Two weeks after the November 2024 election, Jefferson Griffin, a Republican candidate for the North Carolina Supreme Court, filed challenges seeking to invalidate more than 60,000 votes. Included among those 60,000 votes are ballots cast by two categories of overseas voters.
With co-counsel Ballew Puryear PLLC, the Brennan Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Vote Foundation, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, and six overseas voters whose ballots have been challenged. In the brief, we argue that (1) overseas voters are especially reliant, and amici did rely, on established election rules; (2) Griffin, having failed to raise the purported issues before the election, cannot be permitted to change the rules afterward; and (3) a court’s approval of Griffin’s post-election challenges would unleash chaos for future elections.
Background
After two recounts, Allison Riggs, a Democratic justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, defeated Judge Griffin by 734 votes. Griffin has contested the outcome, filing numerous legal challenges.
Griffin now contests ballots cast by: (1) voters with allegedly incomplete voter registrations, (2) military and overseas absentee voters who did not include a copy of a photo identification with their ballots (though federal and state law do not require this), and (3) voters who are children and dependents of North Carolinians and were born abroad. Griffin alleges that the state board of elections should not have counted those ballots, though he does not claim voter fraud or dispute that voters followed the process presented to them by the board of elections. Riggs and the state board of elections have argued that these voters followed rules set forth well before the election and their ballots cannot be thrown out.
The brief
On February 27, the Brennan Center for Justice and Ballew Puryear filed an amicus brief on behalf of the U.S. Vote Foundation, the Association of Americans Resident Overseas, and six impacted voters. Amici urge the court not to discard their lawfully cast ballots.
First, the brief explains that overseas voters reasonably relied on the existing rules when they cast their ballots. Voting from abroad requires a complex series of steps well before Election Day. But, as impacted voters share in the brief, North Carolinians living abroad take these steps because they care about their state, their friends and family still living in the state, and their democracy. Next, the brief argues that Griffin cannot change the rules of the election after voters cast their ballots in reliance on those rules. Finally, the brief argues that if the court were to approve of Griffin’s challenges and discard more than 60,000 votes, it would create chaos for our system of democracy, incentivizing future candidates to bring similar post-election litigation seeking to overturn their loss.
For more on this case, see commentary from Alicia Bannon on State Court Report.
