Longtime N.C. Voters May Have Their Ballots Wrongfully Tossed in Supreme Court Race

It didn’t take long to find a Greensboro voter at imminent risk of having their ballot discarded from last year’s Supreme Court election. And for some, the issues can’t be corrected.

Vidyaranya Gargeya is a retired professor who taught at UNC-Greensboro for 30 years who, according to the school, has visited every college in the state. He’s paid property taxes at the same suburban Guilford County home he’s owned since 2003, according to public records. And voting records show he voted in-person on Election Day eight times without issue, and has voted in every midterm and presidential general election since 2006. He appears to have cast an overseas mail-in ballot for the 2024 election.

But a protest filed by Republican Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin labeled Gargeya as a “never resident.” On Friday, the state Supreme Court directed the State Board of Elections to promptly remove 260 never-resident ballots without any opportunity for remedy or discussion, including Gargeya’s.

A 4-2 decision written by Republican Supreme Court Justice Trey Allen and joined by justices Paul Newby, Tamara Barringer, and Phil Berger Jr., labeled these people as “overseas voters who have never lived in North Carolina and have never expressed an intent to live in North Carolina.” Those ballots should be immediately removed from the count, they ruled.

On Saturday, this reporter visited 30 households across Greensboro to try to reach impacted voters. When approached at their front door, parents, siblings, and spouses answered. Many were confused as to why their loved one’s vote was on Griffin’s protest list. That confusion quickly shifted to frustration, curiosity, and a sense of helplessness. 

Nobody answered Gargeya’s front door, but his nextdoor neighbor, Jimmy Donahue, confirmed Gargeya still lives there, adding that their families recently had dinner together. Efforts to reach Gargeya by phone and email over the weekend were unsuccessful. 

Also on the list of “never residents” is Josiah Young, a 20-year-old Jackson County voter who was born and raised in Western North Carolina, played basketball for Jackson County Early College, and now runs a drone photography business.  

Young said in an interview on Monday, after this story first published, that he requested an overseas ballot last year because he was studying abroad in Spain. He said he’s never been out of the country for more than three to four months at a time, which includes his time in Spain.

He said he voted for Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs in the November election and learned through a family friend a couple months ago that he was on the Griffin protest list. But he was surprised to find out in an interview with The Assembly that he’s in a protest category where voters are given no remedy or opportunity to address any concerns Griffin has.

“It just shows that there’s really no interest in them trying to find out if these ballots are actual citizens or not,” Young said. “It’s clearly just to give [Griffin] an advantage in this election. If they wanted to look into this even just a little bit, it’s pretty clear that my residence is in Jackson County. It’s really not that hard to figure that out.”

Gargeya, Young, and several others The Assembly identified appear to have, in fact, lived in North Carolina. Even for those included on the count that have not lived in the state, their removal would occur despite no evidence that they acted unlawfully.

A 2011 measure, passed unanimously by the General Assembly allowed certain military and overseas voters to cast a ballot for state-level races. The State Board of Elections also adopted a rule last year, which went through the Republican-controlled Rules Review Commission without issue. In December, the state elections board reached a unanimous decision to reject  Griffin’s protest of these voters.

Gerry Cohen, a member of the Wake County Board of Elections who has more than 40 years of experience in state and local government, said the “never residents” were given that label by Griffin’s campaign if a voter checked a box on a Federal Post Card Application that read, “I am a U.S. citizen living outside the country, I have never lived in the United States.” Cohen said voters may have very well checked the box in error.

Young said it’s possible he checked that box, but can’t remember.

A data review of the voters at issue further complicates matters.

Of the 260 “never residents,” 57 are also included in a separate protest over military and overseas ballots that lack photo ID. In its ruling, the Supreme Court also extended the cure period for military and overseas voters from 15 business days to 30 calendar days after the mailing of notice to voters. But this raises questions of whether the 57 voters on both lists should be entitled to a 30-day window, too. 

“We are in a very large gray legal area as to which category these folks fall into,” said Michael Bitzer, a Catawba College political scientist. “When you’ve got this kind of cross-listing occurring, it only poses further legal mystery and confusion.”

Bitzer, Western Carolina University political scientist Chris Cooper, and research fellow at the conservative John Locke Foundation Jim Stirling reviewed and agreed with the assessment of the data, which was provided through a public records request with the State Board of Elections.

‘They’re Trying to Steal the Votes’

Driving around Greensboro’s Bluffs neighborhood, there’s no shortage of families Griffin’s protest of military and overseas voters has affected— people who were explicitly advised by state elections officials last year that they didn’t need to provide photo ID. 

On nearly every street, there is someone at those voters’ permanent addresses infuriated to learn that their family member is on the list. Many of those voters are still abroad for some combination of school, work, or military service. 

In Guilford, 1,409 voters may soon have a mere 30 days to show such documentation if they want their votes to count. So could 4,000 additional voters from Buncombe, Durham and Forsyth counties.

Barry Cantrell, a 59-year-old creative director from Greensboro, was surprised when this reporter knocked on the door on Saturday to inform him that his daughter, Condie, is at risk of having her vote removed from the count if she doesn’t meet a 30-day response deadline. But she is currently teaching in Japan. 

“It’s bullshit,” Cantrell said. “She voted, she followed the rules, she did everything she was supposed to do. And now, they’re discounting her vote. It’s completely political.”

He said he and his daughter both voted for Riggs. He sees the effort to remove his daughter’s vote as a “political ploy” by Republicans to overcome Griffin’s 734-vote defeat.

“They are trying to get their conservative person elected, so if they didn’t get enough votes, they’re trying to steal the votes or trying to rob the votes away from the people who voted rightfully,” Cantrell said.

