Key takeaways from the ruling by North Carolina's Supreme Court:

• Over 60,000 ballots challenged in the November election must be counted.
• Voters whose ballots are still under scrutiny have 30 days to verify their eligibility.
• The ruling may allow the Republican candidate, Judge Jefferson Griffin, to contest the election results.
• Democratic Justice Allison Riggs, the incumbent, won by a narrow margin of 734 votes.
• Concerns about the disenfranchisement of military and overseas voters have been raised.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on April 11 that the vast majority of contested ballots from the recent election for a seat on the state’s highest court must be counted, marking a significant decision in a tightly contested race. The court’s ruling, passed by a 4-2 majority, stated that about 60,000 ballots that had missing information, such as Social Security numbers or driver's license IDs, should not be dismissed due to administrative errors made by election officials. The court emphasized that “mistakes made by negligent election officials” should not deprive eligible voters of their rights, suggesting a strong bias towards ensuring voting rights are upheld. These adjustments were crucial for Justice Allison Riggs, the Democratic incumbent, who has been embroiled in a legal battle following a narrow victory of 734 votes over her Republican opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin.

Judge Griffin has argued that the ballots of thousands of voters, many from military and overseas populations, are in jeopardy of being disqualified unless they provide the required identification within a 30-day period. This situation arose because the lack of required personal information was often due to errors beyond the voters' control. The state’s Republican Party has supported Griffin's challenge, which remains the only statewide election in 2024 that has not been certified, raising both state and national concerns regarding electoral integrity.

Democratic representatives and various election officials criticized the ruling, voicing fears that it could disenfranchise many military members and overseas voters who may struggle to meet the newly imposed verification deadlines. Justice Anita Earls, the only other Democrat on the court, highlighted the potential implication that thousands of legitimate votes could be treated as fraudulent if proper verification cannot be obtained. Justice Riggs condemned the ruling, calling it "unacceptable" to selectively disenfranchise voters serving the nation from abroad.

The contentious ruling was underscored by mixed opinions within the court itself and by parties involved in the case, indicating the volatility and significance of this decision in shaping North Carolina's electoral procedures.
For more details, visit The Hill, Reuters, or NY Times.