RALEIGH, N.C. (ACME NEWS) — After losing his bid for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court to Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs, Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin filed hundreds of election protests across the state. This report takes a closer look at those challenges and the findings of the State Board of Elections.
The closely contested race saw Riggs declared the winner by fewer than 1,000 votes following the initial count and two recounts. Unhappy with the outcome, Griffin filed more than 300 protests in November, challenging over 60,000 votes. He claimed issues with absentee ballots and alleged invalid voter registrations.
To support Griffin’s challenges, the North Carolina Republican Party (NC GOP) enlisted Ryan Bonifay, director of data and analytics at Coldspark, a political consulting firm specializing in Republican campaigns. Bonifay said he was tasked with “reviewing and compiling publicly available information from the North Carolina State Board of Elections… in connection with the filing of election protests.”
Republican Party lawyers submitted numerous records requests to the board, which provided data for Bonifay to analyze. Using this data, Bonifay generated lists of voters to challenge based on guidance from the party.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections held two public hearings in December to address these challenges. For many voters, the intricate rules and procedures surrounding elections can make it difficult to understand Griffin’s allegations and the board’s decisions. Here’s a breakdown of what happened during these hearings and the board’s conclusions.
Incomplete Registrations
Number of votes challenged: 60,273
The claim
Jefferson Griffin alleged that more than 60,000 voters cast ballots despite having registered without providing a driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number—information required under federal and state voter registration laws.
What the board found
This claim echoes arguments made in a lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the North Carolina Republican Party (NC GOP) in August 2024. That lawsuit, brought before Wake County Superior Court, sought to remove approximately 225,000 “incomplete voter registrations” from state rolls. The plaintiffs argued that, before December 2023, the state used a voter registration form that did not clearly inform applicants that providing a driver’s license number or Social Security number was mandatory. They claimed the state accepted over 225,000 incomplete applications and failed to address the issue promptly.
Ultimately, the RNC’s efforts to block these voter registrations were unsuccessful, with the lawsuit narrowed by the courts. Griffin’s challenge revisited this argument but focused only on voters who allegedly lacked the required information and cast ballots in the most recent election.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections determined that missing driver’s license numbers or Social Security digits in the voter database could result from several legitimate administrative reasons. These included:
- Voters who registered before the requirement took effect.
- Voters without a driver’s license or Social Security number who provided alternative identification.
- Voters who submitted the information, but it was not yet entered or did not display due to technical issues.
The board emphasized that the absence of these numbers in the database does not render voter registrations unlawful. Griffin failed to provide evidence that any ineligible voter registered or voted.
Additionally, state and federal laws prohibit disqualifying votes due to administrative errors, as this would unfairly penalize voters who complied with the registration rules in place at the time.
Voter ID implementation in the state also renders this protest moot, and all voters were required to show a photo ID when they arrived at their polling place to vote, allowing election officials to verify a voter’s information at the time they voted.
Following reviews at the state and county levels, the number of unresolved challenges related to incomplete registrations dropped from 60,273 to 572 by the second hearing. By the time the board issued its final decision, only 149 challenges remained unresolved—far below the 734-vote margin in Griffin’s race for North Carolina Supreme Court associate justice.
The board dismissed the protest, concluding that it could not alter the election’s outcome.
Overseas Citizens’ Eligibility
Number of votes challenged: 266
The claim
Jefferson Griffin challenged the eligibility of 266 overseas voters, alleging they were ineligible to vote because they had never resided in the United States, despite their parents being North Carolina residents.
What the board found
The board cited federal law under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which allows children of U.S. citizens to register and vote using their parents’ last U.S. address, even if the children have never lived in the country. This rule has been in effect since 2011. The board found no evidence that these voters acted improperly and dismissed the protest.
Military and Overseas Voters Without Photo ID
Number of votes challenged: 1,409
The claim
Griffin alleged that approximately 1,500 military and overseas absentee ballots failed to comply with voter ID requirements, violating state law.
What the board found
North Carolina election law, specifically Article 21A, exempts military and overseas voters from the photo ID requirement. Instead, these voters authenticate their ballots through voter declarations. Military and overseas voters commonly use federal forms like the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) or the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB), which do not require photo ID.
The board determined that these voters acted within legal guidelines and validated their ballots, dismissing Griffin’s challenge.
Deceased Voters
Number of votes challenged: 156
The claim
Jefferson Griffin alleged that 156 ballots were cast by voters who were deceased on Election Day. Under North Carolina law, an absentee or early in-person vote cannot be counted if the voter passes away before Election Day.
What the board found
County election offices already conduct routine checks against records from the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies to identify and remove ballots cast by voters who died before Election Day. This process was underway when Griffin filed his challenge.
After counties completed their reviews and removed ballots from deceased voters, only a handful of cases remained unresolved. The number of unresolved cases was far below the 734-vote margin needed to change the outcome of the race.
The board dismissed the protest.
Other Issues with Griffin’s Protests
Improper Service of Notices
The North Carolina State Board of Elections criticized Griffin’s campaign for failing to properly notify the registered voters whose eligibility was being challenged. According to North Carolina Administrative Code, challengers must serve legal notices in person or by mail to the voters affected by the protests.
Instead, the North Carolina Republican Party (NC GOP) sent postcards by mail to voters who had their votes challenged not just in Griffin’s race for the state Supreme Court, but also in three other races.
The postcards, which indicated they were from the NC GOP, stated: “Your vote may be affected by one or more protests filed in relation to the 2024 General Election.” Recipients were instructed to scan a QR code to view protest filings.
According to the board, which cited North Carolina Administrative Code, this method fell short of legal requirements and created significant barriers for voters:
- The postcards did not include essential information, such as the names of the challengers, the specific nature of the challenges, or direct links to the protest documents.
- Recipients were required to recognize the postcard as a legal notice and have the technical ability to scan the QR code and navigate the site and documents.
Once on the website, voters faced additional challenges:
- Voters had to sift through disorganized spreadsheets, sometimes with hundreds of entries, to find their names.
- Even if a name was located, confirming the challenge required referencing details like NCID or voter registration numbers—information most voters do not readily have.
The board said this cumbersome process placed an undue burden on voters, making it difficult for them to understand or respond to the challenges against their ballots. The board noted these deficiencies as a significant flaw in Griffin’s protests.
Following the December hearings, the North Carolina Supreme Court temporarily blocked certification of the state Supreme Court race while it reviews Griffin’s ballot challenges. The amended order included strong dissents from Democratic Justice Anita Earls and Republican Justice Richard Dietz, a notable departure given his Republican affiliation. Both criticized the timing and substance of Griffin’s claims, with Earls labeling them “fact-free post-election gamesmanship” and Dietz cautioning against “rewriting election rules after voters have cast their ballots.” Justice Trey Allen emphasized in a concurring opinion that the block does not reflect a judgment on the merits of Griffin’s case, nor does it indicate he will ultimately succeed.
You can view copies of the State Board of Elections decisions below:
###
