Interview: NC GOP chair defends challenge of 65,000 votes in Supreme Court election
Over four months after the November election, North Carolina has still not declared a winner in its contentious and litigious state Supreme Court race.
After Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs eked out a narrow win by 734 votes, her opponent, Republican N.C. Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, challenged over 65,000 ballots cast in the race, arguing that the State Board of Elections improperly allowed these voters to participate.
The case, which awaits a ruling by the Court of Appeals after arguments on Friday, has drawn a national rebuke from critics who say it could form the playbook for challenging election results across the country.
Throughout the complicated legal battle that has ensued, Griffin has declined to comment on the case, saying that doing so would violate the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct.
But Griffin didn’t bring his challenges alone. From the very beginning, the North Carolina Republican Party has supported his battle and joined as a plaintiff in his cases. Many of Griffin’s arguments about why the votes should not be counted mirror pre-election lawsuits filed by the NC GOP that sought to purge voters from the state’s rolls.
The News & Observer sat down with Jason Simmons, the chair of the NC GOP, to ask why the party now seeks to disqualify tens of thousands of votes — and what precedent could be created if it is successful.
The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
N&O: It’s been over four months and we’re now the only state in the country with an uncertified statewide race. What do you say to North Carolina voters who are perplexed at the fact that we still don’t have a winner in this race?
Simmons: It’s democracy continuing to be in action.
Obviously there’s outstanding legal issues that need to be resolved, and these are legal issues that were brought up prior to the election and we still need to have them adjudicated.
As Judge Griffin continues to move forward with his claims and having them heard, we look forward to having the Court of Appeals now hear this case and to continue to see and monitor how the courts rule in that.
N&O: We wanted to come to you to talk about this case because you’re the chair of the party and the party has been invested in this litigation from the beginning — but also because Judge Griffin has declined to comment on this case. Can you walk me through the party’s role in this litigation and whose idea it was to bring this case forward?
Simmons: Obviously we work with all of our candidates and then in the case where we saw Judge Griffin’s race continue to tighten up post-election and then go into recount, we were very much engaged with him during that recount process — both the first recount, the second recount and then as he continued to move forward.
He is the named individual on these cases. We continue to work with him and his team to assist and monitor his activities when he’s pursuing these legal actions.
N&O: But what was the conversation like when the vote count flipped in Riggs’ favor? What did it look like from that moment of saying ‘Here’s the legal avenues we’re going to pursue?’
Simmons: Initially there were six buckets (of challenged voters) that ourselves as well as Judge Griffin were reviewing during the recount process.
Three of those were able to be resolved during the recount process. So whether that was deceased voters, things along those lines — those actions that needed to be taken during that process.
What was outstanding were still three items that needed to be litigated — items that we had had previously raised and had concerns on. Those issues continue to persist.
Absent this electoral question, these cases would have still have had to be resolved.
N&O: There’s over 65,000 voters whose ballots are being challenged. What do you say to these voters who say, ‘Why should you be able to throw my ballot out if I didn’t do anything wrong — if you’re just saying the State Board of Elections did something wrong?’
Simmons: What we had raised previously was questions about the process by which the state board allowed individuals to be on the voter rolls with incomplete voter registration data. We had asked them to have a cure process; they refused. We continued to pursue that through legal remedies, finally taking that case to court.
That case obviously wasn’t heard prior to the election, but those cases and those issues still persist, where the state board has acknowledged that the (registration) form that was active was not proper and (they) needed to have it cleaned up.
We want to make sure that those individuals that are on the voter rolls are allowed to vote, and in many cases, as you’ve seen, those individuals had every right to to register to vote.
But (it) was not done by the board of elections in a proper manner, and we’d ask for a cure process and they declined to pursue that. So that’s where we continue to find ourselves, is making sure that those that are on the voter rolls are allowed and those that are allowed to vote, do so.
N&O: Like you said, you and the RNC litigated many of these issues before the election. In the case dealing with missing registration numbers, a federal judge said that there could not be any relief for the 2024 election. Does that inform how you see the challenges now?
Simmons: No, and I appreciate Judge (Richard) Myers’ ruling on this issue. But again, the issues persist. They still have to be adjudicated. They still need to be resolved, and now the case is before the North Carolina Court of Appeals for them to hear and to make their determination on the merits of those cases.
N&O: But if a court were to order relief in this circumstance for this election, how is it possible that that relief could be tailored to only one race? There’s plenty of other races that were decided by much smaller margins than this one — if you start throwing out votes, couldn’t it flip those as well?
Simmons: Again, this is the issue that’s before the courts to be able to decide.
The issues that were raised, were raised previously; we had asked for relief. We understood what Judge Myers had indicated — but we still have to have these issues adjudicated. That’s where Judge Griffin is right now, asking for the courts to make a determination upon the merits of his case.
N&O: But do you have a specific remedy you want the court to order? Because there’s many ways that could go.
They could say, ‘We’re going to throw out all of the ones you’ve asked for, only for this race.’ They could say ‘We’ll hold a new election.’ They could say ‘We’re going to go through all of those votes individually and see if they’re eligible.’
Is there one of those that you’re asking for or are you just leaving it up to the court?
Simmons: Ultimately, that’s the court’s decision. What we want is for the merits of those cases to be heard and decided.
N&O: Like you said, you brought the voter registration case long before the election. Was that a means to lay the groundwork for an outcome like this one?
Simmons: No, again, we had raised these issues well in advance, and it finally got to the point where the only relief was to file the case within the court system.
