By Joshua Peters

I voted for Judge Jefferson Griffin, but Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs won, and now I strongly advocate for her certification and condemn the abuse of our courts to delay her victory.

As someone who generally approaches life with a pragmatic lens, I find myself in alignment with my conservative friends with respect to the courts. Jurisprudence rooted in conservatism is a very stabilizing force in the preservation and maintenance of a well-ordered society.

This is not to say there is no room for a different interpretation of legal text to conform to modern, normative sentiments with respect to the law, but that occasion should be few and far between. Society cannot have a stable legal foundation if courts frequently jump from one interpretation to another. However, recent events have led me to question whether Griffin’s actions align with the principles of conservatism I value. This is why I initially voted for Griffin, as he was the more conservative of the two.

Consequently, recent events have led me to question Griffin’s commitment to preserving a conservative foundation in jurisprudence. His post-election legal challenge, in my opinion, represents an unprecedented and undignified response to losing an election for the North Carolina Supreme Court. Griffin seeks to throw out 60,000 ballots, which would lead, uncoincidentally, to his victory. However, Griffin has yet to demonstrate that these voters failed to comply with rules set forth by the Republican majority in the General Assembly and enforced by the State Board of Elections.

The Supreme Court’s decision to permit Griffin to present his case was not unanimous. Two justices dissented, asserting that Griffin’s case should be dismissed, and Riggs should be declared the winner — Democrat Anita Earls and Republican Richard Dietz.

“Permitting post-election litigation that seeks to rewrite our state’s election rules — and, as a result, remove the right to vote in an election from people who already lawfully voted under the existing rules — invites incredible mischief,” Dietz wrote. “It will lead to doubts about the finality of vote counts following an election, encourage novel legal challenges that greatly delay certification of the results, and fuel an already troubling decline in public faith in our elections.”

While I wouldn’t call myself a conservative, these events certainly do not sit well with common-sense, principled conservatives in our state. Jurisprudence dictates a commitment to the law as it is written and not how we wish it to be. What Griffin is asking the court to do amounts to special pleading on the basis of an interpretation of what Griffin thinks the rules ought to be. This is not conservatism, or at least not a form of conservatism that I would recommend adherence to.

Conservatism should lead one to respect the rules as they are, not try to change them to our own benefit. Regardless of our ideological preference or political affiliation, we should all support Riggs’ certification as the winner. Principle has no party affiliation.

Joshua Peters is a philosopher and social critic from North Carolina.