An assault on our democracy and our institutions

Griffin's lawsuit is a radical attempt to erode faith in the institutions that protect our rights.

While Donald Trump is sucking up all the oxygen in the room by threatening to invade our allies and steal their land, Republicans in North Carolina are on the verge of stealing an election by disenfranchising voters after they’ve already cast their votes. Jefferson Griffin wants to throw out the ballots of people who voted, most with voter ID, because of minor omissions on their voter registration forms. He lost to Allison Riggs by a little more than 700 votes. Now, he’s trying to win an election on a minor technicality by disqualifying more than 60,000 people who were told by election officials that they were eligible to vote and that their votes were valid. If Griffin is successful, he will deliver a devastating blow to democracy.

His case got a boost when a federal court kicked the case to the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The court voted to halt certification of Riggs’ victory and has agreed to hear the case. The seven-member court has a 5-2 Republican majority, but Riggs has recused herself from the case for obvious reasons.

Fortunately, two of the Republicans members expressed skepticism of Griffin’s claims. Justice Richard Dietz wrote, “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. It 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.”

Justice Trey Allen indicated he might not support Griffin’s lawsuit, but defended the court taking up the case. He wrote, “The Court’s order granting Judge Griffin’s motion for temporary stay should not be taken to mean that Judge Griffin will ultimately prevail on the merits.”

Allen’s statement seems to recognize that the credibility of the court is on the line. If Griffin succeeds, the Court will lose legitimacy in the eyes of North Carolinians like me. Even conservatives realize the case will lend credence to the argument that the GOP has become an anti-democratic party. Conservative columnist Andrew Dunn wrote, “This isn’t just bad optics; it’s potentially a credibility-shattering disaster for the court, the party, and conservatism in North Carolina. Overnight, this becomes a national story about Republicans ‘stealing’ a Supreme Court seat. The allegation would be impossible to defend against.”

Republican Justices Paul Newby, Tamara Barringer, and Phil Berger, Jr., have not made statements.

This case highlights so much of what is happening to our country at the hands of would-be authoritarians with a seemingly compliant U.S. Supreme Court. The Roberts Court has spent years whittling down the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Griffin’s claims show that we need stronger voter protections at the federal level, not weaker ones.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed because conservatives maintained control of state governments in the South by using arcane rules to deny African Americans the right to vote. Today, with extreme gerrymandering, the ideological descendants of those conservatives are keeping a firm grip on political power by rigging elections with electoral maps. Griffin is trying to take us back to the days when rules would deny people access to the ballot box, except he’s trying to do it retroactively.

Griffin made the argument in federal court that his case was a states’ rights is issue. That brought back a flood of memories because it’s the same argument conservatives made for segregation. They also used the argument to oppose federal anti-lynching legislation throughout the first half of the 20th century. The states’ rights argument is almost always about denying certain people’s rights. In this case, it’s the state’s right to deny 60,000 people the right to vote. It’s ironic because conservatives, who claim to cherish liberty, are making the case that the rights of the states supersede the rights of the individual.

Griffin’s action seems designed to erode faith in our institutions. If he’s successful, no electoral victory will ever be safe again. Conservatives will try to disqualify voters after the fact in every closely contested election. The state Supreme Court would lose its credibility with many of the voters. Griffin would never be a legitimate justice. The court itself would be seen as stealing the election, the ultimate act of judicial activism.

Griffin’s case should be getting far more national attention than it is. Even if it fails, the lawsuit is a blatant attempt at undermining democracy, supported by a party that’s power rests in watering down the votes of the people of the state. It’s not only anti-democratic, it’s a radical attempt to undermine faith in the institutions that protect our rights and the way we choose our leaders. Let’s hope Justices Dietz and Allen hold firm in their convictions.