A DBUNK subscriber sent in a request to verify claims made about Judge Jefferson Griffin’s legal challenge in the North Carolina Supreme Court election. Griffin seeks to exclude 66,000 ballots from the count, which could overturn the results in his favor. But what’s the legal basis for such a move, and is there any misinformation in the reporting?
Does Griffin Have a Legal Argument for Throwing Out 66,000 Ballots?
The Associated Press article published on February 7, 2025, titled “North Carolina judge’s ruling retains close court election result, but more legal steps are expected”, presents a complex legal dispute but leaves out crucial context.
Missing Context: Election Law Discrepancies
The article explains that Griffin is contesting ballots from voters whose registration records lack either a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. However, it fails to fully clarify that under both state and federal law, these voters may still be eligible if they provided other documentation or completed a voter registration affidavit. The public is left questioning whether the ballots in question were legally cast when, in fact, North Carolina has longstanding rules allowing for voter registration without immediate submission of these details.
Misinformation Alert: Overseas Voter Claims
Griffin’s attorneys argue that military and overseas voters must provide photo ID, yet this ignores federal protections under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). The AP article presents Griffin’s claim without explaining that federal law expressly exempts certain overseas voters from photo ID requirements.
Biased Framing: Disenfranchisement Narrative
The article quotes Riggs’ supporters calling Griffin’s challenge an “outrageous attack on free elections,” a claim that is subjective and politically charged. While the legal questions raised by Griffin’s team are serious, framing his arguments as an “attack” without equal representation of his justification contributes to partisan bias in coverage.
Conclusion: A Flawed Legal Argument, But an Unbalanced Report
Griffin’s challenge to the North Carolina Supreme Court race carries significant legal hurdles. Attempts to disqualify tens of thousands of ballots would require clear evidence of unlawful voting, which has not been presented. However, the AP’s report lacks sufficient legal context on state election laws and disproportionately amplifies the perspective that Griffin’s actions are purely an attempt to “disenfranchise” voters.
The case is far from over, with appeals likely continuing, and reporting should strive to present both sides without reinforcing partisan narratives.
Want to make sure you’re getting the full story? Download the DBUNK app and submit your fact-check requests for free. Stay informed and fight misinformation with confidence.
