The North Carolina Supreme Court demands Republicans justify ongoing election lawsuits, hinting at dismissal for mootness post-2024 race resolution.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. โ The North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday ordered Republican plaintiffs to explain why their election-related lawsuits should continue, signaling the cases may be dismissed as moot nearly a year after the contested 2024 election.
The court issued identical orders in two separate cases brought by the Republican National Committee, the North Carolina Republican Party, and individual voters challenging how the state handled overseas ballots and voter registration requirements during the November 2024 election.
Both orders give plaintiffs 30 days to justify “what relief, if any” they are still seeking and “whether the relief sought is now moot or otherwise not justiciable.”
The race surrounding the litigation was over a state Supreme Court seat and was resolved in May 2025 when Democrat Allison Riggs was declared the winner and Republican Jefferson Griffin conceded.
The first case challenged North Carolina’s implementation of a law allowing overseas U.S. citizens who never lived in the state to vote using a parent’s former North Carolina address. Republicans argued this violated the state constitution’s residency requirements and illegally allowed non-residents to vote in state and local elections.
The Democratic National Committee intervened to defend the practice, arguing in court filings that the relief Republicans sought was “preempted by federal law” under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and barred by both the U.S. and North Carolina constitutions. The DNC also contended that individual plaintiffs lacked standing because vote “dilution” is not a recognized injury under North Carolina law.
The second case focused on approximately 225,000 voter registrations accepted over more than a decade despite missing required identification information. Republicans alleged that at least 60,000 of those voters cast ballots in the 2024 election and sought to have those votes removed from official tallies.
The DNC countered that the challenge violated multiple federal voting rights laws, including the National Voter Registration Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Democrats also argued that plaintiffs improperly circumvented state procedures for challenging voter registrations and failed to join the voters they sought to disenfranchise as required parties in the lawsuit.
Both cases were filed by GOP operative Telia Kivett and other Republican plaintiffs represented by attorneys Phillip Strach and Jordan Koonts.
The Democratic National Committee intervened in the second case to defend the ballot counting.
Justice Allison Riggs recused herself from both cases.
The parties must file their responses by early March 2026.
