A federal judge decided Monday to send Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin’s election complaint back to North Carolina’s highest court. US Chief District Judge Richard Myers’ order arrived four days before the State Board of Elections is scheduled to certify Democrat Allison Riggs as the winner of the Nov. 5 election.
The state elections board appealed the ruling Monday night.
Riggs leads Griffin by 734 votes out of 5.5 million ballots cast in the election. Griffin, a judge serving on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, is challenging more than 60,000 ballots cast statewide. He filed a Dec 18 complaint with the state Supreme Court against the state elections board. The elections board removed the case to federal court the following day.
Griffin filed paperwork Friday seeking both an injunction and the return of his complaint to the state court system.
“In this removed state action, a sitting state court judge seeks a writ of prohibition (a form of judicial relief authorized by the state constitution) from the state supreme court that would enjoin the state board of elections from counting votes for a state election contest that were cast by voters in a manner allegedly inconsistent with state law,” Myers wrote in a 27-page order. “Should a federal tribunal resolve such a dispute? This court, with due regard for state sovereignty and the independence of states to decide matters of substantial public concern, thinks not.”
Myers “abstains from deciding Griffin’s motion” and “remands this matter to North Carolina’s Supreme Court,” the order explained.
The elections board had argued that a federal judge should address a case dealing with the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002.
“The State Board asserts that Griffin’ s challenge to voters’ registrations would ‘require this [c]ourt to construe HA VA,’ but that is incorrect,” Myers wrote. “After Congress passed HA VA, North Carolina’ s General Assembly enacted parallel legislation, establishing a uniform system of registration for both state and federal elections. But that uniform system does not eliminate the legal distinction between federal elections, which Congress may regulate, and state elections, which Congress (with limited exception) may not. And this matter involves a state election, so HAVA, even if practically relevant, is legally irrelevant.”
“The people of North Carolina have chosen to implement a uniform system for both state and federal election registration. But that legislative choice, itself a creature of state law, does not transform state law issues with state elections into federal questions for federal courts merely because resolution of the state law issues, by implication, could also inform litigation in the context of a federal election,” Myers added.
“In sum, the court finds that none of the three challenges in Griffin’s petition necessarily raise an issue of federal law, and his request for a declaration rejecting the State Board’s federal law arguments is simply an anticipatory effort at rebutting predictable federal defenses. Therefore, Griffin’ s petition does not arise under the laws of the United States, this court would not have had original jurisdiction over it, and removal … was improper,” Myers wrote.
Myers cited multiple reasons for his decision to abstain from hearing the case: “(1) the issues raised in Griffin’ s protests reflect unsettled questions of state constitutional and statutory law and bear directly on North Carolina’s right to self-government, (2) there is an existing dispute resolution process designated by state law, which a federal court should be hesitant to disrupt, (3) Griffin’s claims arise purely under state law, and (4) the federal interest in this case is tenuous, and a state tribunal is competent to protect federal constitutional rights. Taken together, those factors counsel in favor of abstention.”
“If our system of federalism is to exist in more than name only, it means that this court should abstain in this case, under these circumstances,” Myers added.
“The court ends as it began: a sitting state court judge seeks a writ of prohibition (a form of judicial relief authorized by the state constitution) from the state supreme court that would enjoin the state board of elections from counting votes for a state election contest that were cast by voters in a manner allegedly inconsistent with state law. A federal tribunal should ‘wise[ly] and productive[ly] discharge’ its ‘judicial duty’ by abstaining in such circumstances,” the order explained. “The issues of state law raised in this action are not just difficult and ‘disputed,’ they also go to the heart of North Carolina’s sovereign right ‘to establish and maintain [its] own separate and independent government.’”
Comments