Judge Griffin asks Supreme Court not to review appeals court election ruling
Supreme Court of North Carolina (Photo: nccourts.gov)
The story of North Carolina's unsettled 2024 state Supreme Court election took yet another turn on Friday when Republican challenger Judge Jefferson Griffin asked the state Supreme Court to deny Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs' request to review the case.
In a brief outlining his opposition to Riggs' request for Supreme Court review, Griffin asked the high court to let the 2-1 ruling issued in his favor by a panel of Court of Appeals judges last Friday to stand so that the process the panel ordered — under which thousands of voters would need to come forward in short order to prove the validity of their registration documents — can commence.
In the brief, Griffin — who has been challenging the outcome of the election in a series of actions since last fall — states, 'This litigation has drawn on long enough. The cure process, rather than more courthouse battles, is the pathway for restoring integrity in this election. It is now time to bring the litigation to a close and let the cure process run its course.'
On Monday of this week, in response to Riggs' request for review, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Court of Appeals order. It's long been widely expected in political and legal circles that the high court would ultimately be forced to issue a ruling in the case – though a return to federal court remains a possibility as well.
On Thursday of this week, national and state Democratic Party leaders held a press conference to denounce Griffin's efforts to reverse the election results in which Riggs holds a 734-vote lead — a lead that was confirmed in two recounts. 'What's happening in North Carolina goes beyond state borders,' Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin told reporters. 'If Republicans are successful in changing the rules post-election and throwing away valid votes, this will have broad implications, serious repercussions, on elections across the country for years to come.'
Republicans hold a 5-2 majority on the high court – a gap that increases to 5-1 in the Riggs-Griffin dispute, given that Riggs has recused herself from the matter. Three of the Republican justices, in previous decisions in the case, have expressed support for Griffin's positions. In the case of a 3-3 tie in the Supreme Court — either on the motion for discretionary review or in a final ruling on the merits of the case — the Appeals Court decision would stand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans, some Democrats and even ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich weigh in on ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's sentence
In what's become somewhat customary once an Illinois political titan falls, leaders throughout the state responded with condemnation and called for reforms upon hearing Friday that ex-Speaker Michael Madigan was sentenced to seven and a half years in federal prison and fined $2.5 million on federal corruption charges. House Republican leader Tony McCombie of Savanna and Senate Republican leader John Curran of Downers Grove called for bipartisan ethics reforms in the wake of the sentencing, with Curran specifically requesting committee hearings and votes on potential changes — something that didn't happen this session. Madigan's sentencing was 'a stark and shameful reminder of the corruption that has plagued Illinois government for far too long,' McCombie said in a statement. 'Justice was served — but the damage to public trust runs deep.' But Illinois' last prominent statewide politician who went to federal prison, former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, held back on the chance to take a swipe at a bitter nemesis when Madigan was sentenced. Though the two were Democrats, they feuded for nearly all six years Blagojevich was in office between 2003 and 2009. 'When that guy, Madigan, was on the top of the mountain, they were all kissing his ass,' Blagojevich said. 'Now they're going to be stomping all over his grave. And it's really, it's really sort of an unappealing side of human nature.' Blagojevich said Madigan's conviction underscores the systemic problems in politics and government in the state Capitol. 'Is the system in Springfield corrupt, in many ways, absolutely,' Blagojevich said in an interview with the Tribune while insisting he didn't break the law. 'It's a system, I've been saying this from the beginning, it all too often works for itself on the backs of the people.' Blagojevich — whose 14-year federal prison sentence for corruption was commuted by President Donald Trump, who ultimately also pardoned Blagojevich — didn't want to celebrate Madigan's prison sentence despite the two's often-tense relationship. 'I just don't think it's right for me to kick a man when he's down,' Blagojevich said. 'What's happening now to him, I know what it's like. And it's really easy for these politicians to get on their high horses and start kicking someone, stomping on someone.' Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park who is facing a potential fine of nearly $10 million from the Illinois State Board of Elections for improper political fundraising, said Friday's sentence represented 'a solemn reminder' that the duty of public office holders is to serve 'and that there is accountability for those who do not.'
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Column: Will Tesla suffer if Musk alienates both political wings?
