Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Atlantic: When the Fight for Democracy Is Personal
The Atlantic - (archived: https://archive.ph/ql4As ) When the Fight for Democracy Is Personal
Allison Riggs discusses the protracted legal battle for her seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, and what it means for the entire country.
By David A. Graham
April 15, 2025, 8:22 AM ET
Allison Riggs didn’t set out to be at the center of the nation’s sole uncalled 2024 election, but it’s fitting that she is. Before Riggs became a justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, she spent years as an attorney pushing to make it easier for people to vote, often challenging Republican-passed laws. Now she’s at the center of one of the most pitched battles over vote-counting in memory.
In November, Riggs, a Democrat, appeared to win reelection to the court by a paper-thin 734-vote margin, but her opponent, Republican Jefferson Griffin, has challenged more than 60,000 votes—effectively trying to get courts to change the rules of the election, despite the votes already having been cast and counted. Whether those votes are included in the final tally will decide the outcome of the race—and Riggs’s political future.
“I didn’t expect for me to be in a the-cheese-stands-alone kind of situation,” she told me in late March at her home in North Carolina. “I don’t want this fight, but since it came to me, I’m up for it.”
The battle has now dragged into its fifth month, and could stretch on for months to come. Earlier this month, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s ruling and sided with Griffin. (He’s currently a judge on that court, though he did not participate in this decision.) Splitting 2–1 along partisan lines, a panel of judges ruled that the challenged votes should not have counted but gave most of the voters three weeks to “cure” their ballots—to provide information to election officials proving they were eligible voters.
/snip
Allison Riggs discusses the protracted legal battle for her seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, and what it means for the entire country.
By David A. Graham
April 15, 2025, 8:22 AM ET
Allison Riggs didn’t set out to be at the center of the nation’s sole uncalled 2024 election, but it’s fitting that she is. Before Riggs became a justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, she spent years as an attorney pushing to make it easier for people to vote, often challenging Republican-passed laws. Now she’s at the center of one of the most pitched battles over vote-counting in memory.
In November, Riggs, a Democrat, appeared to win reelection to the court by a paper-thin 734-vote margin, but her opponent, Republican Jefferson Griffin, has challenged more than 60,000 votes—effectively trying to get courts to change the rules of the election, despite the votes already having been cast and counted. Whether those votes are included in the final tally will decide the outcome of the race—and Riggs’s political future.
“I didn’t expect for me to be in a the-cheese-stands-alone kind of situation,” she told me in late March at her home in North Carolina. “I don’t want this fight, but since it came to me, I’m up for it.”
The battle has now dragged into its fifth month, and could stretch on for months to come. Earlier this month, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s ruling and sided with Griffin. (He’s currently a judge on that court, though he did not participate in this decision.) Splitting 2–1 along partisan lines, a panel of judges ruled that the challenged votes should not have counted but gave most of the voters three weeks to “cure” their ballots—to provide information to election officials proving they were eligible voters.
/snip