
Despite a decade of federal courts pulling back from safeguarding voting rights, they still seem unwilling to interfere after an election to alter vote-counting rules. A recent ruling, upholding a North Carolina Supreme Court race result, demonstrates this rejection of post-election subversion—attempts to overturn election results after they’re official.
This decision from North Carolina resonates widely, sending a strong signal to potential subverters of the 2026 elections: their efforts are unlikely to succeed.
The November 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election saw incumbent Justice Allison Riggs win by a mere 734 votes, a result confirmed by two recounts. Nevertheless, her opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin, challenged the outcome in state court, attempting to discard over 60,000 votes post-election. Griffin didn’t allege voter rule-breaking; instead, he argued for retroactive rule changes and the invalidation of ballots not complying with these new rules.
Initially, Griffin’s legal battle found some success in state courts. Both the North Carolina appeals court and the North Carolina Supreme Court considered invalidating some votes, a departure from other courts’ dismissals of similar claims in recent years.
Allowing these decisions to stand would have had severe consequences, setting a bad precedent in North Carolina and encouraging losing candidates to selectively invalidate votes. Rogue officials could have reinterpreted rules post-election, undermining the will of the people and enabling politicians to choose their voters.
However, when the case reached federal court, it was rejected as a tool for election subversion. A conservative federal judge, appointed by President Donald Trump, mandated the election’s certification in favor of Riggs, citing the violation of voters’ federal constitutional rights by changing rules after the election.
The court upheld the fundamental democratic principle that votes cast under established rules must be counted, preventing similar post-election challenges in the future. Following this ruling, Griffin conceded the race six months after the election.
This court’s decision isn’t isolated.
After the 2020 election, Trump and his allies launched numerous lawsuits challenging the results, which were repeatedly dismissed by the courts.
The 2022 and 2024 elections saw more sophisticated, but equally illegitimate, attempts to subvert elections through the courts. There were challenges to valid election results and a surge of pre-election litigation seemingly designed to create post-election disputes. Federal and state courts rejected these efforts.
This doesn’t mean federal courts can be relied upon to protect voting rights amidst the ongoing assault across the country. In fact, federal courts have recently made it harder to ensure fair rules and equal access to the ballot. Notably, the Supreme Court weakened key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder decision.
Since then, there have been unfavorable rulings limiting the ability to stop partisan gerrymandering in federal court and hindering efforts to stop restrictive voting rules during election years. Recently, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that, if upheld, would severely limit the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act by anyone other than the Justice Department in seven states. The federal judiciary’s retreat from its traditional role as a protector of voting rights has eroded trust in our elections.
However, at a time when election deniers spread misinformation, attempt to manipulate election processes, and employ extreme tactics, this North Carolina ruling sets a crucial boundary.
While our democracy isn’t perfect, this boundary is significant for upcoming elections. The message from federal courts is clear: you can’t “change the rules of the game after it had been played,” as the North Carolina district court stated.
“`