We had petitioned the state board to be able to provide that relief, to find a cure process, we had gone through the administrative rules-making process to find that relief, and ultimately, we then had to end up in the courts to be able to seek that relief.
I wish you could say you had a crystal ball to be able to envision this type of scenario, but we don’t.
N&O: If President Trump had lost North Carolina by a small margin, would you have brought a similar case to challenge the election results?
Simmons: It’s tough to get into the hypothetical game. We can only deal with what was in front of us.
At that time (it was) Judge Griffin’s case and obviously there was a couple of other races that, as we went through that recount process with some of the state legislative races, they made determinations themselves on how they wanted to proceed.
N&O: The largest group of challenged voters are those who didn’t have a Social Security number or driver’s license number in the state’s voter registration database. The GOP’s argument is that, without these numbers, an ineligible person could fall through the cracks and get on the voter rolls.
If that’s the case, why have you not been able to identify a single ineligible person on that list over the last four months?
Simmons: It goes back to making sure that the data was consistent and complete.
With this particular set of individuals, I’m very sympathetic to them because, again, they did nothing wrong.
What occurred was from the State Board of Elections, where they had an improper form that allowed people to register during that time that did not collect all of the data that was necessary to be able to verify who they are.
What we’ve continued to ask for is to make sure that the individuals that are on the voter rolls are able to participate in our elections given our state laws and constitution.
N&O: But have you done any sort of audit of that list of voters to try and look through and determine for yourselves if this person actually possesses the qualifications to vote? If so, has any of that led you to believe that there’s someone on that list who isn’t eligible?
Simmons: We are at the same mercy as everybody else when we’re looking at these data sets.
I’m going to allow Judge Griffin and his team to be able to address any of those data sets, but again, what we continue to look at is incomplete information coming from the state board.
N&O: The next category of challenged voters is what Griffin calls the “Never Residents,” which are the adult children of North Carolina residents who were born abroad and never lived in the state.
The legislature passed the law that allowed those people to vote over a decade ago and they’ve participated in dozens of elections since then. Why is it a problem now?
Simmons: What we’ve continued to see are individuals that have no claims to North Carolina, per se, being able to participate in our elections.
Those are issues that continue to be persistent, questions that were raised previous to the election and Judge Griffin is asking for the courts to be able to review and determine on the merits of their claims.
N&O: Hypothetically, that would be within the legislature’s purview to change. Why did the party never push for lawmakers to address this in previous legislative sessions?
Simmons: There have been conversations, but at this point, Judge Griffin is looking to have the courts be able to review the status of these individuals and whether or not they have actual ability to participate in North Carolina elections when they have no residency claims to North Carolina.
N&O: The last bucket of challenged voters is military and overseas voters who didn’t show an ID. The State Board of Elections approved an exemption to the ID requirement for those voters. It wasn’t challenged at the time by the Republican Party or by Judge Griffin. Why is it a problem now?
Simmons: It’s inconsistent with our state Constitution that mandates that individuals show up with an ID. So whether or not you show up in person, or whether you voted by absentee mail, you still had to be able to present a form of ID, and so Judge Griffin is asking for the courts to be able to provide clarification on that data set as well.
N&O: But why did he only challenge voters who came from six primarily Democratic counties in this bucket?
Simmons: That was the data that was available to us at the time.
It goes back to when we’re asking for data that comes from the board of elections, this is the data that was available at the time when they went through the process of review and putting those lawsuits together.
N&O: But couldn’t you see a court having a hard time making the decision to treat voters in different areas differently? To say, ‘We’ll throw out military and overseas votes from blue counties, but not red counties who did the same thing?’
Simmons: That’s ultimately going to be up to the courts to make that determination, to review the merits of what Judge Griffin has brought forward.
N&O: Some state lawmakers held a press conference not too long ago about this specific bucket of challenged voters, and they noted that one of the voters challenged for this reason was Captain Rebecca Lobach. She was the Army soldier who was killed in the Washington, D.C. plane crash. What would you say about having her vote discounted for this reason?
Simmons: I’m sympathetic to any voter. We want everybody to be able to participate in our democracy that’s able to participate.
N&O: And hypothetically, she would be able to participate — she was an Army soldier.
Simmons: I’m not going to speak to one particular individual and their merits, because again, when we start looking at each individual, the circumstances change. But by and large, our guiding principle has been (that) we want everybody that has the right to participate in North Carolina elections to participate.
N&O: If you ultimately prevail in this case, and a court rules in Griffin’s favor, what sort of precedent do you think this creates — not just in North Carolina but nationwide?
Is this setting up the possibility that any time there’s a narrow loss, you can pick away at different issues with registration until you wind up on top?
Simmons: All that we’re continuing to seek is guidance from the courts on what should or should not be allowed when we’re talking about the participation of voters (and) making sure that every voter that has the right to participate in elections is allowed to do so. And those individuals that are in question, we (want to) have a resolution on their status.
N&O: But the lawsuit isn’t just asking for guidance. The lawsuit has claimed that Judge Griffin is the rightful winner of the election and that he should be certified as the Supreme Court justice. What’s the distinction there? That’s not guidance, that’s a change.
Simmons: No, it is being able to take a look at those individuals that participated in this past election.
On guidance that we’ve asked for previous instructions from the courts, no relief was provided at that point.
Judge Griffin is asking for the courts to review the merits of his claims and to provide guidance and a ruling.
This story was originally published March 20, 2025 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Interview: NC GOP chair defends challenge of 65,000 votes in Supreme Court election."
