North Carolina Court Orders Recount of 65,000 Votes in State Supreme Court Race

A ruling by the North Carolina Court of Appeals mandates a recount of over 65,000 votes, prompting appeals from the candidates involved in the contested election.

l 50%

c 25%

r 25%

NC appeals court gives 60,000 voters 15 days to prove eligibility - Washington Examiner

Washington Examiner

Things Are Getting Dire in That State Judicial Race the GOP Is Trying to Steal

Slate

North Carolina judges side with Republican colleague in close Supreme Court race

CNN

New court decision in a disputed North Carolina race means 65,000 votes are a step closer to be being thrown out

NBC News

Overview

A summary of the key points of this story verified across multiple sources.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled to recount over 65,000 votes in the closely contested Supreme Court race. Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin has claimed these votes may be ineligible, leading to a 15-day verification period for voters. Democrat Allison Riggs holds a narrow lead, and the decision is expected to be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Critics argue that the ruling risks disenfranchising lawful voters. The outcome of the recount could alter the state Supreme Court's balance, currently favoring Republicans.

Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.

Get both sides in 5 minutes with our daily newsletter.

Analysis

Compare how each side frames the story — including which facts they emphasize or leave out.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that over 65,000 ballots in a contested Supreme Court election must be verified for eligibility or potentially discarded, a decision that favors the Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin.
The ruling is seen by some as a solution to ensuring lawful voting, while critics argue it retroactively changes election rules to benefit Griffin and disenfranchises eligible voters.
The case is expected to escalate to the state Supreme Court, which has a Republican majority, raising concerns about partisanship influencing judicial outcomes.

How we categorize media bias