Federal courts have increasingly hesitated to protect voting rights, yet they have drawn a line at changing rules post-election. A recent ruling upheld the outcome of a North Carolina court race decided by just 734 votes, resisting an attempt to discard over 60,000 ballots after the fact. Opponent Judge Griffin's challenge failed despite initial temporary gains in the state courts and underscores the principled stance against allowing courts to invalidate votes based on rules retroactively applied. The decision serves as a warning against potential future election subversion efforts.
For over a decade, federal courts have steadily retreated from protecting voting rights. However, there is one line they appear unwilling to cross: intervening after an election is over to change the rules about which votes should count.
The election for a seat on North Carolina's high court was decided in November 2024 by a razor-thin margin of 734 votes in favor of incumbent Justice Allison Riggs.
Griffin didn't argue that the voters broke the rules in some way. Instead, he claimed that the rules that governed the election should be changed after the fact and that the ballots of voters that didn't comply with those rules should be tossed out.
Had those decisions been allowed to stand, the ramifications would have been disastrous.
Collection
[
|
...
]