North Carolina 2024 General Election: Election Protests Explainer 

Update (May 7, 2025) - The North Carolina Board of Elections has officially certified Allison Riggs as the winner of the 2024 NC Supreme Court race and she was sworn in Tuesday, May 13, 2025.

The concession comes after a federal judge ordered the North Carolina State Board of Elections to certify Justice Riggs as the winner of the race, noting that changing election rules after the fact to disenfranchise voters violates the fundamental rights of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

"Jefferson Griffin's concession is a long-overdue acknowledgment of the will of the people of North Carolina," said Jeff Loperfido, Chief Counsel for Voting Rights at SCSJ. "While we remain deeply troubled by the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision to retroactively disqualify lawful ballots, we are relieved that this relentless effort to undermine the voices of eligible voters has finally come to an end. This case should serve as a warning: efforts to rewrite election outcomes after the fact are unlawful, erode public trust and threaten the very foundation of our democracy."

"Jefferson Griffin's concession brings much-needed closure to a manufactured crisis that sought to cast doubt on the legitimacy of thousands of eligible voters-particularly Black and Brown voters, those serving our country overseas and those inheriting a legal connection to their home state," said Caitlin Swain, Co-Director Forward Justice. "While the damage done by the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision cannot be undone, we are heartened that the federal court recognized this anti-democratic challenge and that Griffin has finally abandoned the protests. Let this moment serve as a reminder: our elections must be decided by the voters, not overturned by political ambition or judicial overreach."

Update (April 23, 2025) - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a temporary stay on April 22, 2025, putting on hold a prior N.C. Supreme Court decision and subsequent federal district court order for the state board of elections to begin a "curing" process for the ballots of overseas voters who were targets of Griffin's challenges. (The N.C Supreme Court rejected Griffin's challenges of more than 55,000 voters for supposed "incomplete" information in their voter registration files.)

The federal appeals court is poised to consider arguments soon for Riggs, the state board of elections, and other parties that the constitutional rights of overseas voters would be violated if the state court decisions uphold Griffin's post-election challenges are allowed to go into effect.

In addition to having overseas voters from a handful of counties retroactively provide photo identification, the N.C. Supreme Court decision ordered the rejection of ballots from 260 overseas voters who checked a box indicating they "have never lived in the United States" but were still eligible to vote because of a 2011 North Carolina law recognizing their ties to the state. Many in this group are believed to be adult children of U.S. military service members. Research from Southern Coalition for Social Justice shows at least 25% of these voters likely did reside in North Carolina, and may have inadvertently checked the "never-resident" box on their ballot application forms. The State Board of Elections wanted to allow these alleged "non-residents" an opportunity to affirm their prior residency to have their ballots counted, but Griffin opposed that process and has asked the state Court of Appeals to clarify its order to prevent these voters from having any opportunity to save their ballots.

Update (Apr. 7, 2025) - The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 ruling April 4 upholding Judge Jefferson Griffin's challenges to the ballots of more than 60,000 North Carolinians and calling for a 15-day "cure" period for the challenged individuals to provide additional information for their vote to count in the close N.C. Supreme Court race.

This decision was appealed Monday, April 7, by incumbent Justice Allison Riggs and the State Board of Elections to the N.C. Supreme Court. The appeal also requests a temporary halt on the court-ordered cure process, meaning the 15-day "cure" period would not start until subsequent appellate review.

No cure process has begun yet and impacted voters should keep monitoring the case for final directions from the State Board of Elections on what action they may need to take to ensure their ballot is counted. Any voter concerned about their ballot or registration may call or text the nonpartisan Election Protection Hotline at 888-OUR-VOTE (888-687-8683) with questions, or contact their local county board of elections.    

In its order, the N.C. Court of Appeals directed county and state boards of election to:

• contact voters challenged for allegedly having missing information in their voter registration file and provide them a 15-business day period to "cure" that issue by providing additional identifying information;

• request overseas voters challenged because they were not initially asked to provide voter ID to now provide that ID within a 15-business day period;

• discount ballots of the small subset of overseas voters challenged because they checked a box stating they are a U.S. Citizen living abroad but have never lived in North Carolina.

