The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected on Wednesday the request of the candidate who was trailing in a very close race to win a seat at this court, asking for an immediate ruling on whether or not well over 60,000 votes should be removed.

The justices instead ordered that Jefferson Griffin’s appeals against the State Board of Elections decision to continue counting ballots be heard first by the local trial courts, since state law requires appeals of board decisions begin in the trial court.

The rejection of Griffin’s legal motion to bypass Wake County Superior Court may slow down efforts to determine if he, or current Associate Judge Allison Riggs (a Democrat), will win an 8-year term.

Riggs is ahead of Griffin, a judge at the Court of Appeals for the Intermediate Level (more than 5.5 million votes cast), after recounts.

1776 Coalition Sponsored Dems Seek to Nuke Trump Nominees Senate Conservatives Fund is fighting to confirm Trump’s cabinet nominees, but Chuck Schumer and the Left are attacking hard. Stand with Senators Cruz, Lee, Hawley, and others as they battle for America’s future!

Griffin’s request for a writ of “prohibition” was dismissed unanimously by the six justices deliberating the case. Riggs, who is still seated on the court, recused herself from the case. In its order, the court described such a writ of prohibition as “extraordinary.”

The order instructs the Wake County Court to “proceed promptly” in examining Griffin’s appeals, as Election Day was 2 1/2 months prior. The protest appeals could end up in the Supreme Court.

It was surprising that the dismissal came at such a time. The order was given as the justices received legal briefs on the issue from both the candidates and state board. The schedule for briefings was due to end on Friday.

The temporary stay issued by the Republican-majority Supreme Court on Jan. 7, which prevented the board from officially certifying Riggs the winner of the election, remains in effect.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not stop the scheduled oral arguments at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Riggs and Griffin, as well as the state board, among other parties.

In this case, federal judges are deciding whether Griffin’s questions about the 66,000 ballots should be heard in federal court. Lawyers representing Riggs, the board and others claim that the issue involves federal election and voting law. Griffin’s side argues that it should be handled in state court.

Griffin’s attorneys claim that the absentee and early ballots in question were cast without following state laws governing registration, residency, and photo identification. They contend that the State Board of Elections did not enforce these laws. Even removing a small portion of the vote count could change the outcome.

Riggs said that the votes were legal and her lawyers accuse Griffin, of trying to reverse an election by removing the ballots of long-time and legitimate voters and violating their rights.

The order of Wednesday was accompanied by the written opinions of five out six justices who heard the case.

Chief Justice Paul Newby – one of the five Republicans on the court – defended Griffin’s right to file protests, as allowed by state law, and criticized those who claimed Griffin wanted to “disenfranchise voters” and deliberately delay certification.

Newby noted that it took months, or even longer, to resolve some of the contested elections previously held in North Carolina.

Griffin was initially ahead by 10,000 votes, but Griffin’s lead dwindled over the next few days as absentee and provisional ballots were counted. Riggs took the lead in the end.

Newby wrote that it was “understandable” that the petitioner, as well as many North Carolina residents, were “questioning this outcome.” Griffin also “has the legal right to investigate this result through the statutorily-enacted procedures that are available to him.”

Anita Earls wrote, as the sole Democrat in the case, that the temporary stay preventing Riggs from being certified should also have been dismissed.

Earls wrote: “In trying to invalidate over 60,000 votes, Judge Griffin has not been able to identify one single voter who cast a fraudulent ballot without being qualified to do so under the laws in this state.”

Earls said that she also perceived “a message in this order as to the Court’s preferred outcome”, to overturn the result. She wrote that she was confident in the ability of the judges to evaluate these claims fairly.