Sneak Preview: The RFK Jr Ballot Mess in North Carolina Was Just the Beginning

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts
Episode: Sneak Preview: The RFK Jr Ballot Mess in North Carolina Was Just the Beginning
Date: October 2, 2024
Main Theme:
This midweek, early-release bonus episode spotlights the legal and electoral turbulence triggered by the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ballot case in North Carolina. Host Dahlia Lithwick and Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern interview Justice Allison Riggs, Associate Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, diving into the immediate local impacts of climate disasters on elections, the complexities of running fair elections amid such crises, and the dangerous precedent set by recent judicial rulings that upend established norms and procedures.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Welcome and Context for the Conversation

• [00:00–01:54] Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Justice Riggs
  • The episode was released early due to the urgent importance of the discussed issues.
  • Justice Riggs is introduced as both a sitting justice and a candidate seeking to retain her seat, with a prior record as a voting rights litigator.
  • Constraints on judicial speech during campaigns are acknowledged.

2. The Human Impact of Recent Catastrophic Flooding in Western North Carolina

• [02:12–03:20] Justice Riggs
  • Riggs details the severe devastation in about 25 western counties:
    • Disrupted infrastructure, inaccessible Internet/cell service, and unsafe water.
    • These are already under-resourced counties now facing a “catastrophic” rebuilding job.
  • Emphasizes the community’s resilience and the continued efforts to aid those displaced.

Memorable Quote:

“There is either major disruption to infrastructure, inability to get Internet and cell service and questionable water. And those are sort of the basics. ... These are counties that are not well invested in to begin with. So rebuilding is going to take some time.”
— Justice Riggs [02:38]

3. Challenges of Conducting Elections Amid Disasters and the “New Normal”

• [03:20–07:08] Dahlia Lithwick, Justice Riggs
  • The current disaster is overlaid with the logistical difficulties of conducting elections—elections now increasingly occur amid climate-fueled catastrophic events.
  • The RFK Jr. ballot case had already delayed absentee voting by nearly three weeks before the floods compounded issues.
  • Riggs asserts that NC election officials are seasoned in crisis management but stresses the need for much greater investment and public trust in the system.
  • Warns against the erosion of faith in election administrators—demonization since 2020 has impaired support and resources.
  • Highlights the upcoming early voting date (Oct 17) and infrastructure challenges that may persist.
  • Pleads for making voting easier for affected mountain communities and avoiding further bureaucratic hardships.

Notable Quote:

“It does raise the question more broadly... we need to support election administration. It’s money. It’s trust and faith. It’s not interfering with the important work of democracy. ... We need to fund them. They are run and paid for largely at the local level.”
— Justice Riggs [05:27]

Memorable Image:

“There’s going to be roads that are still down and blocked... making sure that we can offer, make voting as easy as possible for folks. ... The resiliency runs deep. And also... we need to not make life harder for voters out there.”
— Justice Riggs [06:26]

4. The RFK Jr. Ballot Case: Legal Reasoning, Process, and Dissent

• [07:08–10:53] Mark Joseph Stern, Justice Riggs
  • North Carolina’s ballots were thrown into chaos due to last-minute litigation over Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s request to withdraw his name.
  • Justice Riggs explains:
    • Kennedy, after suspending his campaign in some states, sought to remove his name from the NC ballot—after ballots were printed.
    • The Board of Elections declined his request; a trial judge (Republican) upheld that decision.
    • The Court of Appeals overruled, ordering removal of Kennedy’s name and forcing ballots to be reprinted, days after absentee ballots were to be mailed.
    • This was affirmed in a 4–3 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling.
  • The ruling caused an almost three-week delay for overseas absentee voters and a severe strain on county-level election administration.
  • Justice Riggs’ dissent:
    • Stresses the statutory obligation to weigh administrative burden and practical realities.
    • Elevating individual “free speech” concerns (i.e., Kennedy’s right not to confuse voters) above the collective right to accessible absentee voting was, in her view, “very uneven.”
    • Riggs highlights not just the monetary cost, but the hidden labor and stress on election officials close to the election.
    • She calls the decision “a sad day for our state judiciary.”

