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/.
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
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 presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
