In early 2025, the final unresolved state election in the United States finally came to a close. Chief U.S. District Judge Richard Meyer ruled that Democrat Allison Riggs had legitimately won the 2024 election for the North Carolina Supreme Court and ordered the state election board to certify her victory. This ruling ended a six-month-long, fiercely contested battle between Riggs and her Republican challenger, Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin. Both candidates spent approximately $2 million each, while tens of thousands of votes were scrutinized under the watchful eyes of the courts and the media. National attention focused intensely on this Southern state’s judicial election.
For Allison Riggs, this was more than just a political victory—it was a deeply personal and complex journey. In 2023, she had been appointed to the state Supreme Court by Governor Roy Cooper, replacing Associate Justice Mike Morgan, who resigned to pursue elected office. At that time, she was seen primarily as a young and professionally accomplished jurist. The 2024 election, however, became her first real test before the public. Her opponent, Griffin, already had a foothold in Republican circles as a Court of Appeals judge. From the outset, the contest was highly charged, and the subsequent legal disputes propelled it onto the national stage.
More than a month after Judge Meyer’s ruling and just two days before taking office, Riggs granted an exclusive interview. She admitted that the media frenzy had subsided, but the weight of responsibility now rested squarely on her shoulders. Transparency and accountability were at the core of her priorities. As a judge, she wanted people to see clearly what she was doing and why. Yet she also voiced frustration: judicial elections should not require such exorbitant sums of money, nor should results be delayed to the point of necessitating litigation. For Riggs, the experience was a stark warning: when political forces attempt to contest or overturn election outcomes, the fragility of democracy is laid bare.
Reflecting on recent years, Riggs pointed out that U.S. elections have repeatedly been caught in controversy—from 2016 to 2020, and again in 2024. Claims of fraud, rule changes, and partisan manipulation have recurred with alarming frequency. She argued that these events serve as a reminder that the legal system’s safeguards alone are not enough. Ultimately, the decisive factor often rests on the courage of individual judges and lawyers. No matter how carefully written, legal texts remain ineffective without people willing to stand up and say, “This is right; this is wrong.” Democracy, she emphasized, relies more on character than on the letter of the law—a duality that has historically been both a strength and a vulnerability of the American system.
Riggs’ own career history adds a layer of historical irony. Before joining the bench, she was a civil rights lawyer with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, challenging gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression. At that time, she fought on behalf of ordinary citizens, directly confronting the levers of political power. Now, as a judge, she faced partisan efforts to challenge the legitimacy of her election. This shift in perspective reinforced her understanding of power as inherently self-serving and acquisitive. At every level, someone must ensure that authority remains accountable to the people. For Riggs, her months-long election struggle was never about protecting partisan interests—it was about defending the will of North Carolina voters.
Yet financial influence in judicial elections remains an unavoidable reality. A decade ago, former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Robin Hudson faced negative ad campaigns funded by out-of-state interests during her primary. Today, this model is more prevalent than ever. Riggs’ own campaign was similarly targeted by external funding, and future elections, including Justice Anita Earls’ 2026 reelection, are likely to see even higher stakes in terms of money and partisan involvement. The intrusion of outside financial power places enormous pressure on judicial independence. Candidates must divide their attention among fundraising, advertising, and public education, leaving them vulnerable to the distortions of a politicized environment.
Riggs spoke candidly about these challenges. While acknowledging the difficulty of reversing the flow of money in judicial campaigns, she emphasized that candidates could still choose to engage with voters in genuine ways. It is crucial that the electorate understands a candidate’s judicial philosophy, values, and approach to decision-making. She expressed a clear desire for judicial elections to be free of personal attacks and underscored the responsibility of voters to engage critically with political messaging. The health of the judicial system, she argued, depends not only on the integrity of judges but also on the informed judgment of the electorate.
On the role of judges in relation to law and legislation, Riggs is explicit. Judges are not legislators, but they are not mere rubber stamps for legislative action either. The judicial role is to interpret laws and the constitution, and interpretation inevitably involves value judgments. Protecting citizens’ rights through judicial review is not “legislating from the bench”; it is fulfilling the constitutional mandate for an independent judiciary. If courts function only as extensions of legislatures, the fundamental checks and balances essential to democracy would collapse.
This principle has never been more important. American society is deeply polarized, and the judiciary is frequently drawn into partisan conflicts, sometimes becoming the ultimate arbiter of policy outcomes. The North Carolina election dispute exemplifies this phenomenon: the judiciary is no longer insulated from political battles. In such a climate, judicial independence is not merely an institutional design; it is a measure of public trust. If judges do not act according to principle, the legitimacy of democracy itself is at risk.
Riggs’ victory thus carries dual significance. It represents a personal milestone in her career but also serves as a defense of judicial independence. Her experience is a reminder that democracy is not self-sustaining; it requires vigilance, courage, and principled action. Judicial independence depends not just on constitutional texts but on the resolve of individual judges to make correct decisions in critical moments.
With her swearing-in, North Carolina’s Supreme Court welcomed a new justice, and the final unresolved state election in the nation was finally settled. On the surface, this was a procedural certification. At a deeper level, it exposed the pressures on American democracy and the judiciary: money, politics, and media intertwine, making the courtroom less a refuge from politics and more a stage for partisan struggle. Yet it is precisely in such an environment that judicial integrity proves invaluable.
Riggs has repeatedly emphasized that her greatest honor lies not in defending a political victory but in defending the choices of the electorate. She warned that if the events of 2020 and 2024 continue to repeat themselves, Americans could quickly lose the institutions and principles they hold dear. Her cautionary note extends beyond North Carolina; it resonates across the country.
The six-month-long legal battle has left a lasting imprint. It demonstrates that the defense of democracy is not an abstract ideal but a struggle waged by individuals in concrete circumstances. It shows that the strength of institutions depends on people willing to uphold principles against political pressure. Though similar disputes will likely arise in the future, at this moment, Riggs’ victory offers a glimpse of resilience—proof that the rule of law and democratic governance can endure even in times of intense partisan challenge.