Connect with us

News

A Republican court candidate in North Carolina wants to toss out thousands of votes

Published

on

A Republican court candidate in North Carolina wants to toss out thousands of votes

Standing in front of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Raleigh on Jan. 14, Ted Corcoran reads a list of over 60,000 people who cast ballots in the November 2024 election but whose votes have been challenged by Republican court candidate Jefferson Griffin in his extremely close race with Democratic Justice Allison Riggs.

Chris Seward/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Chris Seward/AP

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Tory Grimm-Oropesa moved to Charlotte from northern California in 2022. She then voted in two elections without incident. But after voting in November of last year, she received an unusual piece of mail.

“I got a postcard in the mail with a QR code on it that said my ballot was being challenged,” she said.

That postcard was from the campaign of Republican Jefferson Griffin, in a contest for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court. After two recounts in the swing state, Griffin is trailing Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs by a miniscule 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million ballots cast.

Advertisement

Griffin hasn’t pointed to any case of voter fraud, but he is contesting Grimm-Oropesa’s vote — along with roughly 65,000 others.

His challenge means that a bitter fight over a state high court seat is still working its way through the courts, more than 80 days after Election Day.

The next step comes Monday, when the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments, before ultimately deciding whether the case should be decided in federal court or in state court.

Meanwhile, Grimm-Oropesa is upset.

“It’s not a matter of I did something wrong or I’m trying to cheat in voting,” she said. “I voted in three different elections now, perfectly fine, never had an issue. So I don’t understand why this one and just this one result should be thrown out.”

Advertisement

3 buckets of challenged ballots

Riggs was appointed to the North Carolina Supreme Court in 2023 by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper. She has recused herself from this case, and possibly deciding her own election.

But she has publicly criticized Griffin’s challenge. In a recent statement, Riggs said Griffin was wasting taxpayer dollars in “a baseless attempt to overturn his electoral loss.”

Griffin has said he can’t comment on his legal effort.

The list of challenged voters includes some elected officials. It also includes Riggs’ parents. The contested ballots are in three buckets:

  • A little more than 60,000 of them are due to voters having incomplete registrations. At one point, North Carolina’s voter registration forms didn’t explicitly say that a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number were needed. More than 200,000 voters statewide are believed to have missing information.
  • Griffin is also challenging a small group of overseas voters who haven’t lived in North Carolina. 
  • And then roughly 5,500 of the challenged ballots are also from overseas. Those voters didn’t show a copy of their photo ID when voting, and Griffin has argued they should be thrown out. These challenged ballots come from just four Democratic-leaning counties in the state.

The state Board of Elections had approved rules that didn’t require photo ID for overseas ballots. Those rules were then unanimously approved in March by the North Carolina Rules Review Commission, whose 10 members were selected by the Republican leaders of the state House and Senate.

And both Republicans and Democrats on the state Board of Elections in December rejected Griffin’s push to disqualify those voters.

Advertisement

Certification of the election has been blocked

GOP political consultant Paul Shumaker, who advised Griffin’s campaign, said it’s reasonable for a court to review the decisions made by the elections board and other agencies — even if they were bipartisan.

“Why are we going to have an appointed board be the final determination of the interpretation of our laws? Do we really want that?” he said. “We have judicial review of the legislative process. [What] about judicial [review] of the administrative process and how our elections are handled?”

The North Carolina Supreme Court has blocked certification of the election. But last week it said the challenge should first be heard in lower state courts, a setback for Griffin.

However Chief Justice Paul Newby, a Republican, appeared to support Griffin’s challenge. He also cast doubt over the entire election process.

In the ruling, he said Riggs’ ability to erase Griffin’s lead of 10,000 votes on election night was a “highly unusual course of events.” (It’s common in elections for one candidate to appear to be leading and then fall behind as all results are tallied.)

Advertisement

Newby wrote: “[T]his case is not about deciding the outcome of an election. It is about preserving the public’s trust and confidence in our elections through the rule of law.”

The state Board of Elections, which has a Democratic majority, has said the post-Election Day counting of mail ballots and provisional ballots followed state law.

