The losing Republican candidate for the state Supreme Court is attempting a new and controversial tactic to flip the outcome of the Nov. 5 election: erasing the absentee ballots of 5,059 active-duty military and American citizens living abroad who are registered in Buncombe and three other Democratic-leaning counties.
Jefferson Griffin of Raleigh, a former state appellate judge, came up 734 votes short in an attempt to unseat incumbent state Supreme Court Associate Justice Allison Riggs, a Democrat. Despite two recounts and a decision by the state’s Board of Elections naming Riggs the winner, Griffin refuses to concede.
Backed by the Republican National Committee and the state Republican Party, he filed a lawsuit to block the Board of Elections from certifying Riggs’s victory. The state Supreme Court, operating with a 5-1 Republican majority as Riggs has recused herself from the case, has agreed to consider the lawsuit.
Although Griffin’s challenge cites no voter fraud, he alleges that clerical errors should disqualify as many as 66,000 voter registrations. The lawsuit asks the state Supreme Court to throw out those ballots and then recount the remainder in each of North Carolina’s 100 counties.
Latest challenge targets blue counties
Those targeted ballots fall into two groups. The first and largest group of about 60,000 ballots across the state were cast by voters in person during the early-voting period. Among those targeted ballots are 1,596 from Buncombe County, which voted by a nearly two-to-one margin against Griffin.
The second group now being targeted by Griffin – including 5,059 voters — has become the focus of his strategy to upend the Nov. 5 count. It is crafted to disqualify a disproportionate number of Democrats in targeted counties to give the Republican the victory.
This group consists entirely of American citizens living overseas. It includes military personnel; Foreign Service and federal government employees; missionaries; and academics studying or teaching abroad. The ballots are cast in accordance with the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), which allows Americans living overseas to register as absentee voters in a state of their choice.
Griffin alleges that these voters should be disqualified because they failed to provide photo IDs with their ballots. The North Carolina State Board of Elections ruled before last year’s election that UOCAVA voters do not need to provide photo identification.
Screenshot from the North Carolina State Board of Elections website.
The investigative-reporting initiative ProPublicareported Tuesday that Griffin, while in the North Carolina Army National Guard, cast absentee ballots in 2019 and 2020 under the UOCAVA program. His campaign declined comment to a ProPublica reporter.
Griffin’s lawsuit asks the state Supreme Court to erase those military and overseas ballots in only four of North Carolina’s 100 counties: Buncombe, Durham, Guilford and Forsythe. Democratic Party voters constitute a majority or plurality in each of those counties, and each voted heavily in favor of Riggs, the incumbent Democrat.
“It’s very clear that this is not about election integrity,” a spokesperson for Riggs told Asheville Watchdog. “This is Griffin’s ‘hail-Mary’ attempt to overturn the election. It’s even beyond last ditch.”
In Buncombe County alone, Riggs defeated Griffin by 42,620 votes. If the state Supreme Court agrees with Griffin’s request to throw out the 2,692 challenged Buncombe ballots from both groups, the Republican candidate could surpass the 734 votes he needs to win.
Blowback from military voters
Griffin hasn’t disguised the partisan goal of this tactic. In the opening brief filed with the high court seeking to block the State Elections Board from certifying Riggs’ victory, Griffin argues that “if the Court agrees that overseas voters should have presented a photo identification, there will probably be no need for the Court to reach the other two election protests,” including nullifying the remaining group of 60,000 ballots cast in the early voting period in all 100 counties.
If the military absentee votes are disqualified but the outcome doesn’t shift to Griffin’s advantage, the GOP lawsuit states, it intends to continue pursuing the other protests.
But this tactic also risks blowback from across the political spectrum. Several military voters named in the lawsuit were contacted by The Watchdog through text messaging; all reacted with disapproval to Griffin’s targeting of voters without evidence of fraud.
“Being military and serving in countries where the people did not have the ability to vote, has highlighted the importance of the precious right,” Bobby Buckner, 55, a registered Republican, wrote. “I would caution this candidate that eroding or challenging our rights to vote because someone does not like the outcome, goes against the very reason I chose to serve my country: freedom and the ability to have a voice.”
“I hope [Griffin] will realize the importance of our service members’ right to vote and will reconsider this challenge and the costly price to freedom that overturning our votes would be,” Buckner wrote.
Chase Tipton, an unaffiliated voter who declined to say where he is stationed, said he didn’t know about the lawsuit until contacted by The Watchdog.
“I signed to serve my country and have followed proper protocol for casting my vote from out of state,” he replied. “My vote should count the same as any other.”
Hospital Corpsman Doug Davis, who wrote that he is deployed with the Fleet Marine Force in the “Central Command Area,” which encompasses the Middle East, said he also was unaware that his ballot was being challenged.
“Per federal law, my ballot was valid,” Davis wrote. “[Griffin’s] actions are not only illegal, but it discourages service members from voting.”
As for Griffin’s refusal to concede, Davis wrote: “That’s ridiculous. He should just take his loss.”
Final briefs are due to the state Supreme Court by the end of this week. No timetable has been set for a decision.
Meanwhile, a counter-lawsuit brought by the State Board of Elections to move the case into federal court is going forward in the federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit argues that the state Supreme Court, with its overwhelming Republican majority, isn’t capable of objectively ruling on fellow-Republican Griffin’s case. Arguments are scheduled for Jan. 27 in that lawsuit.
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.
