Unpacking the big win for voters in North Carolina

 

Friday, May 9

Democracy won in North Carolina this week — but if Republicans think they can steal elections there, they’ll try it anywhere. Democracy Docket will be ready when they do. Upgrade to premium for $120/year to help us make sure we can follow the story, wherever it takes us.

THIS WEEK Jefferson Griffin concedes after federal judge rules to certify Allison Riggs’ election victory Voting rights groups sue Kansas over law that rejects ballots through no fault of voters Two new lawsuits challenge student voter suppression laws in Indiana and Montana

NORTH CAROLINA Jefferson Griffin concedes after federal judge rules to certify Allison Riggs’ election victory

After six agonizing months of legal pingponging between state and federal courts, North Carolina’s 2024 state Supreme Court race is finally over. On Monday, a federal court ordered the state to certify Democratic Justice Allison Riggs’ narrow victory over Republican Jefferson Griffin. On Wednesday, Griffin conceded the race.    “While I do not fully agree with the District Court’s analysis, I respect the court’s holding — just as I have respected every judicial tribunal that has heard this case,” Griffin said. “I will not appeal the court’s decision.”   In a statement, Riggs hailed the victory but lamented the “immeasurable damage done to our democracy.”   “After millions of dollars spent, more than 68,000 voters at risk of losing their votes, thousands of volunteers mobilized, hundreds of legal documents filed, and immeasurable damage done to our democracy, I’m glad the will of the voters was finally heard, six months and two days after Election Day,” she said. “It’s been my honor to lead this fight — even though it should never have happened — and I’m in awe of the North Carolinians whose courage reminds us all that we can use our voices to hold accountable any politician who seeks to take power out of the hands of the people.”   At the heart of Griffin’s lawsuit was a challenge to 65,000 lawfully cast ballots that he believed should be tossed out, because of errors made by the state elections board. The board counted some 60,000 ballots cast by voters with allegedly incomplete registration.    Griffin also challenged several thousand other ballots cast by military and overseas voters who didn’t provide their photo ID — because state law didn’t require them to when they registered to vote. The lawsuit also challenged the ballots of several hundred “never resident” voters: overseas voters who were registered in North Carolina but never resided in the state.   The battle over counting these ballots lingered for months in both state and federal court. In early April, a three-judge panel in the North Carolina appeals court ruled to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters with incomplete registrations, unless they fixed their ballots within 15 days. Riggs’ campaign fought this ruling and the state Supreme Court narrowed the number of ballots being challenged to around 5,000 — with 30 days for voters to cure those ballots.   Riggs continued to fight in court to ensure no ballots risked disenfranchisement. Her victory came Monday when Judge Richard E. Myers II, a Trump appointee, ruled that Griffin’s argument to toss some ballots violated equal protection because it treated some voters differently than others in the same situation.   In a statement, the North Carolina Republican Party said that they “respect the court’s opinion” but remained concerned about “serious election integrity issues” brought to light by the litigation.   “Judge Griffin deserves the appreciation of every North Carolinian for highlighting the appalling mismanagement, inaccurate data, and partisan behavior from the prior State Board of Elections — failures affirmed by multiple courts, including the highest court in our State,” the North Carolina GOP added. In fact, the litigation raised no significant evidence whatsoever that any illegitimate votes were cast. Read more about Griffin’s concession here.

KANSAS Voting rights groups sue Kansas over law that rejects ballots through no fault of voters

Voting rights groups filed a lawsuit Monday against Kansas Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), which eliminates the three-day grace period for mail-in ballots to be counted. Under the law, any ballots that arrive after 7 p.m. on Election Day are not counted — a rule that could disenfranchise thousands of voters.   “With the enactment of SB 4, successfully voting by mail will become virtually impossible for many voters,” the complaint alleges. “SB 4 will only disenfranchise lawful, qualified voters.”   Rural Kansans, people with disabilities and out-of-state students are especially at risk due to potential postal delays, the plaintiffs argued. Each election, Kansas voters cast hundreds of thousands of ballots by mail. In the 2024 general election, over 137,000 Kansans cast a ballot by mail. In 2022, over 131,000 voters cast a mail ballot. In 2020, nearly 500,000 people voted by mail — more than 32,000 of those ballots arrived during the three-day grace period. Without it, every one of those ballots would have been rejected. This new law in Kansas mirrors a broader national trend. In Mississippi, the Republican National Committee contested a state law permitting mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five days thereafter. The state is set to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the issue. And President Donald Trump’s order on voting aims to bar states from accepting ballots that arrive after election day. Read more about the lawsuit here.

