The ballots cast by 1,576 Buncombe County voters in the Nov. 5 election could be nullified if Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin succeeds in challenging his razor-thin loss to incumbent Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat.
The Buncombe County ballots make up a small fraction of the 60,000 ballots cast by voters across North Carolina that Griffin seeks to erase from the 5.5 million votes counted in that race. His goal is to flip the results by persuading the Republican-dominated state Supreme Court to call for a recount of the balloting minus those targeted voters, or to order a new election.
According to numerous analyses of the targeted voters, a lawsuit filed by Griffin could disqualify a disproportionate number of voters who historically favor Democratic candidates, especially those age 25 and younger.
The lawsuit also disproportionately targets Buncombe County’s Democratic voters by disqualifying the ballots of three times as many registered Democrats as registered Republicans. That impact goes beyond the Democratic Party’s long-existing, though narrower, edge over Republicans in the county.
Griffin’s lawsuit does not identify a single fraudulent ballot among the 60,000 he’s contesting, a point emphasized by opponents and contrary to the basis for most disputed elections.
Instead, the Republican’s challenge alleges that clerical flaws on the targeted voters’ registration records are sufficient to disqualify the ballots despite the fact that the voters played no role in these alleged mistakes.
“This is norm breaking,” said Western Carolina University professor Chris Cooper, an expert on North Carolina elections. “Calling for recounts in close elections is normal. But this is much different.
“Norm-breaking doesn’t begin to describe this.”
Several Buncombe County voters targeted in the lawsuit responded with a mix of confusion about how they allegedly violated election law, and anger over the prospect of having their votes nullified.
West Asheville voter Esther Holsen is “annoyed” at being targeted in the lawsuit alleging her ballot was “illegitimate.” // Watchdog photo by Tom Fiedler
“I don’t think there could be anything I did that would make my ballot illegitimate,” said Esther Holsen of West Asheville, a North Carolina resident since 1992 who has been voting since 1976.
“But I’m not so much shocked as I am annoyed because, at this point, just about anything can happen in politics,” said Holsen, a Democrat.
John Nicolay, a self-described independent voter who said he prefers to choose candidates based on merit rather than party affiliation, told TheWatchdog that he is beyond annoyed.
John Nicolay of Asheville, a retired construction contractor and unaffiliated voter, said of the lawsuit, “Forget what party you’re in, I don’t buy that.” // Watchdog photo by Tom Fiedler
“If my ballot is tossed, I will have a big problem [with being targeted] because someone just negated my right to vote,” he said. “Forget what party you’re in, I don’t buy that.”
Anthony Turco and his wife Sally Turco, Republicans who live in Weaverville, learned they were on the targeted list when Anthony was contacted by The Watchdog. He said the couple registered to vote together at the county elections department in 2011 and provided all the information requested and showed proper photo identification when they participated in early voting.
“I don’t have any idea about what this could be about,” Turco said.
Of the more than 5.5 million ballots cast in the state Supreme Court race, Riggs prevailed by 734 votes. Despite two recounts and reviews by a county and the state Board of Elections, Griffin failed to close the gap.
But he refused to concede defeat, choosing instead to file the lawsuit seeking a court-ordered recount of the reshaped electorate minus the targeted voters or – in a hail-Mary move – persuading the state Supreme Court to call a new special election.
In both cases, Griffin’s goal is to reverse the election outcome and boot Riggs from the Supreme Court. The Court accepted jurisdiction in the case and held a preliminary hearing earlier this month, putting itself in the unprecedented position of interfering in a campaign to choose a colleague.
Five of the Supreme Court’s seven members are Republicans and, because Riggs has recused herself from the case, the Republicans will hold a 5-1 majority when considering Griffin’s challenge.
The case has drawn the attention of critics across the country, including Democrats who say Riggs could be the victim of judicial gerrymandering. The mantra “stop the steal” is being applied by Riggs supporters in a twist of that phrase coinedby Donald Trump supporters after he lost the 2020 presidential election.
At the core of the criticism is Griffin’s mass targeting of more than 60,000 voters based on these voters’ alleged failures to record driver’s license or Social Security numbers on their electronic registrations. Griffin also targeted only those voters who participated in early voting, apparently because their ballots could be readily obtained and cross-tabulated against the other criteria.
