On May 5, 2025, U.S. Chief District Judge Richard Meyer ordered the NC State Board of Elections to certify Democrat Allison Riggs as the winner of the 2024 NC Supreme Court election. The ruling ended a bitter six-month battle between Riggs and Republican challenger, NC Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, which cost each candidate roughly $2 million.
It was the last undecided state election in the United States. The bitter partisan battle attracted the attention of the national media, which saw one political party again seeking to use the courts to reverse an election defeat.
This was Riggs’ first election for a seat on the SCONC. She was appointed to the high court in 2023 by Gov. Roy Cooper to complete the term of Associate Justice Mike Morgan, who stepped down to pursue elective office.
A little over a month after Meyer’s ruling and two days before her investiture, Riggs talked about the election in an exclusive interview with Attorney at Law Magazine Executive Publisher Robert Friedman.
AALM: It’s been a little over a month since your election was certified. What are your thoughts now that you’ve had a chance to reflect?
AR: The media surge has died down. I want to be accountable and ensure that what I’m doing is transparent. So, in some ways, I just feel like the burden has shifted to me to make sure that what I’m doing is very accessible and available to the people of this state, which is important. That’s part of what I campaigned on, wanting a really transparent and accountable judiciary.
I am frustrated that the people of this state had to spend so much money, and I had to raise so much money, and that we had to litigate an issue. I said from day one, ‘Look, you can’t change the rules of an election after the election.’
I generally try to find a silver lining, so the silver lining is that I hope people realize how important our judiciary is. Ultimately, voters should decide elections, not judges or politicians. So, it may need to depend on a judge to self-regulate in order for that to be true. It’s important that we elect people to the bench who have a healthy respect for the power of the people in the state.
The fact that the immediacy of the frustration has passed doesn’t mean that I think we should forget the lessons learned about just how fragile our democracy is when people with power question election outcomes.
My situation serves as a warning about how important it is to get good judges who will defend democracy and respect the rule of law. We need to appreciate how quickly we can lose everything that we value if we keep letting the things that happened in 2020 and 2024 happen over and over again.
AALM: During the six-month post-election battle, there were a lot of questions about what could be done to prevent a situation like this from happening again. What are your suggestions?
AR: I walked away from this experience not necessarily having any immediate suggestions. What happened in the 2016 election and then to a less extent in this state in the 2020 election, but certainly in this state in the 2024 election, is a reminder that the legal system itself doesn’t have enough safeguards absent a bench and a bar willing to stand up for the rule of law.
I have a sense of gratitude for how much our system depends on having judges and attorneys who are willing to stand up and say what’s right and what’s wrong and be willing not to bow to political pressures. And I think at the end of the day, that’s what will save us.
AALM: You were the target of a partisan effort to suppress voters’ rights and steal an election. I can’t help but note the coincidence that (before you were an NCCOA Judge and then an SCONC Associate Justice, both in 2023) you were a civil rights lawyer at the nonprofit Southern Coalition for Social Justice, fighting gerrymandering and other voter suppression efforts to steal elections.
AR: The systems that I fought against, whether it was voter suppression or gerrymandering, were ultimately a threat to the power of voters to decide their own future. I’m not an advocate anymore. I’m a judge who looks very different.
Power is always jealous and greedy. And so, in my role as a public servant, as someone who was elected by the people, I think it’s a good reminder that we can always continue to make sure that the power is in the hands of the people. The people in this state spoke when they elected me, and it was my great honor to stand up for them in the six-month fight after the election, because it wasn’t about defending a political win, it was about defending what the people of this state had decided.
AALM: Former SCONC Justice Robin Hudson was the target of hate ads funded by out-of-state interests in her 2014 primary election, and we know out-of-state money tried to up-end your election. SCONC Justice Anita Earls’ 2026 re-election is expected to be a powerball powerplay.
AR: Certainly, the money trajectory is undeniable. Whether it’s the unchecked growth in the cost of elections or if it’s people realizing how much our courts matter, I don’t think there’s any way to combat what’s going to happen.
I think there are two sides to this. One is that I don’t know we were ever fooling anyone when there were independent groups going on the attack, and the judges were sort of there taking up space. I believe that candidates should connect with voters in a meaningful way, so voters get to know us, understand our values, and the way we approach problems and problem-solving, so they can make the most informed and educated decision on the ballot.
I don’t want the judicial races to be subjected to ad hominem attacks. I think we, as consumers of political communication, also have to be responsible in how we receive it. It’s going to take a little bit more work to have an informed electorate that’s willing to make the best choices. We’re going to have to make some more space for both dispersing and consuming political or election communications about the judiciary, if we’re going to level up what people understand the role of the courts to be.
AALM: Where do you stand on the role of judges, in terms of seeking to interpret the law versus legislating?
AR: It’s very clearly not our role to legislate from the bench, but obviously, reasonable minds are already in sharp disagreement about what constitutes interpreting the law and the Constitution versus legislating from the bench and our role to enforce the Constitution. It is something that is not just rubber stamping what the legislature does, and us enforcing the Constitution does not, in my mind, constitute legislating from the bench; it is us acting as an independent judiciary with full respect for our role in judicial review.
We need to do a better job of making our case that defending North Carolinians’ constitutional rights is not legislating from the bench. It’s we, as an independent judiciary, providing the checks and balances that North Carolinians expect from us as an independent branch of government.
The post NC Supreme Court Associate Justice Allison Riggs: ‘You Can’t Change the Rules of an Election After the Election’ appeared first on Attorney at Law Magazine.
