Jefferson Griffin Voted Absentee in the Military. Now He Wants to Discard Similar Votes. — ProPublica

As a member of the National Guard in 2019 and 2020, Jefferson Griffin voted in the North Carolina election using military ballots.

Now, as he tries to overturn a state Supreme Court election that went against him, Griffin is asking the same court to disqualify the votes of about 5,500 people who voted the same way he did.

Since Democrat Alison Riggs was re-elected to the state supreme court last year by 734 votes, Griffin, now a Republican judge on the state Court of Appeals, has repeatedly tried to overturn her victory. Last week, the Republican majority on the state Supreme Court temporarily blocked certifying Riggs’ victory after Griffin filed a legal petition arguing that the election should be awarded to him.

U briefingGriffin’s lawyers argued that overseas and military voters’ ballots should not be counted unless they also provided photo identification, such as a photocopy of their driver’s license. His position contradicts that of the state election commission, which issued a rule before the election that such voters would not be required to produce identification.

Griffin’s use of those military ballots, which ProPublica confirmed using publicly available voting data and documents obtained through an open request, had not been previously reported.

Griffin’s two absentee ballot requests came in while he was there appointed captain and general counsel in the North Carolina Army National Guard. They are covered by a federal law called Law on absentee voting of citizens in uniform and foreign citizensbetter known as UOCAVA.

In August 2019, at the municipal elections, Griffin requested an absentee voteticking a box confirming that he was “a member of the military or merchant navy on active duty and currently absent from the county of residence.” Griffin listed his address as Fort Bliss, Texas, and the North Carolina Army National Guard Combat group of the 30th armored brigade.

In January 2020, Griffin made a similar request for absentee voting in the March 2020 primary election, again ticking off that he had “experienced active duty in the military.”

North Carolina at the time there was no law requiring photo ID for voters who voted in person or in absentia. (Although the law was passed in 2018, it didn’t go into effect until late 2023.)

ProPublica sent Griffin a list of detailed questions, to which he responded: “I’m not authorized to comment on pending litigation. To me, that would be a violation of our Code of Conduct for NC judges.”

Embry Owen, a Riggs executive, criticized Griffin’s position in the lawsuit. “Military personnel serving our country overseas count on their rights under UOCAVA to vote and make their voices heard. The same goes for diplomatic staff and missionaries in the field,” Owen said. “Any attempt to silence these voters is a disgrace to North Carolina democracy.”

As part of his legal battle, Griffin is challenging several categories of ballots, including more than 60,000 ballots missing driver’s licenses or Social Security information. But his theory that such information is necessary for legal voting has been repeatedly rejected by the state Board of Elections, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump and even the right-wing activist who originally advanced it. During the virtual meeting, the activist called it “voter suppression” and said he was “100%” sure it would fail in court, because This is reported by ProPublica.

Still, the issue of the 5,500 UOCAVA ballots becomes more important because Griffin made them a priority in his latest legal brief, asking the state Supreme Court to review them first and, if nullifying those votes prove decisive, hand the election over to him.

“During the Supreme Court election, 5,509 such ballots were cast illegally,” Griffin’s attorneys said. wrote in their briefing. “Judge Griffin assumes that if these illegal ballots are excluded, he will win the election.”

Griffin tries to disqualify UOCAVA ballots only in heavily Democratic districts, ignoring ballots from Republican districts ProPublica review contested ballots found. This was revealed by data analysis carried out by independent journalist Brian Anderson Democratic ballots were disproportionately targetedDemocrats are nearly five times more likely than Republicans to have their ballots challenged by Griffin, even though North Carolina has roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans.

“Judge Griffin’s targeting of the military and out-of-state voters in four predominantly Democratic districts clearly shows his goal: to drum up votes to retroactively win an election he already lost,” Owen said.

Griffin’s attorneys argued in state Supreme Court that because North Carolina law requires in-person voters to show photo ID, UOCAVA voters must also show it, such as by providing a photo of their driver’s license.

However, the state election commission has repeatedly ruled that UOCAVA voters are not required to do so. When Griffin challenged the election results in December, the bipartisan group unanimously rejected Griffin’s contention that UOCAVA ballots submitted without photo ID are illegal has been divided along party lines by other challenges he has made.

“We don’t have the power to change the election rules as they are,” said Stacey Eggers IV, a Republican board member, in voting to deny Griffin’s challenges. “We have previously adopted a rule stating that military and overseas voters are not required to show voter ID,” and “unless the court rules otherwise, I will hold that we are bound by that rule.”

Griffin made an extraordinary effort to have the issue heard by the Republican-majority state Supreme Court, filing his petition directly with the high court instead of first working through lower courts, as is the standard process under state law. This is reported by ProPublica that the court’s Republican judge, Paul Newby, was described by Griffin as “a good friend and teacher,” and most spouses of Republican judges have donated to Griffin’s recent or previous campaigns.

UOCAVA ballots are the primary voting method for US military personnel stationed abroad and for other Americans living abroad. Voters require absentee voting by submitting Art Application for a federal postal card to their election office, after which it verifies their eligibility and gives them a ballot, which the voter then mails either electronically or physically. Around 2.8 million eligible Americans live abroadand tens of thousands of them vote that way, including thousands of North Carolinians.

Whether those ballots will count in the Griffin-Riggs race is currently being litigated in parallel lawsuits in the North Carolina Supreme Court and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The state board and Riggs’ campaign argued that the matter should be decided in federal court because the issue involved federal law. Briefings and oral arguments are scheduled for both until the end of the month. Until the election is decided in court, Riggs will continue to hold his seat. This is the last unresolved election in the country since 2024.

Claude Murray, a member of Common Defense, a veterans group that challenged the ballots of some North Carolina members, criticized Griffin’s actions. “The right to vote is something Americans often take for granted, but as veterans we know how valuable it is. Judge Griffin knows that too and chooses a different path,” Murray said. “It is disgraceful that he is now seeking to invalidate thousands of votes — including those of military personnel and their families — simply because he lost the election.”