Indeed, Griffin’s supporters prioritized populous, heavily Democratic counties in their protests. A data review of Griffin’s remaining protests show registered Democrats and unaffiliated voters are five times more likely than Republicans to be at risk of having their ballots removed from the count.

A spokesperson for the North Carolina Republican Party didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Paul Shumaker, a spokesman for Griffin’s campaign, said the campaign won’t have any further comment “until there are any substantial developments.”

“It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election,” Democratic Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls wrote in a partial dissent on Friday. “Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate.”

Republican Justice Richard Dietz also worried about the precedent his colleagues created. “The door is open for losing candidates to try this sort of post-election meddling in state court in the future,” he wrote. “We should not allow that.” 

Riggs recused herself from the case, but expressed disappointment with the court’s ruling. Her campaign didn’t provide immediate comment on what its next steps would be to safeguard impacted voters, including those who appear wrongly labeled as “never residents.”

Frustrated Families

The State Board of Elections is now awaiting guidance from the North Carolina Court of Appeals before implementing a 30-day “cure” period for voters like Condie Cantrell to provide a photo ID. Riggs’ campaign appealed the order to a federal judge, who then directed the State Board of Elections to proceed with the Supreme Court’s order but hold off on certifying the election results.

Barring a federal appeals court stepping in, the presumed next step would be for county elections officials to notify people like Cantrell that her ballot will only be counted if she provides some form of photo identification within the 30-day period.

Since she’s in Japan, that raises questions as to whether 30 days will be enough time for her to receive official notice from North Carolina, let alone respond to it. Her family isn’t the only one concerned.

Olivia Seeger is a Meredith College alum who was completing a doctorate in marine biology at the time of the election and remains in Australia. She’d have little time to correct any concerns over her ballot.

“I don’t like the 30-day shot clock because it might take two weeks to get the information over to Australia if you mail it,” said Chuck Seeger, Olivia’s father.

Seeger said he’s particularly disturbed that servicemembers are in danger of having their votes removed from the count. While he supports photo ID laws to ensure legitimate votes are counted, he said such barriers for members of the military are unnecessary. 

“They’re in the military,” Seeger said. “They couldn’t get a ballot if it’s not through the military. They already have ID.”

Erik Stubbs, who is living in Canada, is also among the voters Griffin is challenging. His father, Clyde, jokingly extended an offer for Griffin to meet him in a boxing ring to decide the fate of his son’s vote. “They messed with the wrong…,” he said, pausing for a moment, “…caring person.”

Thomas Espinola, a professor at Guilford College whose son, Benjamin, is on the list of challenged voters, said he’s frustrated with what he sees as a broader threat Republicans are posing. Attempts to reach the son before publication were unsuccessful.

“It is disturbing to have what is basically an attack on democracy,” Espinola said.

Voters and their families will need clarity from the North Carolina Court of Appeals and state and local elections officials over how to proceed. Even so, any forthcoming guidance could ultimately get undercut by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Representatives for the State Board of Elections and North Carolina Court of Appeals Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson didn’t provide immediate comment on what the next steps will be for voters and who exactly is still subject to Griffin’s protests.

Graham Wilson, a spokesman for the court system, said in an emailed statement to The Assembly, “The Court of Appeals opinion and Supreme Court order speak for themselves.”

Lots of Questions, Few Answers

On Saturday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Richard Myers ordered the State Board of Elections to disclose the number of potentially affected voters and the counties where those ballots came. The Trump-appointed judge gave the state elections board a Tuesday deadline.

Myers also said the state Supreme Court race couldn’t be certified until he ruled on the dispute, which wouldn’t happen until April 28 at the earliest.

In the meantime, the North Carolina Court of Appeals must revise its initial ruling and follow the state Supreme Court’s guidance that 60,273 voters who lacked a driver’s license number or last four digits of their Social Security number on a voter registration database should be allowed to have their ballots stand. 

Democrats and Republicans alike also await clarity as to whether there are 1,409 or 5,509 military and overseas voters subject to the 30-day deadline. Griffin initially contested the ballots of 1,409 Guilford County voters. He then sought to have an additional 4,000 from Buncombe, Durham, and Forsyth counties removed from the count. It remains unclear which subset of voters are subject to the Supreme Court’s order and initial Court of Appeals ruling.

The State Board of Elections didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment as to how many outstanding ballots remain in dispute for military and overseas voters. But it has voiced uncertainty as to what happens next.

“The State Board understands there may be further proceedings in federal court before this matter is fully resolved,” the NCSBE said in a statement, adding that elections staff “will provide instructions for county boards of elections and affected voters on how to comply” with incoming court orders.

It could be anywhere from a few days to several months before the next state Supreme Court justice is determined.

At minimum, the Supreme Court’s latest order would impact 1,654 North Carolinians–the 260 “never resident” voters from across the state, and 1,394 Guilford County military and overseas voters who aren’t also in the “never resident” category. 

If those figures hold, Riggs would almost assuredly hold her lead over Griffin. Griffin would need more than 72.2 percent of those voters to have cast a ballot for Riggs—a statistical improbability, according to Stirling, the conservative research fellow.

But if the state Supreme Court’s order encompasses the additional 4,000 military and overseas voters in Buncombe, Durham, and Forsyth counties, Griffin could plausibly overcome his deficit. 

This story has been updated with additional comment.

Bryan Anderson is a freelance reporter who most recently covered elections, voting access, and state government for WRAL-TV. He previously reported for the Associated Press and The News & Observer. You can subscribe to his newsletter here.