Some Republicans are uneasy with Griffin’s challenge

As the dispute has dragged on, some Republicans say Griffin has gone too far.

Republican state Supreme Court Justice Richard Dietz wrote earlier this month that it would invite “incredible mischief” to have post-election litigation that “seeks to rewrite our state’s election rules” and “remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules.”

Andrew Dunn, the communications director on an unsuccessful GOP campaign for governor four years ago, said the Democratic Party’s talk about threats to democracy are, in his view, usually overblown.

Advertisement

“However this case to me is different,” he said. “This case is about complaining about the results of an election and trying to go back and retroactively disqualify voters who cast ballots in good faith.”

Depending on court rulings, the state supreme court race could be re-tabulated — or a new election could be ordered.

Meanwhile, voters like Annie Rickenbaugh of Charlotte wonder if their challenged ballots will still count.

“I’m a regular person trying to pay my rent,” she said. “I don’t want to have to deal with this.”

She said she went to the county board of elections to re-register in the hopes her ballot is never challenged again.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Video: The Counties Where Trump Made Gains

Published

on

Video: The Counties Where Trump Made Gains

We look at “triple-trending counties,” where either the Republicans or the Democrats gained vote share in all of the last three presidential elections. Shane Goldmacher, a national political correspondent for The New York Times, shows that President Trump has gained ground as the country’s political geography has realigned.

Continue Reading

News

How Heineken tapped into China’s beer market

Published

on

How Heineken tapped into China’s beer market

Western consumer brands in China have long been coming to terms with the prospect of lower growth in the world’s second-largest economy. But demand for Heineken’s beers tells a different story.

In 2023, sales volumes for the Dutch lager maker’s various brands, including Amstel, rose more than 50 per cent. Last year, as the overall mainland China beer market shrank, its volumes increased nearly 20 per cent to just under 700mn litres — almost enough to serve a pint to everyone in the country.

Heineken’s growth comes after a deal agreed in 2018 with China Resources Beer, China’s biggest brewer, which gave the state-owned group rights to the brand on the mainland while Heineken took a stake in China Resources Beer and gets royalties from the deal.

The approach points to pockets of opportunity for well-known foreign names in China’s fast-evolving consumer sector, even if the wider markets in which they operate are saturated.

“This is a very healthy transactional relationship,” said Tristan van Strien, global investor relations director at Heineken of the relationship with China Resources Beer. “They need us and we need them.”

Advertisement

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

Heineken’s growth rates “have undoubtedly outperformed”, said Euan McLeish, an analyst at Bernstein. “None of the other premium brands have been talking about double digits.” 

China’s overall beer market is in decline. Sales fell an estimated 4 to 5 per cent last year amid concerns over consumer confidence.

But for China Resources Beer, whose sales dropped 2.5 per cent in 2024, Heineken is a pick-me-up.

Its deal with Heineken gave it rights to the Dutch beer in China for an initial 20 years, in exchange for a stake in one of its holding companies that gives Heineken an effective interest of about 21 per cent in China Resources Beer.

Advertisement
The boxes are moving along a conveyor belt
Cartons of Heineken beer on the assembly line at the Jiashan factory in eastern China’s Zhejiang province © Imagine China/Reuters

The lager, previously mainly sold in two southern provinces, was rolled out across the country. Growth has been rapid, helped by sponsorship of events such as the Shanghai Formula 1 grand prix in March, where 500ml servings were on sale for Rmb40 ($5.5).

A 500ml serving of Heineken in China costs an average of Rmb12-15 ($1.67-2.08), according to Morningstar, though prices vary significantly across regions and from bars to shops.

Heineken has grown by “leveraging the distribution network of China Resources Beer”, said Jacky Tsang, an analyst at Morningstar. 

Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.

China Resources Beer, whose local Snow beer is the country’s best-seller, is using Heineken to push into China’s premium market — often defined as beers that cost at least 20 per cent more than the average.

