- Messages
- 23,374
Continued
“… In a July 2024 call of the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network, a right-wing activist argued that a candidate who lost a close election could use the theory to contest an outcome they did not agree with, according to a recording obtained by ProPublica.
When the chapter’s leader voiced concern about the theory’s legality, calling it “voter suppression” and “100%” certain to fail in the courts, another activist said, “I guess we’re gonna find that out.”
That activist’s data analyses and arguments then became the foundation for an attempt by the Republican National Committee to disqualify hundreds of thousands of voters before the election and Griffin’s attempt to overturn the election, ProPublica found.
… Not all the Republican justices concurred with blocking the certification of Riggs’ victory. “Permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state’s election rules — and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules — invites incredible mischief,” Republican Justice Richard Dietz wrote in a dissent, emphasizing that Griffin’s challenge to the 60,000 ballots was “almost certainly meritless.” He was joined by Democratic Justice Anita Earls, breaking ranks with the four other Republican members of the court.
Permitting Griffin’s litigation to proceed, Dietz stated, “will lead to doubts about the finality of vote counts following an election, encourage novel legal challenges that greatly delay certification of the results, and fuel an already troubling decline in public faith in our elections.” “
“… In a July 2024 call of the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network, a right-wing activist argued that a candidate who lost a close election could use the theory to contest an outcome they did not agree with, according to a recording obtained by ProPublica.
When the chapter’s leader voiced concern about the theory’s legality, calling it “voter suppression” and “100%” certain to fail in the courts, another activist said, “I guess we’re gonna find that out.”
That activist’s data analyses and arguments then became the foundation for an attempt by the Republican National Committee to disqualify hundreds of thousands of voters before the election and Griffin’s attempt to overturn the election, ProPublica found.
… Not all the Republican justices concurred with blocking the certification of Riggs’ victory. “Permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state’s election rules — and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules — invites incredible mischief,” Republican Justice Richard Dietz wrote in a dissent, emphasizing that Griffin’s challenge to the 60,000 ballots was “almost certainly meritless.” He was joined by Democratic Justice Anita Earls, breaking ranks with the four other Republican members of the court.
Permitting Griffin’s litigation to proceed, Dietz stated, “will lead to doubts about the finality of vote counts following an election, encourage novel legal challenges that greatly delay certification of the results, and fuel an already troubling decline in public faith in our elections.” “