The case has now been appealed to the N.C. Supreme Court and there is still a possibility the matter could go back to the federal courts before a final decision is made in this race. Information on what, if any, "cure" process will occur will likely be released in advance by the North Carolina State Board of Elections, which indicated it will "provide instructions to affected voters on how to comply with the court's decision" if the cure process is upheld.

Update (Feb 12, 2025) - The N.C. Supreme Court race remains uncertified more than three months after the November election while candidate Judge Jefferson Griffin continues to challenge more than 60,000 votes to try to reverse his loss to incumbent Justice Allison Riggs.

The Wake County Superior Court ruled Friday, Feb. 7 that the North Carolina State Board of Elections was right to dismiss Griffin's election protests. Griffin has appealed this decision to the state appellate courts, where it is likely to be heard in coming weeks. The appeals may also return to federal courts after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a Feb. 4 opinion preserving federal jurisdiction over voters' federal voting protections in the event those protections are implicated by the state courts' final decision.

Update (Jan. 27, 2025) - The N.C. Supreme Court race remains uncertified nearly three months after the election while losing candidate Jefferson Griffin challenges 60,000 votes to try to gain an edge over incumbent Allison Riggs.

The North Carolina Supreme Court sent the case to a lower court, Wake County Superior Court, to consider Griffin's appeal of a N.C. State Board of Elections' decision dismissing the protests. The N.C. Supreme Court also issued an order blocking certification of the election until the legal appeals conclude. A hearing will be held at 10 a.m. Feb. 7 at the Wake County Courthouse in downtown Raleigh. The docket for the case is here.

Meanwhile, on the federal side, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is holding oral arguments Jan. 27 to decide if the case belongs in federal court rather than state courts given the protections voters have under federal law.

Update (Jan. 13, 2025) - The N.C.  Supreme Court issued an order Jan. 7 blocking the N.C. State Board of Elections from certifying the results of the 2024 election in a statewide N.C. Supreme Court Justice race.

Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs holds a narrow 734-vote lead over Republican candidate Judge Jefferson Griffin in a contest where more than 5.5 million ballots were cast. Griffin has asked to disqualify more than 60,000 voters over a technical voter registration issue but without evidence these people are ineligible to vote.

These election protests are highly unusual and have no precedent in North Carolina history. A final resolution is expected sometime after Jan. 24. Possible outcomes could include votes being thrown out, an order for a new election, or a dismissal of Griffin's challenges.

The nonpartisan pro-democracy group Common Cause NC wants to hear from people whose votes are being challenged by Griffin. You can find out more on their website.

The N.C. State Board of Elections has developed this explainer for affected voters.

Common Cause North Carolina will host a virtual town hall at 6:30 pm. Thursday, January 23 to provide an overview of the case, allow impacted voters to share their stories and offer next steps for advocates. Click here to register.

If you are interested in more information about this issue, please reach out via email to hilaryhklein@scsj.org

Update (Dec. 17, 2024) - The North Carolina State Board of Elections rejected the dangerous attempt to discount the ballots of more than 60,000 registered voters in four closely-decided races. The State Board made its decision at a meeting Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2024, and released it in writing Friday, Dec. 13.

Among the points made in the written order:

1. The protests assume facts about voter eligibility that are not true. This attempt to discount people's votes is based on a flawed understanding of voter registration records. The absence of a driver's license or Social Security number in the public voter file does not mean the voter's registration application was incomplete when submitted. State law and procedures explain why qualified voters may appear on the public voter rolls without that information even though they originally provided it or have since updated their voter registration prior to voting. Rather than investigate these possibilities, the protests simply assumed these voters were ineligible, contrary to state law.
2. Throwing out ballots was outside federal & state law. There was no legal avenue for the State Board to remove ballots of voters who are qualified to vote, did everything required of them to register to vote, and who then cast a ballot. Numerous federal laws - including the Help America Votes Act (HAVA) and National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) - and hundreds of years of state court precedent protect voters from having their ballots discounted.
3. Affected voters weren't notified. The State Board found that Griffin's campaign and those of the legislative candidates failed to let voters know their ballots were being called into question in a variety of ways, including not letting them know who was challenging their ballot, why they were doing it, and that they were asking to have their ballot rejected and not count. Instead, voters received nothing but a postcard resembling political junk mail and had to sort through a confusing webpage with hundreds of protests listing the names of tens of thousands of voters.
4. What's next? The courts are still figuring out the next steps. The N.C. Supreme Court  asked the candidates to submit written arguments for their consideration by Jan. 24, 2025 and is expected to make a decision soon after. However, there is also an appeal pending before a higher court -the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - about whether the federal courts or state courts should have the final say on deciding the election protests. That appeal is scheduled for oral argument at 3:30 on Jan. 27 in Richmond, VA.

