North Carolina politics is in an uproar over a lower court judge who ran for a state Supreme Court seat and continues to challenge the results of the election.

According to Newsweek, Judge Jefferson Griffin has mounted a legal battle to have some 60,000 votes thrown out, citing several technicalities that he believes should result in the ballots being invalidated. 

The legal challenge was initiated after Griffin was beaten in the race by Democratic incumbent Judge Allison Riggs, who topped him by 734 votes.

Griffin is currently seeking a court order that would block the state elections board from certifying the result of Griffin's election against Riggs.

What's happening?

The situation has now caused a federal judge to issue a demand to the North Carolina elections board to explain why he should keep the case instead of sending it back to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

The elections board had moved the case to the federal appeals court just a day after Griffin filed the challenge.

The Carolina Journal noted:

US Chief District Judge Richard Myers issued an order Thursday granting Riggs’ request to intervene in the case. Myers also permitted intervention by two activist groups and three individual voters working with Democratic operative Marc Elias’ law firm.

Myers granted Griffin’s motion for expedited briefing in the case. The elections board and intervenors “shall file responses” to Griffin’s request for an injunction by Jan. 1.

"As part of its response, the NCSBE is ordered to SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be remanded to the North Carolina Supreme Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction," the judge wrote.

The elections board has already denied Griffin's challenge to the validity of what he calls 60,000 "unlawful" votes.

Griffin could be out of luck if he doesn't secure an injunction by Jan 9, as the elections board could certify Riggs as the winner and make Griffin's case "moot."

Lawyers working hard

The GOP candidate's lawyers are working overtime to prove to the judge why a preliminary injunction should be issued.

"Without a preliminary injunction, mootness will deprive the Court of jurisdiction to consider any of the issues presented in this matter,” Griffin’s lawyers wrote.

They added, “A preliminary injunction, however, will simply stay the Board’s hand. … The Board will not be harmed by that injunction — indeed, North Carolina law contemplates delays in election certifications while judicial review is pending."

Only time will tell if Griffin catches a break, but it's not looking good for him at the moment.