Complicating the case is the fact that if Griffin’s lawsuit succeeds, it will also impact other state and county races in which the targeted voters cast ballots, possibly reversing the result in some.
Cooper, the political analyst, said the prospect of creating cascading chaos in countless other races to satisfy Griffin may prove too daunting for even a Republican majority on the Court.
A more likely outcome, he said, would be for the Supreme Court to throw out the entire results of the Griffin-Riggs race and order a special election.
“The court might say, ‘We can’t simply take away these people’s ballots when some of them may have done the right thing,’ but,” Cooper continued, “there was an administrative hiccup somewhere, so therefore they’ll call for a brand new election.”
The Griffin campaign didn’t respond to written questions from TheWatchdog seeking an explanation for the mass-targeting tactic and whether Griffin had concerns about a voter backlash. Matt Mercer, the state GOP’s communications director, has defended the tactic saying that discrepancies in the voter data files were brought to the state Board of Elections’ attention two years ago and no action was taken.
Whether the campaign developed an algorithm to target voters more likely to back the Democratic candidate still remains a puzzle for election analysts. Among the 60,000 challenged voters are many registered in both major parties, as well as those independents registered as unaffiliated.
But deliberate or not, there is evidence that the targeted group leans more toward Democratic candidates than the state’s electorate as a whole. An analysis by the Raleigh News & Observer found that voters between ages 18 and 25 are disproportionately included.
These young voters make up 23 percent of the challenged group, although they are just 12 percent of the electorate. Cooper said this group historically favors Democrats over Republicans.
A Watchdog analysis of the 1,576 Buncombe County voters found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the targeted group by a ratio of nearly three to one, although Democrats’ edge is just three to two among all Buncombe County voters.
With rare exceptions, these voters shared the fact that they cast their ballots in person during the early voting period, and their original county voter-registration record lacked driver’s license numbers.
The law, which took effect in 2004, doesn’t require a voter to have a driver’s license and allows several alternative forms of identification such as government-issued IDs, passports and birth certificates. A new state law that took effect in 2024 requires a voter to show an authorized ID when casting a ballot during in-person voting.
Cooper said he doubts the Griffin campaign developed an algorithm to scan the 2024 ballots with the intention of cherry-picking those most likely cast for his opponent and increasing his chances of reversing the outcome. Rather they saw the records’ discrepancies as a way to legitimize a lawsuit.
“Griffin needed to find a legal horse he could ride to get into court,” Cooper said. “It’s as simple as that.”
Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. Tom Fiedler is a Pulitzer Prize-winning political reporter and dean emeritus from Boston University who lives in Asheville. Email him at tfiedler@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog’s reporting is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to avlwatchdog.org/support-our-publication/.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-01 08:16:00
(The Center Square) – Taxpayers in North Carolina will face an average tax increase of $2,382 if the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expires at the end of the year, says the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.
Results of analysis were released Thursday morning by the nonprofit organization billing itself a “nonpartisan research and educational affiliate of the National Taxpayers Union.” Its four state neighbors were similar, with South Carolina lower ($2,319) and higher averages in Virginia ($2,787), Georgia ($2,680) and Tennessee ($2,660).
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of eight years ago was a significant update to individual and business taxes in the federal tax code. According to the Tax Foundation, it was considered pro-growth reform with an estimate to reduce federal revenue by $1.47 trillion over a decade.
Should no action be taken before Jan. 1 and the act expire, the federal standard deduction would be halved; the federal child tax credit would decrease; higher federal tax brackets would return; the federal estate tax threshold will be lower; and some business tax benefits will be gone.
The foundation, in summarizing the impact on North Carolina business expensing, says the state conforms to Section 168(k). This means “only 60% expensing for business investments this year and less in future years. State policymakers could adopt 100% full expensing, particularly since the state conforms to the Section 163(j) limit on interest expense and the two provisions were meant to work together.”
The foundation says business net operation loss treatment policies in the state “are less generous than the federal government and impose compliance costs due to lack of synchronization with the federal code and are uncompetitive with most other states.”
