Federal judge says Democratic election victory must stand | North Carolina

A federal judge ruled late Monday that the controversial ballot must remain on the last charge in the 2024 unresolved 2024 contest for the North Carolina Supreme Court seat, a decision that if the maintainer would lead to an election victory for Democratic incumbent Allison Allison Riggs.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Myers agreed with Riggs and others that it would be the court to conduct the latest ruling of the National Court of Appeals that violated the U.S. Constitution, which directed the cancellation of thousands of voter votes to be considered unqualified. Myers wrote that the vote cannot be deleted six months after the day of the election without undermining due process and equal protection of affected residents.

Miles also ordered the state election commission to prove the results, and after two reintroductions, Riggs won 734 votes on her Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin. But the judge delayed his ruling for seven days in case Griffin hopes to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The board of directors “is not allowed to continue to enforce orders from the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, but must prove the election results based on statistical results after the end of the canvassing period,” Myers was nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump. ”

Since the November election, more than 5.5 million votes have been voted. Griffin himself, a state appeals court judge, filed a formal protest after the election, hoping that he would say he said the illegally cast ballots would turn the results to him.

Griffin's legal team is reviewing Myers' orders Monday night and assessing the next step, Griffin campaign spokesman Paul Shumaker wrote in an email.

Riggs was even more assured in her statement: “Today, we won. I am proud to continue to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law as the Supreme Court of North Carolina.”

Griffin wants Myers to leave an undisturbed state court ruling, which also indicates that most voters with unqualified voters will receive a 30-day vote to provide identifying information for their game choice to stay in the statistics.

Riggs, the State Democrat and some affected voters said Griffin tried to change the results of the 2024 election after the facts to remove voters' votes written last fall.

Myers wrote that Griffin dismissed formal post-election protests after the election, which constituted an effort to make retroactive changes to the voting law, where only Griffin's voters would arbitrarily deprive them of their right to vote. Griffin's challenge for voters who do not provide photo logos is only covered in the six Democratic tilting counties in the state.

Myers wrote in 68 pages: “You build rules before the game.

He cited other cases while adding: “After the election, the parties involved can only cause 'chaotic and turbulent' election rules after the election.”

Democrats and voting rights groups have alerted Griffin's efforts. They called it an attack on democracy, which would be a roadmap for Republicans to reverse elections in other states. State Republicans said Griffin is seeking to ensure only legal votes are counted.

A class of votes that were declared in violation of the state constitution were cast by overseas voters who had never lived in the United States but who had parents declared a resident of North Carolina. State laws passed in 2011 have authorized these people to vote in state elections.

Other categories cover military or overseas voters who do not provide photo identification or ID exception forms with their absentee ballots. A national rule exempts them from their requirements. The Court of Appeal allows for a “curable” process for voters who do not provide ID so that their votes can still be counted in the game.

While North Carolina can certainly set rules for future state elections, after the fact, they can’t apply to just a group of voters, Myers wrote.

Griffin brought up a formal protest that appeared to involve more than 65,000 votes. According to a court application, the subsequent state court ruled to reduce the total to 1,675 votes or possibly as many as 7,000 votes.

Riggs, one of only two Democrats in the seven-member state Supreme Court, won an eight-year term that would improve the party’s efforts to regain the majority in court later in the decade. Griffin and Riggs have not participated in the consideration of their respective courts.