NC Supreme Court race - Riggs ahead +734 | NC Supremes issue temporary stay

[uncmba]

This might have been covered already, but I assume that these are mail-in ballots? So they are throwing out ballots attached to specific voters? So people can know how these people voted?

 

[05C40]

How often has justice been blind in the USA ?

Never, you are correct. There's an old legal maxim that states, "Hard cases make bad law." It is supposd to stand for the proposition that if a judge bends the law to accomodate a particularly sympathetic party, the precedent created will have an unexpected and adverse impact for years. Complete BS. Anytime a judge starts talking about "hard cases makes bad law," that judge is getting ready to screw someone based on the wealth or political party of the person not getting screwed.

 

[superrific]

Never, you are correct. There's an old legal maxim that states, "Hard cases make bad law." It is supposd to stand for the proposition that if a judge bend the law to accomodate a particularly sympathetic party, the precedent created will have an unexpected and adverse impact for years. Complete BS. Anytime a judge starts talking about "hard cases makes bad law," that judge is getting ready to screw someone based on the wealth or political party of the person not getting screwed.

Easy cases make bad law more often, in my view. Usually hard cases become hard because some easy case was decided carelessly -- because it was easy -- and thus the opinions contain language that becomes problematic later on.

I'm in a bit of a fog today so I'm having trouble coming up with examples, but I've researched many legal issues that languish in multi-decade confusion traceable to a unanimous decision that was too casually decided.

 

[Calheel]

This might have been covered already, but I assume that these are mail-in ballots? So they are throwing out ballots attached to specific voters? So people can know how these people voted?

That was my question when this all first broke.

Apparently, the ballots all have a code on them that allow them to be tracked to a specific voter. They use the code system to protect voter privacy but also to allow vote tracking if necessary.

 

[altmin]

NC Supreme Court temporarily blocks court order to throw out 2024 ballots in Riggs-Griffin race

Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin won a challenge against more than 60,000 ballots at the state Court of Appeals, but the order in his favor is blocked from going into place while it's appealed.

www.wral.com

Voters being challenged as illegitimate by a Republican candidate for the state Supreme Court won a temporary reprieve Monday, when the high court blocked a lower court's ruling Friday from going into effect.

Jefferson Griffin, a Republican judge on the state Court of Appeals, challenged Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs for her seat in the 2024 elections. Riggs received 734 more votes than Griffin, multiple recounts have shown. But Griffin is seeking to reverse the outcome by having more than 60,000 ballots thrown out. He alleges that the board of elections shouldn't have let the voters cast ballots largely due to voter registration inconsistencies.

Griffin's challenge was thrown out by the State Board of Elections in December. After he appealed that decision in court, he lost at trial. But on Friday, he won at the state Court of Appeals, with two GOP colleagues on that court ruling in his favor. The appellate court's 2-1 ruling said several hundred voters should have their ballots thrown out no matter what, based on a new interpretation of the state constitution. And the other 60,000-plus voters, the appeals court wrote, should have their ballots thrown out unless they take steps within 15 days to prove their identity to the state elections board.
Monday's order from the Supreme Court doesn't rule on who is right in the dispute. But it does block that Court of Appeals order, and its 15-day clock, from going into effect — at least for now, while Riggs and the Board of Elections appeal.

 

[nycfan]

NC Supreme Court temporarily blocks court order to throw out 2024 ballots in Riggs-Griffin race

Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin won a challenge against more than 60,000 ballots at the state Court of Appeals, but the order in his favor is blocked from going into place while it's appealed.

www.wral.com

Voters being challenged as illegitimate by a Republican candidate for the state Supreme Court won a temporary reprieve Monday, when the high court blocked a lower court's ruling Friday from going into effect.

Jefferson Griffin, a Republican judge on the state Court of Appeals, challenged Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs for her seat in the 2024 elections. Riggs received 734 more votes than Griffin, multiple recounts have shown. But Griffin is seeking to reverse the outcome by having more than 60,000 ballots thrown out. He alleges that the board of elections shouldn't have let the voters cast ballots largely due to voter registration inconsistencies.

Griffin's challenge was thrown out by the State Board of Elections in December. After he appealed that decision in court, he lost at trial. But on Friday, he won at the state Court of Appeals, with two GOP colleagues on that court ruling in his favor. The appellate court's 2-1 ruling said several hundred voters should have their ballots thrown out no matter what, based on a new interpretation of the state constitution. And the other 60,000-plus voters, the appeals court wrote, should have their ballots thrown out unless they take steps within 15 days to prove their identity to the state elections board.
Monday's order from the Supreme Court doesn't rule on who is right in the dispute. But it does block that Court of Appeals order, and its 15-day clock, from going into effect — at least for now, while Riggs and the Board of Elections appeal.