Troublesome Partisan Shenanigans From Democrat NC Supreme Court Justice in

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

It’s been nearly one month since Election Day and the North Carolina Supreme Court race between Justice Allison Riggs (D) and her Republican opponent, Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, remains the only undecided statewide race.

We’ve covered a lot of ground on this election contest, starting with the fact that the morning after the election, Griffin was up by around 10,000 votes, only to see his lead evaporate to a deficit of just over 700 votes over the next two weeks as county election boards researched provisional ballots and counted overseas/military absentee ballots, the latter of which were allowed to come in through November 14th.

Concerns were raised when the original ten-day deadline for completion of final results (11/15) had to be extended several days per the partisan Democrat-controlled State Board of Elections because some counties including one semi-large one that went for Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris weren’t done.

In an update to this developing story, the recount Griffin requested has been completed and, surprise surprise, he gained no ground, with Riggs and Griffin each losing 110, leaving Riggs ahead by 734 votes. Prior to the recount being wrapped up, Griffin requested a “hand recount in a random sample of precincts” which “is used to determine whether a full hand-to-eye recount of all ballots cast statewide is required.”

Griffin has also taken actions related to the election protests he submitted on some 60,000 ballots, filing a motion to, among other things, disqualify one of the State BOE members, Siobhan Millen, on conflict of interest grounds and to expedite the results of his ballot challenges by “no later than” December the 9th.

While Griffin has maintained an admirable degree of professionalism throughout the process and has explored options allowed under state law in these situations (despite being falsely accused of trying to overturn democracy or whatever), Riggs has not.

As we reported, Riggs has revealed herself to be even more of a partisan, activist Supreme Court Justice than she previously let on, posting a thread on Twitter/X shortly before Thanksgiving basically saying that votes that potentially violate state law should be counted anyway because her mom and dad’s votes are among those that are being questioned by Griffin.

Further, Riggs is using a web portal run by a highly partisan political group in North Carolina to send emails alleging without evidence that Griffin’s challenges are “not normal.” She’s also encouraging supporters to contact that same group:

Riggs’ opponent, Jefferson Griffin, has filed protests that incl. ballot challenges, which is his right to do.
The challenges are mainly over deceased persons, felons, & invalid/improper voter registrations.
In in emails over the last week, Riggs has called these challenges “not… pic.twitter.com/caRFqb48ig

— A.P. Dillon (@APDillon_) December 4, 2024

However, it is completely normal to issue ballot challenges in North Carolina, which former NC Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley, a Democrat, did in 2020 in a similarly close race that she ultimately conceded a month after the election:

The protests filed in this year’s Supreme Court race are not unique. The same thing happened during the 2020 race between then-Supreme Court Chief Justice Cheri Beasley and current Chief Justice Paul Newby.

Beasley, a Democrat, filed 89 protests spanning almost every county in which she alleged that thousands of votes rejected by county boards should have been counted. However, a closer look at the more than 3,200 ballots Beasley sought to include were almost exclusively Democrat and unaffiliated voters.

And on the issue of Riggs showing a level of partisanship unbefitting of a member of the state’s highest court, there is also this:

Should Riggs prevail and retain her seat, she is still facing a pending ethics complaint lodged against her over campaign ads in which she appears to take a position on the issue of abortion, a possible violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Just reading the tea leaves here, I’m not optimistic that Griffin has a chance of prevailing. Assuming Riggs is certified as the winner and runs for reelection after the next eight (long) years, Republicans better be revved up and ready to go the distance with whoever the Republican nominee is to defeat her, even if it’s Harold the Dog Catcher. Because Riggs’ extreme partisan behavior should not only not be considered “normal” but it should also be viewed as deeply troublesome considering the position she holds.