NC Judge Loses Election, Wants Courts to Declare Him Winner

Sound familiar...

OCU

#1 | Posted by OCUser at 2025-03-24 07:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

---- these --------.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2025-03-24 07:43 PM | Reply

... lawyers for Judge Jefferson Griffin asked his colleagues on the North Carolina Court of Appeals to retroactively change the rules for the 2024 state Supreme Court election and throw out tens of thousands of ballots. ...

Retroactively change the rules?

Oh wait, there's this ...

Jefferson Griffin
en.wikipedia.org

... In the 2024 election, Griffin lost narrowly to incumbent Democratic justice Allison Riggs, by a margin of 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million cast. Following three recounts indicating his loss, rather than concede, Griffin filed suit in state court, arguing that approximately 60,000 votes should be disqualified.

Griffin said no ballots should count for voters whose voter registration does not include a driver's license number or the last four digits of a social security number.[3]

There are many legitimate reasons why such information is not included in a voter registration.[3] The North Carolina state election board and a Donald Trump-appointed federal judge have rejected Griffin's claims.[3] The case is currently pending before the North Carolina Supreme Court; Riggs has recused herself from the case.[4] ...

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-24 10:48 PM | Reply

There are many legitimate reasons why such information is not included in a voter registration.[3]

what are they, these 'legitimate reasons'?

I mean, no ID for voting is bad enough, but no ID for voter registration?
That doesn't smell right.

#4 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-03-24 11:52 PM | Reply

@#4 ... what are they, these 'legitimate reasons'?

Griffin said no ballots should count for voters whose voter registration does not include a driver's license number or the last four digits of a social security number.

br />
Is that a 'legitimate reason?'

And, fwiw, the [3] reference in my comment refers to...

They Followed North Carolina Election Rules When They Cast Their Ballots. Now Their Votes Could Be Tossed Anyway. (January 2025)
www.propublica.org

... A Republican judge is trying to overturn his election loss by challenging more than 60,000 ballots. These are some of those voters' stories. ...

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-25 12:07 AM | Reply

Speaking of NC ...

U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down North Carolina's Voter ID Law (2016)
www.npr.org

...The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" -- then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."

The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."

The appeals court suggested that the motivation was fundamentally political -- a Republican legislature attempting to secure its power by blocking votes from a population likely to vote for Democrats....

[emphasis mine]

Georgia's GOP House Speaker says vote-by-mail system would be 'devastating to Republicans' (April 2020)
thehill.com

..."... a multitude of reasons why vote by mail in my view is not acceptable," [Georgia state House Speaker David] Ralston went on, before adding "the president said it best, this will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives in Georgia." ...

"The things they had in there were crazy. They had things, levels of voting that if you ever agreed to, you would never have a Republican elected in this country again," [fmr Pres] Trump said...

So then, I guess the question seems to become ...

Why does North Carolina seem to want to suppress the votes of those who do not usually vote for Republicans?

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-03-25 12:11 AM | Reply

There are many legitimate reasons why such information is not included in a voter registration.[3]

lamplighter, what are some of the 'many legitimate reasons' why 'such information is not included in a voter registration'.?

Try again please, your #5 does not answer this despite you thinking it does. Everything else you rattled off is beside the point.

#7 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-03-25 12:23 AM | Reply

To start with, at the time that these people registered to vote, North Carolina law did NOT require voters to produce a drivers license or supply their Social Security number. That's what Judge Griffin wants the Court of Appeals to do, go back and make a retroactive change to the law, adding those requirements, thus invaliding some 60,000+ voter registrations. I'm sorry, but ex post facto laws are explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 for federal laws and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 for state laws).

And for those whose Latin is a bit rusty, "Ex post facto" means "after the fact". Which as defined in the Constitution means, that you can't deprive an individual of a right or charge him with a crime, for something that was legal at the time that he exercised it or committed it.

OCU

#8 | Posted by OCUser at 2025-03-25 01:56 AM | Reply

what are some of the 'many legitimate reasons' why 'such information is not included in a voter registration'.?
Try again please, your #5 does not answer this despite you thinking it does. Everything else you rattled off is beside the point.
#7 | Posted by itchyp

If you had read the Propublica article that Lamp posted instead of trying to argue with Lamp in the comments then you'd know the answer to your question.

The article explains several scenarios for why that occurs but there's one huge reason and that is because the state has millions of voters who registered before the information was marked as required on the state voter registration form.

#9 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2025-03-25 02:07 AM | Reply

thanks !

#10 | Posted by itchyp at 2025-03-25 12:53 PM | Reply