griffin’s claims “are not justiciable in a backward looking challenge to a past election.”
In a statement issued shortly after the ruling was handed down, Justice Riggs issued the following statement and said her attorneys would be seeking immediate action in federal court:
“I’m the proud daughter of a 30-year military veteran who was deployed overseas, and it is unacceptable that the Court is choosing to selectively disenfranchise North Carolinians serving our country, here and overseas. While I’m gratified to see the Court of Appeals reversed on the erroneous decision to potentially disenfranchise the more than 60,000 North Carolinians whose registration my opponent has recklessly challenged, I will not waiver in my fight to protect the fundamental freedoms for which our military service members and their families have sacrificed so much.”
This is a developing story.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( North Carolina Supreme Court issues order in Riggs-Griffin case )
Also on site :