Donald Trump and Elon Musk — two epic disrupters of U.S. politics and the automotive industry, respectively and vice versa. Over the past year, they united over the election and efforts to cut government spending. They parted ways amicably … and then started trashing each other. It escalated quickly with Musk suggesting that the president be impeached and that he is implicated in the Jeffrey Epstein child-prostitution scandal. Musk later reportedly called the president before posting that he regretted some of his words: 'They went too far.' It was a remarkable breakup — incredible drama between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man, who had been the closest of allies for hundreds of days of campaigning and governing. To the extent that it was a reality TV train wreck, I'd just as soon leave it be. But since the primary business in Musk's remarkable portfolio is nominally an automaker, it actually matters in this industry we cover. Sign up for Automotive Views, Automotive News' weekly showcase of opinions, insights, ideas and thought leadership. Love it or hate it, this disruptive era in which we live is providing us all with some real-life experiments in economics — the likes of which we probably thought we would never see. For decades, basically everyone who went to college was taught in an economics or history class that widespread tariffs would do more harm than good. Trump argues for a different approach, and he's pursuing it. Or he's pursuing it to negotiate for something else. In either case, we're now seeing how that works: So far, there's been a lot of paralysis, especially among suppliers and foreign automakers, but also a big investment announced recently by General Motors. His political strategy has been unorthodox, yet he's won two electoral colleges and one popular vote. He's only the 21st president to win two elections. So he's had success, whether some people like it or not. Same for Musk, of course: He approached the auto industry unlike anyone else — with an expensive electric car — had a couple of near-total collapses, and came out as the world's richest man and CEO of the world's most valuable automaker. That success helped propel his rocket business SpaceX and other ventures such as Starlink satellites and Twitter, which he bought and renamed X. But the disruptive move I'm watching was his decision to be an automaker CEO who got personally and financially involved in partisan politics. While new-vehicle sales skew to the affluent, when you sell something in the millions or tens of millions, a brand or model has to connect with a broad swath of people. And while there can be success with, say, a polarizing design, mass-market brands generally try to avoid alienating large chunks of their potential customer base. I've cited here before the story about Michael Jordan saying he didn't speak out on politics because 'Republicans buy sneakers, too.' In retrospect, he said it was just a funny line among friends. But the thing is that he wasn't wrong, and every business school graduate knows it. Musk, however, is not your typical MBA type. So out of his frustration with former President Joe Biden — who habitually sided with the UAW and its automakers against the U.S.-based global leader in EVs, even as he advocated for a carbon-neutral future — Musk threw an estimated quarter of a billion dollars behind the Trump campaign. That's an unbelievable sum of money to many of us, but when Trump won, it looked like the greatest bet ever. From late October to late December, Tesla stock more than doubled and its market cap approached $1.5 trillion. While Musk's political activism may have upset many of his loyal, environmentally motivated customers, there were a lot of reasons to be bullish on Tesla under Trump. It seemed likely that NHTSA and the SEC would take a more sympathetic view of the company's issues. Beyond that, Musk has refocused the company's future on artificial intelligence, humanoid robots and robotaxis. (Tesla said it plans to launch its service in Austin, Texas, on June 22.) A new administration with a deregulatory inclination toward self-driving cars was a significant tailwind. Now, those advantages for Tesla are gone or at least seemingly diminished. Structures that have legacy automakers paying to buy Tesla's credits for selling emission-free, fuel-efficient vehicles could be eliminated. (And let's not forget that Trump hinted at ending federal contracts with other Musk-affiliated companies.) Turning back to the auto business: The conventional wisdom is that Musk has now alienated all but the most apolitical consumers. Environmentally minded liberals might like EVs, but Musk's support of Trump (and the far-right Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany) has them seeking out other brands' offerings. There might have been an opportunity to become the preferred electric brand of the president's Make America Great Again movement — especially the tech-forward, high-income types and those motivated by the president's endorsement of the brand on the White House grounds. But after this month's blowup — with longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon arguing to deport Musk — that notion seemed ever more remote. No fans on the left, no fans on the right. Is Elon out in deep water in