As described in our February 2025 blog post about this case, Republican Jefferson Griffin, a candidate for the North Carolina Supreme Court, filed election protests after losing the 2024 election by 734 votes to incumbent Democrat Allison Riggs. Now the North Carolina Court of Appeals, in its April 4, 2025, decision in Griffin v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections, No. COA25-181 (Apr. 4, 2025), gave Griffin an important win when deciding that his procedural notice methods were adequate and that there was probable cause for the protests.
Griffin’s protests challenged ballots based on incomplete voter registrations, lack of photo identification for overseas voters, and votes from individuals who never resided in North Carolina. Id. at 3. The North Carolina State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin’s protests, citing failure to provide adequate notice to affected voters and lack of probable cause for election law violations. Id. at 6. Griffin appealed the Board’s decision, leading to a series of legal proceedings, including a temporary stay by the North Carolina Supreme Court on certifying the election results. Id. at 6-7. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the Superior Court properly affirmed the Board’s dismissal of Griffin’s protests, focusing on notice and probable cause issues. Id. at 9. The court found that the Board erred in dismissing the protests based on inadequate notice, as Griffin’s method of notifying voters via postcards was consistent with previous Board practices. Id. at 13-16.
The court also concluded that the Board’s dismissal of the protests for lack of probable cause was incorrect, as the allegations raised sufficient questions about election law violations. Id. at 16-19.
The court reversed the Superior Court’s order and remanded the case, instructing the Board to allow voters to cure registration and identification deficiencies within 15 business days. Id. at 25, 30. The court determined that “Never Residents” were ineligible to vote in North Carolina elections, and their votes should be excluded from the final count. Id. at 36. Judge Hampson dissented, arguing that the majority’s decision to allow a cure period was impractical and would lead to disenfranchisement and further litigation. Id. at 2-22 (Hampson, J., dissenting).
This decision will surely be appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court where five of the justices are Republican and two are Democratic. If Griffin is successful in this litigation and is sworn in on the North Carolina Supreme Court, the Republican margin on the Court will be six to one.
Josiah Contarino is counsel at Dhillon Law Group Inc. where he practices election law, commercial litigation, First Amendment, Second Amendment, and defamation law in state and federal courts.