The National Taxpayers Union Foundation also says lawmakers “should at least be conscious of any retroactive provisions when selecting their date of fixed conformity.” North Carolina is among 21 states conforming to the federal income tax base “only as of a certain date” rather than automatically matching federal tax code changes – meaning definitions, calculations or rules.
The foundation said nationally the average filer will see taxes raised $2,955. It estimates an increase for 62% of Americans. The biggest average increases by state are in Massachusetts ($4,848), Washington ($4,567) and Wyoming ($4,493) and the lowest are in West Virginia ($1,423), Mississippi ($1,570) and Kentucky ($1,715).
Individual wages, nationally, are expected to go down 0.5%, reducing economic growth by 1.1% over 10 years.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
The content primarily reports on the potential impact of the expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, relying heavily on analysis from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization but is known to advocate for lower taxes and limited government intervention, positions typically aligned with center-right economic policies. The article uses neutral language in presenting facts and data and does not explicitly advocate for a particular political viewpoint; however, the emphasis on tax increases and business expensing challenges following the expiration suggests a subtle alignment with pro-tax-cut, business-friendly perspectives associated with center-right ideology. Thus, while the article largely reports rather than overtly promotes an ideological stance, the framing and source choice reflect a center-right leaning.
www.thecentersquare.com – By David Beasley | The Center Square contributor – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 21:25:00
(The Center Square) – Authorization of sports agents to sign North Carolina’s collegiate athletes for “name, image, and likeness” contracts used in product endorsements is in legislation approved Wednesday by a committee of the state Senate.
Authorize NIL Agency Contracts, known also as Senate Bill 229, is headed to the Rules Committee after gaining favor in the Judiciary Committee. It would likely next get a full floor vote.
Last year the NCAA approved NIL contracts for players.
Sen. Amy S. Galey, R-Alamance
NCLeg.gov
“Athletes can benefit from NIL by endorsing products, signing sponsorship deals, engaging in commercial opportunities and monetizing their social media presence, among other avenues,” the NCAA says on its website. “The NCAA fully supports these opportunities for student-athletes across all three divisions.”
SB229 spells out the information that the agent’s contract with the athlete must include, and requires a warning to the athlete that they could lose their eligibility if they do not notify the school’s athletic director within 72 hours of signing the contract.
“Consult with your institution of higher education prior to entering into any NIL contract,” the says the warning that would be required by the legislation. “Entering into an NIL contract that conflicts with state law or your institution’s policies may have negative consequences such as loss of athletic eligibility. You may cancel this NIL agency contract with 14 days after signing it.”
The legislation also exempts the NIL contracts from being disclosed under the state’s Open Records Act when public universities review them. The state’s two ACC members from the UNC System, Carolina and N.C. State, requested the exemption.
“They are concerned about disclosure of the student-athlete contracts when private universities don’t have to disclose the student-athlete contracts,” Sen. Amy Galey, R-Alamance, told the committee. “I feel very strongly that a state university should not be put at a disadvantage at recruitment or in program management because they have disclosure requirements through state law.”
Duke and Wake Forest are the other ACC members, each a private institution.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article primarily reports on the legislative development regarding NIL (name, image, and likeness) contracts for collegiate athletes in North Carolina. It presents facts about the bill, committee actions, and includes statements from a state senator without using loaded or emotionally charged language. The piece neutrally covers the issue by explaining both the bill’s purpose and the concerns it addresses, such as eligibility warnings and disclosure exemptions. Overall, the article maintains a factual and informative tone without advocating for or against the legislation, reflecting a centrist, unbiased approach.
SUMMARY: Donald van der Vaart, a former North Carolina environmental secretary and climate skeptic, has been appointed to the North Carolina Utilities Commission by Republican Treasurer Brad Briner. Van der Vaart, who previously supported offshore drilling and fracking, would oversee the state’s transition to renewable energy while regulating utility services. His appointment, which requires approval from the state House and Senate, has drawn opposition from environmental groups. Critics argue that his views contradict clean energy progress. The appointment follows a controversial bill passed by the legislature, granting the treasurer appointment power to the commission.