an electric boat surrounded by sharks with no friends to bail him out? Maybe not. There is significant animus against Musk on the EV-inclined left, especially in the wake of his DOGE team's deep and sometimes chaotic cuts to government entities and programs. Certainly, protests at auto retail outlets are rare. The damage to stores is not acceptable, but it shows the intensity of the situation. But I still have to wonder how far consumers will follow those kinds of feelings. Michiganders, for instance, often assume that Americans prefer to buy American cars made by American (union) workers. But I've been to America, and most of them don't care. They want the best car for their money, whether it's American, German, Japanese or Korean. Some are clamoring for cheap Chinese cars: If Xi Jinping wants to pay for half of their EV, they ask, why not let him? So maybe they won't care about Elon's politics. Tesla sales are down a little this year, but some of that might be attributable to production hiccups. If the Model Y — the bestselling model in the world last year — provides a great value, they'll probably buy it regardless of what they think of the CEO. And now we get to find out. Have an opinion about this story? Tell us about it and we may publish it in print. Click here to submit a letter to the editor. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Two immigrants came here legally. They were detained anyway, sparking Spokane's mass ICE protest
Jun. 13—It took almost no time for two immigrants to become part of Shelly O'Quinn's family. She was on the cusp of becoming one of their "sponsors" to guide them in the United States as part of the U.S.' asylum program. By all accounts, everything was going right. The two would spend their days working at the Airway Heights Walmart, check in with immigration and make it to every court hearing. It all changed on Wednesday when they received a notice to check in with immigration. But instead of a check-in, the two were picked up by federal authorities. "They are such good young men," O'Quinn said. "They did all of it legally. And they have such a heartbreaking story." O'Quinn, a former Republican Spokane County commissioner, met 21-year-old Cesar Alexander Alvarez Perez and 28-year-old Joswar Slater Rodriguez Torres last year at a church event after they escaped persecution in Venezuela. The two refugees met in Colombia and began the trek to Mexico, but their journey was largely traumatic, O'Quinn said — they were sleeping on roads, were robbed at gunpoint and threatened with machetes. "They got jobs in Mexico. They went to the border every day and applied to get into the U.S.," O'Quinn said. "They finally were accepted and came here legally, in the humanitarian parole program." They both qualified for asylum and were following the legal court process, O'Quinn said. Alvarez Perez qualified for the juvenile asylum process because he came to the U.S. younger than 21. They even had a court hearing scheduled for October, and it left O'Quinn optimistic about where things were headed. In Minneapolis on a work trip, she was stunned when she got the call that chaos had broke out on the streets of Spokane because the men were detained by ICE. Alvarez Perez's sponsor, former city council president Ben Stuckart, had taken the two to their check-in when authorities detained them instead. Stuckart posted a call to action on Facebook, which led residents to swarm the ICE office off West Cataldo Avenue in North Spokane. The protest erupted throughout the evening, with a group of people attempting to stop unmarked law enforcement vehicles from leaving. Federal agents pushed back, sending some protesters' belongings falling to the ground. Others crowded a bus to prevent it from leaving and were ultimately arrested for obstruction and failure to disperse, one of them being Stuckart. While more faced off with police and deputies, law enforcement began throwing canisters of smoke and pepper balls to disperse the crowd. Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown then issued a 9:30 p.m. curfew, calling the decision "the best path forward" for everyone to stay safe. Stuckart eventually posted bail, but he has yet to hear from Alvarez Perez and Rodriguez Torres, he said. O'Quinn, fearing the worst, flew to Seattle on Thursday and plans to attempt a visit with the two transported to Tacoma's immigration detention center. "If I can't see them, the next step is figuring out how I can ... Imagine if your kids were in a detention center with no contacts. It's a scary place," O'Quinn said. "I just imagine the fear they are feeling, and I want them to know someone cares for them." The legal way, no longer Alvarez Perez and Rodriguez Torres came to the United States through a legal program known as the Venezuelan Humanitarian Parole Program, or the "CHNV" program for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. It allows for immigrants facing persecution to legally live and work in the U.S. "under parole." President Donald Trump attempted to terminate the program earlier this year, but a Massachusetts judge issued an injunction to pause the action. On May 30, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the injunction, giving Trump free reign to end the parole program and continue mass immigrant