Mark Joseph Stern, a senior writer at Slate specializing in legal issues, dives into the ongoing fallout from the 'Stop the Steal' movement. He discusses a North Carolina Republican's radical strategy to disqualify ballots in a tight Supreme Court race. Stern emphasizes the implications of challenging electoral results and the disturbing trend it could inspire. The conversation also touches on the complexities of voter registration accuracy and the potential disenfranchisement of voters, highlighting significant issues in today's elections.
The challenges to voter legitimacy in North Carolina highlight a dangerous precedent that could threaten electoral integrity and democratic norms nationwide.
Jefferson Griffin's selective targeting of voters raises significant concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and fairness in the electoral process.
Deep dives
Influence of Legislative Changes on Elections
Decisions made by legislators can significantly impact electoral outcomes, as highlighted by a recent controversy surrounding a state Supreme Court race in North Carolina. A group of voters protested outside the court, reading the names of 60,000 individuals whose votes were being challenged by the losing candidate, Jefferson Griffin. Griffin's strategy involves disputing the legitimacy of these voters to overturn his loss by a narrow margin of 734 votes, raising concerns about the integrity of the electoral process. This situation exemplifies how political maneuvers can threaten established electoral results and potentially reshape future elections.
Targeted Voter Disqualifications
Griffin's legal arguments specifically target votes from heavily Democratic and African American counties, aiming to disqualify ballots based on alleged technicalities. The three main groups whose votes are being challenged include military voters who did not provide IDs, children of military families living overseas, and voters lacking specific details in their records. Notably, many voters in these categories complied with laws at the time of voting, making the challenges seem arbitrary and politically motivated. This selective targeting raises questions about fairness and the potential for broader consequences in electoral integrity across the nation.
Judicial Politics and Democratic Erosion
The situation illustrates a worrying trend of judicial politicization, where ideologically driven judges may prioritize party interests over impartial legal adjudication. Griffin's actions, supported by a partisan legal team, reflect a broader effort to normalize post-election challenges and undermine democratic processes. The resulting court proceedings are plagued by conflicts of interest and potential bias, calling into question the impartiality of the judicial system. This erosion of democratic norms not only affects the immediate election but may also set a precedent for future electoral disputes across various jurisdictions.
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.