Nearly half a year has passed since North Carolina voters cast their ballots for the state Supreme Court, and yet, the race remains undecided. The delay is largely driven by an aggressive legal campaign from Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin, who is demanding that over 65,000 ballots be tossed out after the fact. Griffin trails Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs by a razor-thin margin of approximately 700 votes, and the outcome could change dramatically if his legal efforts succeed.

But even if he fails, the aftershocks of this prolonged legal drama could ripple far beyond North Carolina. Critics warn that it could set a dangerous precedent where candidates challenge election results based on post-election rule changes, destabilizing trust in democratic processes.

Changing the Rules After the Game Ends

“This is clearly an attempt to manipulate the law and the courts into changing an election result by changing the rules after the election has been held,” said Ann Webb, policy director for Common Cause North Carolina, a government accountability group. Webb fears that if the courts entertain Griffin’s arguments, it will open a floodgate for losing candidates to seek legal rewrites of elections after votes are cast.

Democrat Allison Riggs echoed those concerns, calling Griffin’s tactics “insidious” and warning that if successful, the strategy could soon appear in battleground states like Michigan, Georgia, and Arizona.

Even some Republicans are calling on Griffin to back down. Former GOP Governor Pat McCrory compared the situation to “changing a penalty call after the Super Bowl is over,” you simply don't do that, he argued. Voters participated based on established rules, and moving the goalposts after the game undermines the entire system.

Meanwhile, Republican-led groups in North Carolina have launched ad campaigns urging Griffin to concede and end the litigation.

A Mountain of Legal Challenges

After a full machine recount and a partial hand recount reaffirmed Riggs’ lead of 734 votes out of 5.5 million cast, Griffin turned to the courts. Backed by the North Carolina Republican Party, he filed lawsuits alleging widespread illegal voting, mainly targeting voters without matching driver's license or Social Security information, overseas voters who hadn’t lived in North Carolina, and overseas voters who didn't submit photo IDs with their ballots.

The lawsuits have triggered complex rulings from both state and federal courts. One of the latest developments saw a federal appeals court block an effort to allow thousands of military and overseas voters to "cure" minor ballot errors. In an earlier decision, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that roughly 60,000 votes Griffin sought to invalidate must be preserved but left the door open for minor error corrections.

Both Griffin and Riggs have recused themselves from ruling on matters related to the case.

A Precedent No One Wants

Critics fear Griffin’s challenge violates one of the bedrock principles of election law: that rules cannot change after an election has taken place. If Griffin succeeds, it could encourage a wave of copycat challenges from any losing candidate, further polarizing and paralyzing elections.

Adding to the controversy, Griffin’s lawsuits target only the race he lost. Other Republican candidates who won statewide races have not questioned their results, a glaring inconsistency, according to North Carolina Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton.

“If there were real problems,” Clayton asked, “why aren’t all Republican races being contested?”

In a powerful statement, more than 200 judges, officials, and legal scholars, including some Republicans , signed a letter urging Griffin to drop the case. “If you succeed, tens of thousands of voters will lose their voice after they vote," they warned, adding that such actions erode trust in the judicial system.

Griffin's Defense: It's About the Constitution

Griffin’s legal team denies accusations of changing election rules after the fact. They argue that the North Carolina Constitution explicitly bars voting by non-residents and requires ID verification for overseas voters. Courts, they say, are merely enforcing existing law, not rewriting it.

Still, watchdogs like Webb insist that if Griffin had genuine concerns, he should have challenged these rules well before ballots were cast. Instead, she claims, he is exploiting a system designed to correct errors, not overturn results based on existing law.

“It’s important to have an escape valve for real mistakes,” Webb said. “But this isn’t that. This is an abuse of the system to contest fair rules that have existed for years.”

The Stakes: Trust in Democracy

At its core, the North Carolina Supreme Court election dispute isn’t just about one seat. It’s about whether candidates, of any party, can erode voter confidence and upend democracy itself by rewriting the rules after they lose.

And whether North Carolina resolves it fairly could determine if similar storms await Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, and beyond.