State law allows candidates to argue that irregularities affected the election process and impacted the certified results of the election. But state law requires protesters to actually prove that these irregularities occurred, and that they cast doubt on the results of the election. The simple filing of an election protest or allegation of an irregularity is the beginning of the process, not the end of it. The claims must be carefully considered, and the burden is on the protesters to demonstrate the election results were tainted. Overturning an election result is an extraordinary outcome that requires extraordinary evidence. Protesters must provide that proof if they wish to undo the results of the election.

The largest category of ballots challenged by the protestors relates to a sweeping allegation that tens of thousands of North Carolina voters should have never been permitted to vote because they purportedly have incomplete voter registration records. Not only is there no evidence that any of these voters are ineligible to vote in North Carolina, the protesters directly disclaim even attempting to provide any such evidence. Instead, the protesters ask election officials to assume these voters are ineligible and overturn the result of the election accordingly. This is contrary to fundamental democratic principles, as well as contrary to state law, which requires protesters to provide affirmative proof that the voters identified are in fact ineligible.

Other categories of challenges raised by the protesters allege that ballots were cast by North Carolinians who passed away before Election Day or who were convicted of a felony rendering them ineligible to vote. While both of these categories of voters should be removed under state law, the protesters ignore that county boards of elections would have already removed these voters during the regular canvass process. Election staff work throughout the canvass period to investigate and remove voters who cast a ballot but are later determined to be ineligible using state and local databases. The protesters' challenges are based on the exact same information the counties and State Board of Elections used in this process, and simply repeat many of the same names already investigated and addressed by election officials during canvass. This is a normal part of every election - a fact which the protesters know and yet chose to ignore.

State law makes clear allowances for voters and candidates to challenge the eligibility of other voters if they have reason to think those voters are ineligible. All of the voters implicated in protesters' claims were subject to those same state law guidelines, yet none of these challenges were raised until after election results were certified (and until it became clear the protesters had lost their elections). The rights of voters should not be subject to challenge solely based on who they voted for.

The various theories advanced by protesters implicate the voting rights of tens of thousands of North Carolinians, all of whom are now at risk of having their ballot thrown out. These voters must be notified of the challenge to their vote, notified of the specific grounds of that challenge and the evidentiary basis for it, given an opportunity to speak in their own defense at the protest hearings, and, in accordance with state law, be afforded the presumption that they are eligible, valid voters unless the protesters provide evidence to the contrary. Any protest that does not respect the rights of individual North Carolina voters must be rejected.

The protesters sent woefully inadequate mailers to voters whose ballot may be discounted by their challenges. The mailers do not state that any ballot is actually at risk of being discounted (just that the ballots may be "affected"), do not state why a voter's ballot is at risk (instead referring the voters to the NC GOP website, which lists all the different protests by county), and do not tell the voter anything about how to protect their right to vote (opting to simply refer voters to the State Board of Elections website to look up when a hearing could take place). These mailers do not come near actually informing voters about what's going on and never directly state that the reason their vote might be tossed out is because the protesters are arguing they should not be eligible to vote. This level of notice would not be sufficient in other legal proceedings and should not be sufficient here.

Many of these protest theories were rejected by both state and federal courts in pre-election litigation. Nonetheless, protesters press those claims again here, hoping they can achieve in the context of an election protest what they could not achieve on the strength of the legal arguments. It would be fundamentally undemocratic for claims that were rejected before the election to come back to life and be used to disqualify voters after they had already cast a ballot in compliance with state law.

Consideration of these protests is ongoing. If your name appears on a challenge list or you received a mailer from one of the protesters, you should contact your county board of elections to find out when the hearings are taking place and how you can defend your right to vote. Every affected voter has a right to be heard and present evidence during the protest hearing, and to rebut any allegation that they are ineligible to vote in North Carolina. If you would like to get in touch with parties to the protest proceeding, the email address for the statewide protester is info@jeffersongriffin.com and the email address for the candidate opposing the statewide protest is team@riggsforourcourts.com.