Mark Joseph Stern, a senior writer at Slate focusing on courts and law, dives into the political theatrics surrounding election integrity in North Carolina. He discusses Republican strategies to contest election results, emphasizing Jefferson Griffin's aim to disqualify ballots from Democratic areas. The conversation highlights the implications for electoral democracy and the firsthand experiences of those impacted. Stern also connects these tactics to wider trends of partisan influence in judicial settings, raising alarms about the future of voter rights.
Jefferson Griffin's attempt to disqualify ballots in North Carolina highlights a concerning trend of manipulating election outcomes through legal challenges post-election.
The case underscores the politicization of the judiciary, raising alarms about the integrity of the legal system in handling electoral disputes.
Deep dives
Election Integrity and Voter Disqualification
A significant issue in North Carolina's recent Supreme Court race involves the efforts of Jefferson Griffin, who lost the election but seeks to overturn the results by disqualifying a large number of votes. He is targeting ballots mostly from heavily Democratic and Black populations, arguing that they are illegitimate for various reasons, such as missing social security numbers or ID requirements that state law does not mandate. This challenge exemplifies a broader trend of using legal tactics post-election to alter outcomes, which has been recognized as a concerning playbook reminiscent of efforts seen in the 2020 elections. Griffin's actions raise serious questions about electoral integrity and set a precarious precedent for future elections.
The Role of the Judiciary in Election Disputes
The North Carolina Supreme Court's handling of Griffin's case demonstrates the political dynamics affecting the judiciary, with some justices appearing biased towards Griffin's challenge. As the case moves between state and potential federal courts, it highlights the conflicting interests present, particularly as some judges may have personal connections to the parties involved. Despite the ruling from the Superior Court that rejected Griffin's claims, the case's trajectory is uncertain given the Republican majority in higher courts. This situation showcases how politicization in legal systems can impede fair judgment in contentious election matters.
Public Response and Implications for Democracy
Public reaction to the ongoing court case emphasizes the concerns of disenfranchisement among voters whose ballots are being challenged. Justice Allison Riggs, who is defending the legitimacy of her election, argues that the actions against her and the votes of thousands undermine democratic principles. Many voters have taken to social media and public forums to assert the validity of their participation in the election, revealing their frustration and fear that the will of the people can be disregarded. The implications of this case extend beyond North Carolina, as the scrutiny of election processes and voter rights becomes essential in preserving the democratic framework.
As Donald Trump has demonstrated, losing an election is no reason to admit you lost an election. In fact, in North Carolina, the Republican challenger, who lost a race for the state’s Supreme Court, is testing a bold new strategy of disqualifying ballots until he gets the result he wants. And if he succeeds, it could start a trend.
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern, Slate senior writer covering courts and the law.
Want more What Next? Join Slate Plus to unlock full, ad-free access to What Next and all your other favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the What Next show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.
Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme, Ethan Oberman, and Rob Gunther.