Notable Quotes:

“I dissented in part because I think the statutory language is plain. When we are that close to an election, the State Board of Elections has to balance the equities of what’s going to impede the administration of elections: the cost, the time, and their perspective...”
— Justice Riggs [09:19]

“It really bothered me that we were elevating the free speech interests of one man over the constitutional interests of access to absentee voting, which makes voting easier. It felt very uneven in that and so I dissented.”
— Justice Riggs [10:13]

Key Takeaway:

• The decision underscores the dangers of judicial intervention in election administration at the last minute, eroding statutory stability and risking voter disenfranchisement for the benefit of high-profile plaintiffs.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “The devastation has been catastrophic in western North Carolina, probably in about 25 counties.”
  — Justice Riggs [02:38]

• “Election officials are really good at dealing with emergencies. Which is not to say we shouldn’t support them and have their back, but they are really good.”
  — Justice Riggs [04:57]

• “It does raise the question more broadly... we need to support election administration. It’s money. It’s trust and faith.”
  — Justice Riggs [05:27]

• “We were elevating the free speech interests of one man over the constitutional interests of access to absentee voting.”
  — Justice Riggs [10:13]

• “It was a sad day for our state judiciary.”
  — Justice Riggs [10:50]

---

Key Timestamps

• [02:38] — Justice Riggs details the scale of flooding devastation in 25 counties.
• [04:32] — How climate change is making disaster-driven election disruption the new normal.
• [05:27] — Call for more trust, faith, and funding for election administration.
• [07:28] — Riggs summarizes the facts and majority reasoning in the RFK Jr. ballot case.
• [09:19–10:50] — Riggs’ dissent: balancing election administration burdens, statutory clarity, and constitutional rights.

---

Conclusion

This episode gives listeners a rare, inside perspective on the interwoven challenges of electoral administration, climate disaster, and partisan judicial interventions in North Carolina—a state dubbed a “bellwether” for the nation. Justice Riggs’s candid, measured insights amplify the stakes: stable, well-funded, and respected election systems are essential bulwarks of democracy, especially as disasters of all kinds become the “new normal.”

To hear the entire extended interview with Justice Riggs, listeners are invited to subscribe to Slate Plus.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, and welcome to Amicus plus, the Cherry on top of Slate's podcast about the courts and the law and the Supreme Court. I'm Dahlia Lithwick.

[B]

And I'm Mark Joseph Stern.

[A]

And we are popping into your feed with this slightly unusual midweek episode because Mark and I just did an interview we kind of wanted to share with our subscribers as soon as we possibly could.

[B]

It's not exactly an emergency episode, but it is, in fact, urgently important. And so we're releasing the Amicus bonus episode early this week.

[A]

Joining us in the Amicus Plus VIP room is Justice Allison Riggs, Associate justice of the North Carolina State Supreme Court.

[B]

Justice Riggs is currently running to keep her seat on the court, and we wanted to talk to her about all things state races, voting and North Carolina.

[A]

And as you know, as amicus listeners, judges are always constrained by what they can and cannot say to the press. And certainly judges running for election have to be extra careful about what they say. Justice Riggs, to be clear, is not permitted to comment on cases currently before her at the court. She cannot forecast how she would rule on cases in the future or opine on the merits of judicial opinions that have been issued by state courts. But that said, Justice Riggs also has a long track record as a civil rights and voting rights litigator. And as you have heard us say so often on this show [e-mail], the magazine, this particular court in North Carolina is a bellwether, and this particular race tells us a whole lot about state Supreme Court races nationwide.

[B]

So Slate plus members have access to the extended version of this interview. If you want to listen to it in full, click try free at the top of the Amicus show page in Apple Podcasts, or go to slate.com amicusplus to unlock the full version of this interview.

[C]

Wherever you listen, Justice Riggs, Mark and.

[A]

I just want to start by extending to you a really heartfelt welcome to Amicus. We're always just, like, tickled when we get judges on the show because sometimes this kind of format can seem just very, very, very out of bounds for tourists. And yet we need to hear from you most of all. So welcome.

[C]

Thank you so much for having me. I really appreciate the opportunity to connect with the broader public.

[A]

And I think first and foremost, we just have to say that North Carolina has been in our thoughts and in our minds and our hearts the past few days. And so before we even get to the show, we wanted to check in and see, see how things are looking sort of out Your window from your court. What's happening on the ground there?

[C]

Yeah, it is a very difficult time. The devastation has been catastrophic in western North Carolina, probably in about 25 counties. There is either major disruption to infrastructure, inability to get Internet and cell service and questionable water. And those are sort of the basics. Supplies are another level. These are counties that are not well invested in to begin with. So rebuilding is going to take some time. And I'm in Charlotte now, which is still east of the devastation. But we're all praying and pulling for the folks out west and doing everything we can to help them get back on their feet.

[A]

It's hard to have this conversation with you and not be mindful of the fact that in 2020, Mark and I were doing these election shows in the mid of the pandemic. And now we're looking at election officials in dozens of precincts in the Southeast facing this monumental task of getting everything up and running. After all, the destruction and devastation from this climate change fueled historic flooding. And that means that the mail in voting that had already been delayed by nearly three weeks due to your court's decision in the RFK Jr case. We're going to talk about in a minute. That means that the heart hit counties were already way behind schedule. And I guess I just want to ask you the atmospherics question before we get to the sort of meat of it, which is it seems to me as though these catastrophes are the new normal and we are going to more and more live in a world in which this is how we vote. And I wonder what your immediate concerns are in terms of how voting is going to go in your state in the wake of these floods.