STUDENT VOTING Two new lawsuits challenge student voter suppression laws in Indiana and Montana

Pro-voting groups in both Indiana and Montana filed lawsuits this week challenging two recent student voter suppression laws.    The Indiana lawsuit — filed Monday by Count Us In and Women4Change Indiana —challenges a new law that bans the use of university-issued IDs as valid voter identification. The lawsuit calls the law a “surgical attack” on student voting access as Indiana continues to allow other, less secure forms of voter ID.    “There is no justification for SB 10’s sui generis treatment of student IDs, which is, in reality, a surgical attack on young voters,” the complaint alleges. “Legislators have attempted to justify the sudden change as a way to ensure that only U.S. citizens and Indiana residents can vote in Indiana elections. But there is no evidence that these are actual problems in Indiana, and even if they were, SB 10 does not require people to use IDs that prove citizenship or residency.”   The complaint quotes a state legislator who said that “the Student ID Ban is ‘about controlling who gets to vote, not protecting elections.’”   Since 2005, thousands of young voters have used a student ID for voting in Indiana. In Monroe County — home to Indiana University Bloomington — the county’s election supervisor estimated that two-thirds of the 50,000 students at IU used a student ID to vote in the 2024 general election.   Meanwhile in Montana, the Montana Public Interest Research Group filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a state law that forces college students to declare where they’ll live after graduation to register to vote.   Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed House Bill 413 into law last week, which adds new rules for people who live in a county “for temporary purposes,” including college. Under the law, those voters can only register if they plan to live in that county permanently.   That means students can’t register using their campus address unless they say they’ll still live there after finishing school — even if they currently live, study and pay taxes in that county.   The plaintiffs argue that the law unfairly targets students and violates both the U.S. and Montana constitutions.   “Unless a student voter swears to make the county where she studies her “permanent home” after graduating, she cannot register to vote there,” the complaint claims. “Non-student voters face no similar residency requirement.”   Supporters of the law say it ensures voters have a permanent connection to the community where they cast their ballots. But courts in the past have found that such a connection isn’t required for voters to establish residency. “HB 413 offends federal constitutional protections against laws that are too vague or overbroad,” the complaint alleges. “It should be permanently enjoined.” Read more about the Montana lawsuit here and the Indiana lawsuit here.

OPINION My Time on 60 Minutes and Why I Refuse To Stay Silent

On Sunday, Marc was a guest on 60 Minutes to talk about Trump’s targeting of big law firms and why it threatens the rule of law. If you haven’t already seen the segment, watch it here.  In his latest, Marc discusses the decision to go on 60 Minutes and explains why he won’t back down: “On a chilly April day, I sat down with CBS anchor Scott Pelley and answered his questions about Trump, Big Law and the threat that Trump poses to our legal system and democracy,” he writes. “In the intervening weeks, a separate drama was playing out at 60 Minutes, involving a frivolous lawsuit by Trump and efforts by a Trump administration nominee to delay the sale of its parent company. I wasn’t sure what it meant for the episode — or my appearance in it.” Read it here.

NEW VIDEO BREAKING: Trump Judges Strike Down Alabama Congressional Map for Violating VRA

In a scathing ruling, a panel of three federal judges struck down Alabama’s 2023 congressional map as a violation of both the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Marc and Paige Moskowitz explain. Watch it on YouTube here.

What We’re Doing

The Democracy Docket team is celebrating Rigg’s North Carolina Supreme Court win. Over the past six months we wrote 36 articles and produced 14 videos on the case – which really emphasizes all the twists and turns this long fight for democracy took, as well as the importance we placed on this story as we track threats to our democracy. It’s also been some of our top performing content, proving people across the country understood the implications and passionately wanted to see justice served. And that brings us hope.