On May 5, 2025, U.S. Chief District Judge Richard Meyer ordered the NC State Board of Elections to certify Democrat Allison Riggs as the winner of the 2024 NC Supreme Court election. The ruling ended a bitter six-month battle between Riggs and Republican challenger, NC Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin, which cost each candidate roughly $2 million.
It was the last undecided state election in the United States. The bitter partisan battle attracted the attention of the national media, which saw one political party again seeking to use the courts to reverse an election defeat.
This was Riggs’ first election for a seat on the SCONC. She was appointed to the high court in 2023 by Gov. Roy Cooper to complete the term of Associate Justice Mike Morgan, who stepped down to pursue elective office.
A little over a month after Meyer’s ruling and two days before her investiture, Riggs talked about the election in an exclusive interview with Attorney at Law Magazine Executive Publisher Robert Friedman.
AALM: It’s been a little over a month since your election was certified. What are your thoughts now that you’ve had a chance to reflect?
AR: The media surge has died down. I want to be accountable and ensure that what I’m doing is transparent. So, in some ways, I just feel like the burden has shifted to me to make sure that what I’m doing is very accessible and available to the people of this state, which is important. That’s part of what I campaigned on, wanting a really transparent and accountable judiciary.
I am frustrated that the people of this state had to spend so much money, and I had to raise so much money, and that we had to litigate an issue. I said from day one, ‘Look, you can’t change the rules of an election after the election.’
I generally try to find a silver lining, so the silver lining is that I hope people realize how important our judiciary is. Ultimately, voters should decide elections, not judges or politicians. So, it may need to depend on a judge to self-regulate in order for that to be true. It’s important that we elect people to the bench who have a healthy respect for the power of the people in the state.
The fact that the immediacy of the frustration has passed doesn’t mean that I think we should forget the lessons learned about just how fragile our democracy is when people with power question election outcomes.
My situation serves as a warning about how important it is to get good judges who will defend democracy and respect the rule of law. We need to appreciate how quickly we can lose everything that we value if we keep letting the things that happened in 2020 and 2024 happen over and over again.
AALM: During the six-month post-election battle, there were a lot of questions about what could be done to prevent a situation like this from happening again. What are your suggestions?
AR: I walked away from this experience not necessarily having any immediate suggestions. What happened in the 2016 election and then to a less extent in this state in the 2020 election, but certainly in this state in the 2024 election, is a reminder that the legal system itself doesn’t have enough safeguards absent a bench and a bar willing to stand up for the rule of law.
I have a sense of gratitude for how much our system depends on having judges and attorneys who are willing to stand up and say what’s right and what’s wrong and be willing not to bow to political pressures. And I think at the end of the day, that’s what will save us.
AALM: You were the target of a partisan effort to suppress voters’ rights and steal an election. I can’t help but note the coincidence that (before you were an NCCOA Judge and then an SCONC Associate Justice, both in 2023) you were a civil rights lawyer at the nonprofit Southern Coalition for Social Justice, fighting gerrymandering and other voter suppression efforts to steal elections.
AR: The systems that I fought against, whether it was voter suppression or gerrymandering, were ultimately a threat to the power of voters to decide their own future. I’m not an advocate anymore. I’m a judge who looks very different.
Power is always jealous and greedy. And so, in my role as a public servant, as someone who was elected by the people, I think it’s a good reminder that we can always continue to make sure that the power is in the hands of the people. The people in this state spoke when they elected me, and it was my great honor to stand up for them in the six-month fight after the election, because it wasn’t about defending a political win, it was about defending what the people of this state had decided.
AALM: Former SCONC Justice Robin Hudson was the target of hate ads funded by out-of-state interests in her 2014 primary election, and we know out-of-state money tried to up-end your election. SCONC Justice Anita Earls’ 2026 re-election is expected to be a powerball powerplay.
AR: Certainly, the money trajectory is undeniable. Whether it’s the unchecked growth in the cost of elections or if it’s people realizing how much our courts matter, I don’t think there’s any way to combat what’s going to happen.
I think there are two sides to this. One is that I don’t know we were ever fooling anyone when there were independent groups going on the attack, and the judges were sort of there taking up space. I believe that candidates should connect with voters in a meaningful way, so voters get to know us, understand our values, and the way we approach problems and problem-solving, so they can make the most informed and educated decision on the ballot.
I don’t want the judicial races to be subjected to ad hominem attacks. I think we, as consumers of political communication, also have to be responsible in how we receive it. It’s going to take a little bit more work to have an informed electorate that’s willing to make the best choices. We’re going to have to make some more space for both dispersing and consuming political or election communications about the judiciary, if we’re going to level up what people understand the role of the courts to be.
AALM: Where do you stand on the role of judges, in terms of seeking to interpret the law versus legislating?
AR: It’s very clearly not our role to legislate from the bench, but obviously, reasonable minds are already in sharp disagreement about what constitutes interpreting the law and the Constitution versus legislating from the bench and our role to enforce the Constitution. It is something that is not just rubber stamping what the legislature does, and us enforcing the Constitution does not, in my mind, constitute legislating from the bench; it is us acting as an independent judiciary with full respect for our role in judicial review.
We need to do a better job of making our case that defending North Carolinians’ constitutional rights is not legislating from the bench. It’s we, as an independent judiciary, providing the checks and balances that North Carolinians expect from us as an independent branch of government.
The post NC Supreme Court Associate Justice Allison Riggs: ‘You Can’t Change the Rules of an Election After the Election’ appeared first on Attorney at Law Magazine.
