Supreme Court Showdown: North Carolina at the Crossroads of Democracy
One judicial seat could reshape the state’s future and define the battle for voting rights nationwide.
The battle for the North Carolina Supreme Court is a microcosm of the broader fight for democracy in this country, and Justice Allison Riggs is at the center of it. After securing her seat in the 2024 election by more than 700 votes, her victory has been subjected to an unprecedented challenge by her Republican opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin. Despite the results being reaffirmed by multiple recounts, Griffin is now questioning the validity of over 60,000 ballots based on technical voter registration details. Though lacking evidence of fraud or misconduct, these claims have brought the certification of her re-election to a halt, leaving democracy itself hanging in the balance.
The ongoing legal battle isn’t just about a single judicial seat; it’s a deliberate attempt to reshape North Carolina’s judiciary and tip the scales of democracy. The Republican-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court’s stay on Riggs’ certification demonstrates how partisanship has infiltrated institutions meant to serve the public impartially. If Griffin’s challenge succeeds, the court’s composition will shift to a 7-1 Republican majority, granting the GOP unchecked influence over redistricting and voting rights rulings. This could set the stage for deeper voter suppression and a future where fair elections become an afterthought.
The stakes are colossal. The 60,000 ballots in question belong to North Carolinians who cast their votes following the procedures established by the state. These voters are now at risk of being disenfranchised. This is a thinly veiled attempt to silence opposition and undermine public confidence in elections. If successful, this would create a dangerous precedent, paving the way for similar efforts to disenfranchise voters nationwide.
Justice Riggs has recused herself from the court’s review of her election, demonstrating her commitment to judicial ethics. However, her opponent’s baseless challenges aim to cast doubt on her legitimacy, threatening to erode the authority of a court already under partisan strain. Riggs continues to serve diligently, signing orders and fulfilling her duties, while her opponent’s claims seek to destabilize the very foundation of democracy in the state. North Carolina’s voters, who chose Riggs to lead, deserve better than this relentless political maneuvering.
This fight is deeply tied to the broader challenges facing democracy in North Carolina. The state has been a battleground for partisan gerrymandering and voter suppression for years. A Democratic-controlled Supreme Court previously struck down unconstitutional gerrymandering that gave Republicans a 10-3 advantage in congressional seats. Now, with control of the court at stake, the GOP is determined to maintain its hold on power through any means necessary, including challenges to legitimate election outcomes.
The implications of this fight extend far beyond North Carolina’s borders. Population shifts expected after the 2030 Census will likely cost Democratic-leaning states up to 12 Electoral College votes, increasing the importance of flipping swing states like North Carolina. With its 16 Electoral College votes, North Carolina could offset these losses, but only if fair representation is restored and maintained. Reclaiming control of the state Supreme Court is critical to achieving this goal.
The Democratic playbook for the years ahead is clear and urgent. First and foremost, they must protect Justice Riggs’ seat and ensure that her rightful election is upheld. In 2026, the focus will shift to re-electing Anita Earls, a justice whose leadership has been instrumental in advancing fair representation and protecting voting rights. Beyond that, the 2028 elections will be pivotal, with three Republican-held Supreme Court seats up for grabs. Flipping these seats would establish a Democratic majority on the court, enabling rulings against partisan gerrymandering and restoring balance to the judicial system.
Achieving these goals is not just about winning elections. It’s about securing the future of democracy in North Carolina and across the country. A Democratic-controlled Supreme Court could revisit unfair district maps, ensuring equitable representation in Congress and the state legislature. The court’s rulings could also set national precedents, pushing back against the tide of voter suppression that has plagued elections in recent years.
The stakes in North Carolina couldn’t be higher. This state has become a microcosm of the national battle for democracy. What happens here will reverberate across the nation, influencing not only the composition of the state’s judicial and legislative bodies but also the broader fight for voting rights and fair representation. For Democrats, progressives, and anyone committed to the ideals of democracy, the mission is clear: defend Justice Riggs, protect Anita Earls, and fight to reclaim the court in 2028. North Carolina’s future—and the nation’s—depends on it.