deportations, something he has vowed to do since the start of his presidency. The crackdown on immigration has led ICE to detain people all across the country. On Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a notice to the thousands of immigrants taking part in the program that their legal status has since been terminated, according to reporting from CNN. "This notice informs you that your parole is now terminated. If you do not leave, you may be subject to enforcement actions, including but not limited to detention and removal, without an opportunity to make personal arrangements and return to your country in an orderly manner," the notice says. It's unclear whether Alvarez Perez and Rodriguez Torres received a parole termination notice, O'Quinn said. Either way, she expected it wouldn't affect them because they had another pathway into the U.S. by asylum — but now, even their asylum status is murky. Alvarez-Perez also celebrated his birthday just this week, consequently aging him out of the juvenile asylum program he was part of. "We are a county that allows for due process. I believe they should have the right to due process. They did what they were supposed to do," O'Quinn said. "We are not a country that should be picking up people are who legally here without due process. It's a violation of our rights in the United States." The Supreme Court decision allowing for deportation of those on humanitarian parole is "brutal on its face," according to Spokane civil rights attorney Jeffry Finer. Normally, an injunction would give time for litigation while also preventing undue harm where there is no reasonable remedy, he said, like tearing down a historical building. "There's no way to bring back the building. You can't fix it or reverse it," Finer said. "So if it's going to have irreparable damages, an injunction is the way to litigate the merit and keep the status quo so nobody is harmed if the lawsuit is successful." The dissenting Supreme Court opinion states the court botched the way it protects people during ongoing litigation. Finer said his interpretation of it shows "the risk to the government is small" but "the risk to immigrants is huge" — because once they're deported, there likely won't be a push to bring them back. And there's no telling if the two will be deported, because the jail is "a black hole" of information, Stuckart said. Alvarez Perez and Rodriguez Torres were so desperate to flee, they walked for weeks to find freedom from persecution and remained here with no criminal record, Stuckart added, which tells him no one is exempt from deportations. Immigrants with minor or no criminal records are still being detained across the U.S. despite Trump saying he wants to crack down on immigrants with violent backgrounds. "They don't have years to wait. Once they did get here, these two gentlemen got legal work permits and were working full time and contributing to society with taxes," he said. "I don't know what the difference is between someone who comes in at one point or another point. Take politics out of it. This goes beyond a political lens." Past the politics O'Quinn's family refers to Rodriguez Torres as "Randy," a name he picked himself, because people had trouble pronouncing his name. It's hard for her to look at news reports and court records identifying him as "Joswar," she said. A picture of the two taken at the Barton English School, both smiling ear to ear, is "the smiles they always have on their face," O'Quinn wrote in a text. "I want him to come home," she said Thursday. "Both of them." While Stuckart is a Democrat and O'Quinn was a Republican commissioner, the urge to bring back the men spans the political divide. Stuckart has made contact with Sen. Maria Cantwell's office, and O'Quinn said she reached out to Rep. Michael Baumgartner for help, and he responded promptly by having his staff track information for her on how she could find where the men were taken. "He's actually been very supportive," she said, "And I appreciate that." Baumgartner released a statement Thursday about the protests applauding law enforcement's response and encouraging people to work with federal officials to enforce immigration laws. "We need both secure borders and immigration reform," the statement reads. "Peaceful protest is guaranteed under the Constitution, but there is no excuse for violence or impeding law enforcement officials." His office has not responded for further comment. The stories of Alvarez Perez and Rodriguez Torres deserve to be told, because "they have demonstrated their American values of hard work and integrity," O'Quinn said — they shouldn't become political pawns in a battle with red or blue. Both Republicans and Democrats have vouched for the men, Stuckart said later, calling them "the people you want in our country." Both agree the men did everything they're told to do as immigrants: apply to come into the country legally, get a job and pay taxes. It's the reason O'Quinn believes their detainment doesn't reflect the values of Spokane. "I am grateful for the people who stood up for their rights yesterday," she said. "It tells them that it wasn't Spokane that kicked them out." Editor's note — this story was corrected to reflect the men were not refugees under the U.S. Government but were rather seeking asylum.
