Amid all the trade war furor on a national front, another major battle has been playing out at the state level … which may well have applications to national developments.
According to a report from Politico, none other than North Carolina is currently grappling with a questionable ballot situation.
“North Carolina’s top court cleared the way for some voters’ ballots in a contested state Supreme Court race to be tossed months after the election, opening a path for Republican Jefferson Griffin to potentially overturn an apparent narrow loss,” Politico reported.
That’s a pretty significant case, and it’s somewhat surprising that it is not receiving as much attention as it probably should.
“Griffin, a state appellate judge, has for months been challenging his apparent loss to incumbent Democratic Justice Allison Riggs in November, in which Griffin finished fewer than 1,000 votes behind. But after his loss, Griffin argued that roughly 65,000 votes in the state were improperly cast and should be thrown out,” Politico detailed.
Shades of 2020, that’s for certain.
It is a great shame that technological advancements seem to have brought about les unity than they clearly intended to achieve.
Especially given the various ways in which ballots and other electronically administered actions can be violated, which deepens mistrust in the system.
As noted by Politico, Griffin detailed “three categories” of votes that he believed should be discarded.
These categories include the following: “voters who were registered to vote with incomplete voter registration data”; “military and overseas voters who did not meet the state’s voter ID requirements”; and “overseas voters who have never lived in the state or expressed an intent to do so, a small category of voters who are generally family members of expats or service members.”
Needless to say, any vote in favor of throwing out these ballots would set a serious precedent for the future, which is why the outcome is so consequential.
“Tossing out wide swaths of ballots after the election would be a near-unprecedented decision that voting rights groups, Democrats and even some Republicans condemned as violating voters’ due process rights and changing the rules of an election after it has already been run,” Politico detailed.
Republican Justice Richard Dietz was certainly perturbed by the outcome, noting that the law should not be “retroactively” rewritten.
“I expected that, when the time came, our state courts surely would embrace the universally accepted principle that courts cannot change election outcomes by retroactively rewriting the law. I was wrong,” Dietz detailed.
The justice also noted the lasting impacts that this ruling is likely to achieve.
“By every measure, this is the most impactful election-related court decision our state has seen in decades,” Dietz affirmed.
Anita Earls, who has been characterized as “the lone Democrat who participated in the case,” was even blunter in her assessment.
“As a result of the action taken by this Court in this matter, the vote of an overseas or military voter who is registered in Wake County and who voted pursuant to the laws applicable at the time is counted. However, the vote of an overseas or military voter who is registered in Guilford County is presumed to be fraudulent,” Earls angrily remarked.
Ouch.
A serious consequence of deep mistrust in the system.
“Explaining how that is fair, just, or consistent with fundamental legal principles is impossible, so the majority does not try,” Earls added.
Leading one to wonder how this precedent will be interpreted in the future.
The state’s Democratic Party is certainly nervous, that’s for sure.
“Everyone needs to understand how deeply dangerous this is. Elections must mean something – but if this precedent holds, any candidate who doesn’t like losing will litigate American democracy into the ground,” the party declared.
A development worth watching in the future …
Author: Ofelia Thornton
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