[C]

It's a challenging time to conduct elections during hurricane season in the southeast part of the country. What I can tell you is the east coast of North Carolina has dealt with this historically more when hurricanes hit our Atlantic coast. It's sadly not uncommon and it's becoming more common with climate change that the hurricanes are more frequent, they are of worsening severity. It's the odd situation that out west is feeling the brunt helene the way that they are. I would say our state board of elections and our local elections officials are really good at dealing with emergencies. Which is not to say we shouldn't support them and have their back, but they are really good. And our state board in particular is used to supporting county boards of elections in emergencies, whether it was Covid or usually it's eastern coast hurricanes. So I know and have complete faith that they are mobilizing to help these counties. But it, it does raise the question more broad, broadly. And this is personal to me because I was a voting rights attorney for so long that we need to support election administration. It's money. It's trust and faith. It's not interfering with the important work of democracy. It's the nuts and bolts of democracy. And so I think, unfortunately, particularly since 2020, instead of supporting our elections officials and having their back, we are casting aspersions on them or raising unfounded questions about the legitimacy or conduct of our elections. And that's really disappointing for me to see. But we can course correct and realize that elections cost money to run. We need to fund them. They are run and paid for largely at the local level. And so we really need to understand what happens at the state level may impact the local level. Early voting starts on October 17th here in North Carolina. And I think one of the biggest concerns is even though that's two and a half weeks from now, there's going to be roads that are still down and blocked. And so, you know, making sure that we can offer, make voting as easy as possible for folks that have, you know, I grew up in Appalachia. I know these mountains. The resiliency runs deep. And also, you know, we need to not make life harder for voters out there. And that means, you know, not trying to mess with the machinery of elections in a way that creates further burdens.

[B]

So, speaking of making life harder for voters, and specifically the RFK Jr case, Dalia and I had a conversation a few weeks back about how North Carolina ballots had basically been thrown into chaos. And I know you're limited on what you can say here, but could you just remind listeners of the reasoning in that case that was put forth by a majority of your court?

[C]

I can talk about the facts of the case, the reasoning of the majority, and my dissent. And I did dissent. So this was a case that was after Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Had decided to, quote, unquote, suspend his campaign. He indicated that he wanted to pull his name off the ballot in swing states, but he still wanted to run for president, stay on the ballot in other states, and saw a pathway for him to win if there was some kind of contested election down the road. But after a large number of ballots had already been printed, he asked the state Board of Elections to remove his name. And when they declined under their statutory authority, he sued a trial court with a trial court judge who was a Republican. And it's a long story. We have partisan judicial elections in North Carolina. I'm sure we'll talk about that. But a judge said no, it's too late. You know, probably a lot of your listeners have heard of the Purcell Principle, which is maybe don't change the rules of an election too close to the election. She said no to that. The Court of Appeals, in an order with explanation, stayed that and ordered the State Board of elections to remove Mr. Kennedy's name from the ballot. It came up to my court a fast tracked petition. In a 4, 3 vote, our court decided to uphold the Court of Appeals to order the State Board of Elections to reprint millions of ballots three days after absentee ballots were supposed to be mailed out. The State Board of Elections had predicted that about two weeks loss of absentee voting. It actually ended up being closer to three weeks. It was two weeks for UACAVA voters, the Uniform Overseas Citizens Voting Law. The majority thought that the constitutional interest of voters to not be confused by the names on their ballot was of utmost importance. There were three separate dissents. I dissented in part because I think the statutory language is plain. When we are that close to an election, the State Board of Elections has to balance the equities of what's going to impede the administration of elections. The cost, the time and their perspective, which I emphasized in my dissent, is that this is not just the sheer cost of reprinting ballots, which is enormous and is borne by the counties. It is the time it takes to reformat and review and all the work that people don't appreciate that happens behind the scenes. That's a burden on election officials as their workload and burden is climbing precipitously in the run up to an election. And it really bothered me that we were elevating the free speech interests of one man over the constitutional interests of access to absentee voting, which makes voting easier. It felt very uneven in that and so I dissented. I thought it was a sad day for our state judiciary. That decision.

[A]

The rest of this episode is available exclusively to Slate plus members. Join now by clicking Try Free at the top of the Amicus show page on Apple podcasts or visit slate.comamicus plus to get access wherever you listen. By subscribing to Slate plus, not only will you unlock weekly bonus episodes from Amicus, but you'll also get full access to all your favorite Slate podcasts, all ad free.