While the 2024 election is long over for most Americans, a key race in North Carolina remains unresolved.
On Friday, the Republican candidate for the state’s Supreme Court won a major legal victory, as a three-judge appeals panel issued a ruling that casts doubt on approximately 65,000 votes in the contest.
With the Democratic candidate now clinging to a narrow 734-vote lead after two recounts, the decision has the potential to flip the outcome entirely.
North Carolina Court of Appeals orders 65,000 voters to prove eligibility in Supreme Court race as Republican Jefferson Griffin challenges 700-vote deficit. pic.twitter.com/O8hBSsszYR
— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) April 4, 2025
As The Associated Press reported, the race features Democratic incumbent Associate Justice Allison Riggs facing off against Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin.
It is the final unresolved contest from the 2024 election cycle, according to the AP. Riggs was appointed to the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2023 by Democratic Governor Roy Cooper, per Ballotpedia.
Griffin, currently serving on the state Court of Appeals, has challenged the legitimacy of tens of thousands of ballots—primarily those submitted by voters whose registrations lacked either a driver’s license or Social Security number.
Additional ballots were contested because they came from military or overseas voters who did not include identification with their submissions, according to the AP.
A third category — “potentially hundreds of overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S.,” according to the AP — was tossed out entirely because, per the appeals court, they did not meet residency requirements for North Carolina.
In a 2-1 decision—with two Republican judges in the majority and one Democrat dissenting—the appeals court ordered the state board of elections to direct county election offices to notify voters whose ballots could still be counted, giving them a chance to submit the required documentation.
Given the scale of the disputed votes and the areas in which they were cast, the ruling has the potential to overturn a narrow Democratic lead and deliver a Republican victory in a state that now-President Donald Trump won by nearly 200,000 votes.
“Riggs’ allies have pointed out that the ballots challenged on the ID mandate, for example, largely came from Democratic-leaning counties,” the AP reported. “It’s unclear how many voters will attempt to participate in the ‘cure’ process.”
But the appeals court ruling isn’t the last word on the matter, as Riggs’ campaign immediately appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court. Riggs, however, has recused herself from the case.
North Carolina Supreme Court justices are elected in partisan races, and the court currently holds a 5-2 Republican majority, according to Ballotpedia.
While the outcome of the Griffin-Riggs race won’t alter the overall partisan balance, a shift to a 6-1 Republican majority would further entrench GOP control—making it significantly harder for Democrats to reclaim the court in future election cycles.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted President Donald Trump his first major legal victory since returning to office, allowing his administration to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in federal grants allocated to states for combating teacher shortages.
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the court’s majority sided with the administration, while Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberal justices in dissent.
In its unsigned opinion, the court stated that the states had demonstrated sufficient financial resources to maintain their programs independently. However, the justices agreed that the Trump administration presented a strong argument that any funds distributed during the ongoing legal dispute would likely be unrecoverable, CNN reported Friday.
If the states ultimately win the case, the court said, “they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through” further litigation, the outlet noted.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented, each either writing or joining opinions outlining their objections. Roberts noted that he would have denied the stay but declined to elaborate on his reasoning.