“The overall beer volume in China is on a gradual decline trend,” said Tsang, meaning China Resources had “to go after price growth to drive profit growth”.

Heineken’s growth, from a low base, contrasts with other western brands, which have also generally positioned themselves as premium options in China.

Advertisement

Danish brewer Carlsberg, which has about 10 per cent of China’s beer market, reported that sales edged 1 per cent lower last year. Jacob Aarup-Andersen, chief executive, said last month the market had been “structurally declining” for 15 years, but there were still “ample growth opportunities”.

A woman looks at a bottle of beer
Budweiser built its distribution network in China before Heineken. © Oriental Image/Reuters

Anheuser-Busch-owned Budweiser, which, unlike Heineken, has built a significant distribution network in China, has also reported declining sales.

Competition between the two “is viewed as a winner-takes-all celebrity death match in the mind of many investors”, said McLeish, in reference to the still-developing premium market.

It now takes just 37 minutes of work for the average Chinese to afford 500ml of premium beer, Bernstein estimated, compared with well over an hour a decade ago — close to a global definition of affordability.

“We think in 20-year cycles, and this is the premium development cycle that’s happening in China,” said van Strien, who added that “premium beer tends to do really well” in downturns.

“You’re not talking about a huge capital outlay for someone to have a nice sociable evening.”

Advertisement

For McLeish, China Resource’s strategy poses a risk to “brand positioning” if the rapid expansion has an adverse impact on price and its premium status.

China Resources Beer “does not really have experience building premium brands” but “if they had taken their time . . . the growth rates would never have been nearly as fast”, he said.

Kevin Leung, investor relations director at China Resources Beer, said there were some promotions but no “significant price drop on any Heineken product”.

There are other risks. Heineken’s exposure to China Resources Beer’s falling share price led it to take a €874mn impairment charge last year, even as its own volumes sharply increased.

The Dutch company does not disclose its dividends and royalty income from the deal, but said its share of income from China Resources Beer and its royalties from China equate to about 6 to 7 per cent of net income globally.

Advertisement

Van Strien said volumes grew faster than 20 per cent in the first quarter of this year, and that in the same period, volumes of its Amstel brand doubled.

The deal with China Resources had “no planned endpoint”, said van Strien. “The reality is, having a local ownership is often a good thing for us,” he said.

Continue Reading

News

Harvard has $52,000,000: Trump mounts attack, backs foreign student enrolment ban

Published

on

Harvard has ,000,000: Trump mounts attack, backs foreign student enrolment ban

United States President Donald Trump doubled down on his attack on Harvard University while defending his administration’s move to block its ability to enrol international students.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social, claimed almost 31 per cent of students studying at Harvard are from foreign countries and the university administration is not forthcoming with details on these students despite repeated requests from his administration.

His fresh attack comes after a judge suspended his administration’s action.

“Why isn’t Harvard saying that almost 31% of their students are from FOREIGN LANDS, and yet those countries, some not at all friendly to the United States, pay NOTHING toward their student’s education, nor do they ever intend to. Nobody told us that!”, he wrote.

Trump added, “We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, but Harvard isn’t exactly forthcoming. We want those names and countries. Harvard has $52,000,000, use it, and stop asking for the Federal Government to continue GRANTING money to you!”

Advertisement

On Friday, a US judge blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University’s ability to enrol foreign students, a move that ratcheted up White House efforts to conform practices in academia to President Donald Trump’s policies.

In a complaint filed in Boston federal court earlier on Friday, Harvard called the revocation a “blatant violation” of the US Constitution and other federal laws, and had an “immediate and devastating effect” on the university and more than 7,000 visa holders.

“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the university and its mission,” Harvard said.

Earlier, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem informed Harvard that its Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification was “revoked effective immediately.”

“I am writing to inform you that, effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked,” the letter read.

Advertisement

In a social media post she blamed Harvard for, “holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.”

The university filed a lawsuit last month against the administration over attempts to alter its curriculum, admissions procedures, and hiring policies.

Published By:

Priya Pareek

Published On:

Advertisement

May 25, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending