Federal judge says results of North Carolina court race with Democrat ahead must be certified
RALEIGH, N.C. — Disputed ballots in the still unresolved 2024 race for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat must remain in the final count, a federal judge ruled late Monday, a decision that if upheld would result in an electoral victory for Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs.
U.S. District Judge Richard Myers agreed with Riggs and others who argued it would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution to carry out recent decisions by state appeals courts that directed the removal of potentially thousands of voter ballots deemed ineligible. Myers wrote that votes couldn't be removed six months after Election Day without damaging due process and equal protection rights of the affected residents.
Myers also ordered the State Board of Elections to certify results that after two recounts showed Riggs the winner — by just 734 votes — over Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin. But the judge delayed his decision for seven days in case Griffin wants to appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Follow live politics coverage here
The board 'must not proceed with implementation of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court's orders, and instead must certify the results of the election for (the seat) based on the tally at the completion of the canvassing period,' wrote Myers, who was nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump.
More than 5.5 million ballots were cast in what has been the nation's last undecided race from November's general election. Griffin filed formal protests after the election in hopes that removing ballots he said were unlawfully cast would flip the outcome to him.
Griffin's legal team was reviewing Myers' order Monday night and evaluating the next steps, Griffin campaign spokesperson Paul Shumaker wrote in an email.
Riggs was more assured in her statement: 'Today, we won. I'm proud to continue upholding the Constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina's Supreme Court Justice.'
Griffin wanted Myers to leave undisturbed the state courts' decisions, which also directed that most of the voters with otherwise ineligible ballots get 30 days to provide identifying information for their race choices to remain in the tally.
Riggs, the state Democratic Party and some affected voters said Griffin was trying to change the 2024 election outcome after the fact by removing ballots cast by voters who complied with voting rules as they were written last fall.
Myers wrote that Griffin's formal protests after the election, which were rejected by the State Board of Elections, constituted efforts to make retroactive changes to the voting laws that would arbitrarily disenfranchise only the voters who were targeted by Griffin. Griffin's challenges over photo ID only covered at most six Democratic-leaning counties in the state.
'You establish the rules before the game. You don't change them after the game is done,' Myers wrote in a 68-page order.
'Permitting parties to 'upend the set rules' of an election after the election has taken place can only produce 'confusion and turmoil'' that ''threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves,'' he added while citing other cases.
Democrats and voting rights groups raised alarm about Griffin's efforts. They called it an attack on democracy that would serve as a road map for the GOP to reverse future election results in other states. The state Republican Party said Griffin was seeking to ensure that only legal votes are counted.
The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Iconic coffee chain to move its headquarters out of Oregon
An iconic coffee chain founded in Oregon has officially decided to move its headquarters from the woke state to Arizona. Dutch Bros Coffee confirmed this week that it will shift operations from its original base in Grants Pass to a growing office near Phoenix - another blow to the liberal state. The $11.8 billion drive-thru business, which is Oregon's second most valuable company after the activewear brand Nike, announced it will relocate its corporate headquarters in the near future. The major move represents yet another high-profile business fleeing the area, where sky-high taxes, crime and regulations have driven companies to seek refuge in Republican states. The move comes just 18 months after the coffee giant tapped Arizona native Christine Barone as CEO as it revealed plans to use millions to relocate much of its workforce to Phoenix. OregonLive said Dutch Bros executives living near the current HQ in Grants Pass had struggled to find adequate childcare in the small city. But Republicans say the Democrats including Governor Tina Kotek should have fought far harder to keep the chain in the Beaver State, as its revenue continues to rocket. Some also suggested liberal policies passed in state capital Salem were anti-business and helped drive Dutch Bros to the Republican stronghold of Arizona. 'Dutch Bros has been more than just a coffee company; it's been a valued employer, a community partner, and a symbol of local innovation and grit,' said Rep. Dwayne Yunker, R-Josephine County, in a written statement, as reported by Oregon Live. 'Their departure should alarm every policymaker in Salem,' Yunker said. has reached out to Kotek for comment but has not yet received a response. The coffee company claims the move is aimed to help 'bring more people together' in order to 'better serve customers' across the country. 'Over the past several months, we have seen the functional and cultural advantages of having more of our field support roles working together in one place,' the company wrote in a statement. 'To support the next phase of Dutch Bros' growth, we're relocating additional roles to our new Phoenix office and making strategic changes to the structure of several teams.' 'Bringing more people together will allow us to better serve our customers and crews across the country,' the company said. 'With these changes, the Phoenix office will become our official HQ.' Despite the move, Dutch Bros said it would maintain a presence in Southern Oregon and continue investing in the region through its charitable foundation. 'Additionally, through the Dutch Bros Foundation, we'll continue our long-standing commitment to uplifting and supporting the Southern Oregon community,' the company said. The coffee chain started as a humble cart in tiny Grants Pass back in 1992. Brothers Travis and late Dane Boersma built their operation into a nationwide company with over 1,000 locations. Annual sales have exploded from just $240 million five years ago to a staggering $1.3 billion last year, with predictions of another whopping 22 percent surge in 2025. The decision comes amid an ongoing trend of major companies leaving West Coast states, due to various factors such as crime, policies and taxes. Last month, a long-standing outdoor store decided to close all of its Oregon locations, marking another business casualty in Portland as crime remains at 'historic heights'. Next Adventure, a beloved outdoor gear store founded by childhood friends Deek Heykamp and Bryan Knudsen in 1997, grew into a 'beloved Portland institution' throughout its three decades in operation, making nearly $24 million in annual sales at its peak, Portland Business Journal reported. The business eventually expanded to four locations across Oregon - its flagship store in Portland's Central Eastside, another in Sandy, and two paddle centers in Portland and Columbia County. However, all four locations are set to close later this year, the owners announced. 'We're entering a very uncertain time, there are challenges and we're in our 60s,' Heykamp said at the time. 'So when you're in uncertain times, and you make decisions as a leader, it's my and Bryan's responsibility to look at our business and make good decisions on how we can build stability and build the best possible outcome for everybody,' he added. 'And after a lot of work, we came up that this is the right direction to go.' Portland and Oregon became symbolic of the decline of Democrat-run progressive cities in the wake of the COVID pandemic. The once stunning city on the Willamette River became a byword for homelessness, open-air drug use, far-left-wing riots and lawmakers happy to turn a blind eye to urban decay. Businesses fled downtown Portland in droves amid plummeting quality of life, with the city enduring record murder rates in 2022. The city finally appears to have been shamed into taking action in recent months, with voters dumping progressive prosecutor Mike Schmidt and clearing homeless encampments from its downtown.
Daily Mail
3 hours ago
- Daily Mail
John Fetterman snubs wife Giselle on their own wedding anniversary as he dines with MAGA power player
Democratic Sen. John Fetterman was spotted out to dinner with a MAGA icon at a conservative hotspot in Washington - apparently on his wedding anniversary. The senator who has made a name for himself for bucking his party was spotted dining with a Breitbart reporter on Monday, June 9th, Politico reported. But that's not what caused the online stir. What left onlookers gobsmacked about the weeknight dinner was a brief visit from former Trump advisor and MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, the conservative fireband and liberal bogeyman who anchors his own influential 'War Room' podcast. More stunningly, that dinner at Butterworth's - a buzzy Capitol Hill bistro known to attract MAGA socialites and GOP Hill staffers - apparently happened on Fetterman's 17th anniversary. However, the senator's wife, Gisele, was not mentioned in the dispatch about the surprising dinner party. 'John Fetterman, the not-uncontroversial Democratic senator for Pennsylvania, dining in D.C.'s top MAGA hangout Butterworth's ... Fetterman was joined by Breitbart's Matt Boyle, plus — for a good 20 minutes or so — Steve Bannon,' the outlet wrote. Fetterman's office did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Mail. The potential dinner snub comes after Senate staffers told the Daily Mail in May that Gisele has been absent from Washington this year. A New York Magazine report around that time also documented how Gisele has been concerned with her husband's behavior, including his support for Israel. Fetterman, 55, once believed to be the pro-union, socialist assumed heir to Bernie Sanders ' far-left platform, has since the October 7 attack been leaning more rightward, fervently supporting Israel and denouncing the 'progressive' moniker. He has met personally with President Donald Trump and broken ranks with Democrats with his support for strict border and immigration restrictions as well as fracking, the controversial method to extract oil and gas from the ground. As Fetterman has slid from pseudo-progressive to Democratic populist his staffers have expressed concern over the senator's health and behavior. The 55-year-old suffered a stroke during his 2022 campaign and soon after joining Congress checked himself into the hospital as he battled depression. The bombshell New York Mag piece on the senator lifted the veil on many personal details regarding the Democrat's health struggles, including sections about Gisele complaining to her husband's staff and doctors locking him out of his social media as he underwent treatment. The Democrat and many senators slammed the article at the time. Fetterman told the Daily Mail the report was a 'hit piece.' In the days after the piece was published, multiple staffers told the Daily Mail that Gisele had not been spotted around her husband's Senate office recently. But when Gisele was spotted not wearing her wedding ring in early May, she told the Daily Mail that she was not wearing it because she is a firefighter. 'I'm a firefighter, did you know that? If I wore my wedding ring to fight fires, that would be dangerous,' she said. 'That's why it's not here.' Shortly after the news broke that Fetterman and Bannon dined together briefly on June 9th, X users pieced together that dinner occurred on what Fetterman has said is his anniversary with Gisele. Fetterman posted on June 10, 2024 that he and Gisele had gotten in a car accident 'yesterday,' noting it was a bad way to spend their 'anniversary.' So his sit-down at a MAGA hub with Bannon a year later on his anniversary has raised questions and criticism online. 'OH MY GODDDDD,' one X user reacted to the senator's anniversary plans. You might have heard G and I were in a car accident yesterday. Thank you all for the well wishes. Not the best way to spend our 16th wedding anniversary but we're doing well and happy to be back home in Braddock with the family. — U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) June 10, 2024 'On his 17th wedding anniversary, John Fetterman was seen dining at D.C.'s top MAGA hangout,' Howie Klein, a progressive blogger, wrote on X. 'At the rate he's going, he'll be eligible for Gavin Newsom's podcast soon!' he said of the California governor's show that frequently features Republican guests.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
It is politicians – not regulators – who must make sense of the supreme court's gender ruling
It's almost two months now since the UK supreme court ruling on what makes a woman in the eyes of the law, which was hailed as a turning point in the battle over transgender rights. Not long enough for wounds to heal, in other words, but long enough surely to hope for a bit more clarity about what this means for everyday life: which toilets trans people can use, what this means for your local women's running club or gym, how employers can handle sensitive situations at work without outing or humiliating trans staff in front of colleagues and customers. But instead, the waters are getting muddier with every passing week. On Wednesday, Kishwer Falkner, now in the final five months of her term as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) watchdog, was grilled by the women and equalities select committee about the detailed code of practice she is due to submit to ministers next month, translating the ruling into everyday life. Since years of turning this issue into a political football haven't helped anyone, in an ideal world MPs could now leave it all in the hands of a trusted neutral arbiter, and resist the urge to meddle. Unfortunately, by the end of the hearing it was clear meddling may be urgently required. Within hours of the original supreme court ruling in April that 'woman' means 'biological woman' for the purpose of the Equality Act, and to the surprise of some lawyers, Lady Falkner had effectively pronounced inclusiveness dead. The EHRC issued interim guidance saying that trans people should stop using the toilets, changing rooms or NHS wards of their preferred gender – though for trans men who look male enough to be potentially frightening to women in female spaces, that's not straightforward – and only play on the grassroots sports teams of their birth sex. But is that really what the court intended? The former supreme court judge Jonathan Sumption has already warned of the risks of overinterpreting the ruling, arguing that he took it to confirm that single-sex services are entitled to exclude trans people, but not obliged to if they don't want to. Falkner, however, is sticking to her guns. Suppose you wanted to start a women's walking group, the Labour MP Rachel Taylor asked her, but you actively wanted to include trans women. Is that allowed? No, was the eventual answer: of course you can let your trans friend join, but then you'd be a mixed not single-sex group, and would have to also accept any man asking to join or risk getting sued. What the biological women in this group actually want – where they'd draw their own boundaries, or what feels right to them – is irrelevant on this reading, a position that may yet end up being tested in the courts. How any of this might be enforced in real life, meanwhile, seems vague at best. Asked how this imaginary walking group should check that every new member was definitely biologically female, Falkner suggested they might make a judgment on sight, but that nobody was going to be walking around with badges on policing it. Similarly on toilets, EHRC chief executive John Kirkpatrick told the committee that employers would need to provide facilities securing women's privacy and dignity, but that what that meant would vary locally and could be worked out 'on the basis of trust and openness and honesty'. With a large dollop of goodwill and forbearance on all sides, you can see how that might wash – except on this issue, there's vanishingly little of either to be found. The most awkward question, meanwhile, is whether a battle-scarred veteran of the culture wars such as Falkner is now sufficiently trusted to write the peace settlement. Originally appointed by Liz Truss to shake up an organisation seen by the Tories as too close to Stonewall, Falkner survived both attempted mutiny inside her organisation and vicious personal abuse from outside, as she dragged it into line with what would later end up being the supreme court's settled position: that trans women are not, in law, quite the same as biological women. She wouldn't be human if she didn't feel vindicated, and she was visibly emotional when the gender-critical MP Rosie Duffield (who has been through something similar) reminded her about the placards reading 'the only good Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] is a dead Terf' or when protesters in 2022 dumped 60 bottles of urine on her office doorstep. But the legacy of those brutal years is that, fairly or unfairly, many trans people no longer trust the EHRC to defend their rights (as it's mandated to do for all protected groups). Falkner brushed off the committee's questions about that, saying she didn't see why people 'should become so fearful' when they haven't lost any rights (technically speaking, the court merely defined what the limits of those rights were). Yet where people do and don't feel welcome in society is determined by social norms as well as rights, and the former have swung from one extreme to the other in recent years; you don't have to disagree with the supreme court's ruling to see how that could be wildly disorienting. Though Falkner suggested it would be 'wise for space to be given to the regulator' to handle this – in other words, that parliament should back off – some Labour MPs are rapidly reaching the opposite view. A law that doesn't work in real-life scenarios is a law that doesn't work, full stop. On this evidence, parliament should prepare to roll up its sleeves. Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
