North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs is seeking reelection, positioning abortion rights as a pivotal theme in her campaign. In a recent advertisement supported by groups like EMILY’s List and Planned Parenthood, Riggs emphasized the importance of women controlling their reproductive health. She targeted her opponent, Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, who advocates for a total abortion ban without exceptions, asserting that her role could directly influence the legality of such measures. Riggs pledged to defend reproductive rights, emphasizing her commitment to protecting families like her own, which speaks directly to a significant base of voters concerned about reproductive freedoms.
In reaction to Riggs’ campaign approach, three Republican state senators filed a formal complaint with the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission, citing concerns over her adherence to the Code of Judicial Conduct. In a letter shared with the Carolina Journal, Senators Buck Newton, Amy Galey, and Danny Britt expressed that Riggs seemed more focused on electoral success than on upholding judicial ethics. According to the Code, judicial candidates should not take stances on issues that may come before the court, and the senators accused Riggs of violating this by attacking her opponent on specific legal topics that are likely to be litigated in her court.
The tension escalated as Riggs’ opponent, Judge Jefferson Griffin, launched an advertisement labeling her a “radical liberal” and referencing the complaint against her. In a demonstration of defiance, Riggs publicized the correspondence between the senators and the Judicial Standards Commission, denying any misconduct. She emphasized her campaign’s core message—transparency, integrity, and reproductive freedom—while challenging the legitimacy of the accusations. Riggs argued that the use of the Judicial Standards Commission for political gains represents a dangerous precedent that threatens judicial independence and accountability in the electoral process.
Following the initial complaint, Riggs and her attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter to the North Carolina Republican Party, challenging claims of an ongoing investigation into her conduct. In that letter, they asserted that while there were inquiries into her ethical compliance, there was no formal investigation, and Riggs deemed the party’s statements as unfounded and defamatory. The Republican Party countered, clarifying that their communication was based on the active scrutiny of Riggs by the commission, arguing that the distinction between a formal investigation and scrutiny was irrelevant to the public interest in her conduct.
Democrat Governor Roy Cooper appointed Riggs to her current position in September 2023, after her previous appointment to the state appellate court. Riggs has a background with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which has advocated for various progressive legal initiatives. In contrast, Griffin contends that judges should interpret the law rather than create it and has labeled Riggs’ career as one marked by political divisiveness. This disagreement highlights the broader ideological rift between the two candidates, centering on concepts of judicial philosophy, namely originalism, which Griffin supports and Riggs condemns as extreme.
The stakes of this judicial election extend beyond individual candidates, potentially altering the ideological balance of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Currently, Republicans hold a 5-2 majority, but a victory for Griffin would shift that to a 6-1 advantage. This increase could entrench conservative legal philosophies more firmly within the state’s judicial system, impacting future rulings on critical social issues, including reproductive rights. As the campaign unfolds, the conflict between Riggs and Griffin encapsulates the larger national debates surrounding judicial independence, political influence, and the ongoing battle over reproductive rights in America.
