Rumplestiltskin Is Dragging the Allison Riggs Case

 

Lynn Bonner, for NCNewsline:

Chief Justice Paul Newby

The [Paul Newby] state Supreme Court has rejected a request to speed up the case Judge Jefferson Griffin brought against the state Board of Elections in his attempt to win a seat on the high court.

The State Board and Justice Allison Riggs wanted the case to go right from the trial court, where they won, to the Supreme Court, skipping the Appeals Court. Griffin opposed the move.

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Board and Riggs’ request in a 4-2 vote.

What it's really about:

If the Appeals Court rules in Griffin’s favor, and the Supreme Court splits 3-3, the Appeals Court decision will stand. In a previous order, three of the Republican Supreme Court justices indicated they are open to Griffin’s arguments. [Republicans have an 11-4 numerical advantage on the NC Court of Appeals. The three Supremes who said they were "open" to Griffin -- Newby, Phil Berger Jr., and Tamara Barringer.]

If the Supreme Court had split 3-3 after agreeing to take the case directly from the trial court, the trial court’s decision in favor of Riggs and the Board would have stood.

Chief Justice Paul Newby is not anything if not a highly partisan, self-righteous, and spiteful ... lawyer. Parroted by two highly partisan associate justices, Baby Berger and Tamara. 

In her dissent, Associate Justice Anita Earls was as incisive and brilliant as she always is. She wrote that skipping the Appeals Court "would have been in keeping with past practice in other cases": 

Judge Riggs 

“There is strong justification for this Court to expeditiously address, with transparency, the significant issues in this case that go to the heart of what democracy requires under the state Constitution,” she wrote.

“Judge Jefferson Griffin’s opposition to the bypass petition begins by asserting that this Court should not hear this case because, as a Court of six members, we might split 3-3 leaving the lower court’s ruling as the final ruling in the case. In other words, he asks us not to hear the case because he might lose. Such outcome-determined reasoning has no place in a court committed to the rule of law.”

In a statement last night, Judge Riggs [who has recused herself from this case] said. “No matter how long this drags out, I will continue to defend our state and federal Constitutions and North Carolinians’ fundamental freedoms. As constitutional officers, judges must respect the will of voters. My commitment to upholding the rule of law is why voters elected me to keep my seat more than 3 months ago.”