RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — The Republican challenger for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat conceded last November’s election on Wednesday to Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs, two days after a federal judge ruled that potentially thousands of disputed ballots challenged by Jefferson Griffin must remain in the final tally.
In a statement provided by his campaign to The Associated Press, Griffin said he would not appeal Monday’s decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Myers, who also ordered that the State Board of Elections certify results that show Riggs is the winner by 734 votes from over 5.5 million ballots cast in the race.
Griffin’s decision sets the stage for Riggs to be officially elected to an eight-year term as an associate justice.
“While I do not fully agree with the District Court’s analysis, I respect the court’s holding — just as I have respected every judicial tribunal that has heard this case,” Griffin said. “I will not appeal the court’s decision.”
Myers delayed carrying out his order for seven days in case Griffin wanted to ask the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review his decision. Democrats, meanwhile, had called on Griffin to accept defeat.
Riggs is one of two Democrats on the seven-member state Supreme Court, and winning improved the party’s efforts to retake a court majority later in the decade. Griffin is a state Court of Appeals judge whose term ends in 2028.
“I wish my opponent the best and will continue to pray for her and all the members of our court system here in North Carolina. I look forward to continuing to serve the people of North Carolina,” Griffin said.
While the Associated Press declared over 4,400 winners in the 2024 general election, the North Carolina Supreme Court election was the last race nationally that was undecided.
Riggs said in a news release Wednesday that she was “glad the will of the voters was finally heard.”
“It’s been my honor to lead this fight — even though it should never have happened — and I’m in awe of the North Carolinians whose courage reminds us all that we can use our voices to hold accountable any politician who seeks to take power out of the hands of the people,” she said.
Myers ruled that Griffin’s efforts after the Nov. 5 election to remove from the election total ballots that agreed were ineligible under state law would have damaged federal due process or equal protection rights of affected voters had they been implemented.
Griffin filed formal protests that initially appeared to cover more than 65,000 ballots. Ensuing state court rulings whittled the total to votes from two categories, covering from as few as 1,675 ballots to as many as 7,000, according to court filings. Griffin hoped that removing ballots he said were unlawfully cast would flip the outcome to him.
Democrats and voting rights groups , which in one category of ballots had only targeted six Democratic-leaning counties. They called it an attack on democracy that would serve as a road map for the GOP to reverse election results in other states. Griffin said Wednesday that his legal efforts were always “about upholding the rule of law and making sure that every legal vote in an election is counted.”
Most of the ballots that state appeals courts found ineligible came from military or overseas voters who didn’t provide copies of photo identification or an ID exception form with their absentee ballots. The appeals courts had permitted a 30-day “cure” process for those voters so their ballots could still count if they provided ID information.
Myers, who was nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump, agreed with Riggs and her allied litigants that the “retroactive invalidation” of those ballots violated the rights of service members, missionaries, or others working or studying abroad who cast their ballots under the rules for the 2024 election.
“You establish the rules before the game. You don’t change them after the game is done,” Myers wrote in his order.
The other category of ballots was cast by overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S. but whose parents were declared North Carolina residents. A state law had authorized those people to vote in state elections, but state appeals courts said it violated the state Constitution. Myers wrote that there was no process for people mistakenly on the list to contest their ineligibility, representing “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.”
Griffin said Wednesday the rulings of state appeals judges still recognized that the state election board failed to follow laws and the state constitution.
“These holdings are very significant for securing our state’s elections,” he said.
