In this moment of crisis, the courts have become the final guardrail against the forces of authoritarianism that seek to undermine the will of the voters.

The GOP is trying to overturn a closely watched North Carolina Supreme Court election where two recounts show Democratic Justice Allison Riggs holding on to her seat by 734 votes.

Ian McPherson reads names from a list of over 60,000 people who cast ballots in the November election but whose votes have been challenged by Republican state Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin in his extremely close race with Demcorat Allison Riggs on January 14, 2025, in Raleigh, North Carolina. Chris Seward/AP

Trump says he’ll have Republican National Committee chair Michael Whatley working on hurricane relief matters instead of using the Federal Emergency Management Agency

The North Carolina Supreme Court has dismissed a request by the trailing candidate in an close race for a seat on the court to rule now on whether well over 60,000 ballots should be removed from the tally.

The N.C. Supreme Court is weighing whether to toss out more than 60,000 ballots cast in the race for a seat on that tribunal. That race is the last uncertified statewide contest in the nation.

One of North Carolina's most consequential 2024 races remains undecided, as a challenge mounted by the race's apparent loser is on an anything-but-straightforward path through state and federal courts.

Voting may have finished months ago, but Republicans are still trying to change the outcome of one North Carolina election. The plan? Throw out more than 60,000 ballots in a race that will determine the balance of the state’s Supreme Court. Now ...

Republican Jefferson Griffin is trying to overturn his election loss by asking the North Carolina Supreme Court to toss 5,500 military and overseas absentee ballots. He used the same method to vote in 2019 and 2020.

The state's high court ruled that the challenge of the validity of more than 60,000 votes must be heard by the Wake County Superior Court first.

A contentious legal battle over whether to seat one of its own members threatens not only the future of the court's ideological balance, but its role in the public sphere