logo
Report: Jefferson Griffin wore Confederate uniform at 2001 UNC fraternity event

Report: Jefferson Griffin wore Confederate uniform at 2001 UNC fraternity event

Yahoo29-03-2025
North Carolina Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin, who has now spent nearly five months challenging his narrow loss in the November election, wore Confederate military attire as part of a fraternity event in college, according to a report from The Associated Press.
The report, which published Friday, revealed that Griffin, a Republican, also posed in front of a Confederate battle flag with the Kappa Alpha Order fraternity at UNC-Chapel Hill — a group which has raised controversy over the years for its embrace of the Confederacy.
The News & Observer obtained a version of the photo uncovered by the AP.
In a statement to the AP, Griffin, now 44, expressed remorse over his decision to wear the uniform during the fraternity's 2001 'Old South' ball.
'I attended a college fraternity event that, in hindsight, was inappropriate and does not reflect the person I am today,' he said. 'At that time, like many college students, I did not fully grasp such participation's broader historical and social implications. Since then, I have grown, learned, and dedicated myself to values that promote unity, inclusivity, and respect for all people.'
Griffin also said that he supported a ban on using the Confederate flag at a Kappa Alpha convention in 2001. A representative for the fraternity, Jesse Lyons, said that 'upon personal recollection and review of official records' he could confirm this.
'We believe in cultural humility, we respect the best parts of our organization's history, and through education we challenge our members to work for a better future,' Lyons said in a statement to The N&O. 'These things are not mutually exclusive.'
Lyons said that period dress has since been disallowed in fraternity matters.
Paul Shumaker, an advisor for Griffin's campaign, accused his opponent, Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs, of engaging in a 'personal smear campaign.'
'Judge Griffin has served the people of this state and our country with great honor and duty,' he said in a statement to The N&O. 'Sadly, the radical left fails to share that same sense of duty.'
Riggs' campaign did not immediately respond to request for comment.
The report comes as Griffin, alongside the North Carolina Republican Party, continues to push for over 65,000 ballots cast in the 2024 state Supreme Court election to be thrown out — potentially flipping the race in his favor.
Using untested legal methods, Griffin has sought to reverse his 734-vote loss to Riggs.
His challenges target voters for a variety of novel reasons, including the lack of a driver's license number or Social Security number in the state's registration database.
A News & Observer analysis of Griffin's protests found that Black voters were twice as likely to have their votes challenged as white voters.
Griffin's case, which has ping-ponged between state and federal courts, currently rests with the North Carolina Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel heard arguments last week.
However, their decision is unlikely to be the end to the contentious case.
Justices on the North Carolina Supreme Court, which currently has a 5 to 2 Republican majority, have said they expect the case will eventually reach the high court.
Riggs has recused herself from the case, meaning only one Democrat would participate in the deliberation.
Riggs' recusal also opens up the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock among the justices. Anita Earls, the other Democratic justice on the court, has implied she would rule against Griffin — as has a Republican on the court, Justice Richard Dietz.
If one more justice joins them in rejecting Griffin's claims, the resulting deadlock would mean that the most recent decision of a lower court prevails.
In this case, that would be the ruling from the state Court of Appeals.
During arguments last week, judges on the appeals panel, which consisted of two Republicans and one Democrat, did not indicate when they would rule.
Danielle Battaglia contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Americans split on party lines over support for Supreme Court: Survey
Americans split on party lines over support for Supreme Court: Survey

The Hill

time4 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Americans split on party lines over support for Supreme Court: Survey

Americans are split along party lines over their support for the Supreme Court, with the majority of Republicans approving of its actions, according to a Friday survey. The new YouGov poll found that 45 percent of respondents strongly or somewhat disapprove of the Supreme Court's work, while 40 percent said they strongly or somewhat approve. Some 14 percent were unsure. The majority of GOP voters, 73 percent, strongly or somewhat approve of the Supreme Court's handling of recent cases, far higher than 34 percent of independents and just 14 percent of Democrats. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had the highest net favorability rating on the court's bench with plus 4 percentage points. Ketanji Brown Jackson had a plus 2 percentage point rating. The poll found that Democratic Party voters view Sotomayor the most favorably, while they see Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh as the most unfavorable. Among Republicans, Kavanaugh and Thomas were seen as the most favorable, while Brown Jackson and Sotomayor were viewed the least favorably. Around a quarter, 26 percent, of respondents said the Supreme Court has too much power, a decrease from last year when 42 percent of Americans said the same thing. The sentiment has dropped the most among Democrats, going from 73 percent in 2024 to 41 percent this year. About 22 percent of independents said the nation's highest court has too much power, a 16-point decrease from a year ago when it was 38 percent. Most respondents, 55 percent, said the Supreme Court has the right amount of power. A recent poll from AP-NORC Research Center found Americans' confidence in the Supreme Court has increased slightly, but that around one-in-three adults are still wary of the country's highest court. The Supreme Court's approval was at 51 percent among Americans in February, according to a Marquette Law School national poll. The other 49 percent disapproved. Friday's survey was conducted between June 30 and July 2 among 1,043 U.S. adults. The margin of error was around 4 percentage points.

Calif., Illinois may fight new Texas congressional maps with their own
Calif., Illinois may fight new Texas congressional maps with their own

UPI

time35 minutes ago

  • UPI

Calif., Illinois may fight new Texas congressional maps with their own

1 of 2 | California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he may seek to change his state's congressional maps if Texas redraws its borders. File photo by Jonathan Alcorn/UPI | License Photo July 26 (UPI) -- As the Texas Legislature plans to redraw congressional maps in an effort to increase Republican members in the U.S. House, the governors of California and Illinois may devise their own new borders. Traditionally, the boundaries are changed every 10 years with the latest U.S. Census data but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called a special legislative session after pressure from the White House to preserve the GOP majority in the U.S. House. President Donald Trump believes an additional five seats could be created by changing the borders. Of the state's 38 districts, 25 are held by Republicans. Democrats hold seats in big cities of Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, Laredo, McAllen, San Antonio. Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, Republicans hold a 219-212 advantage in the House with four vacancies -- three Democrats who died and one Republican who resigned this week. More than a dozen Texas House members flew to Illinois and California -- two blue states -- on Friday for a meeting with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzkeper, during which they revealed their intentions. "Donald Trump called up Governor Abbott for one simple reason: to rig the 2026 elections. California's moral high ground means nothing if we're powerless because of it," Newsom said after meeting with Democrats from the Texas House. "This moment requires us to be prepared to fight fire with fire. Whether that's a special election, a ballot initiative, a bill, a fight in court. If they proceed in Texas, we will be ready." "This is not a bluff. This is real, and trust me, it's more real after listening to these leaders today, how existential this is," Newsom said. As the most populous state in the nation, California has 43 Democratic members of the house and nine Republican members, while Illinois is represented by 14 Democrats and three Republicans. "Everything is on the table," Pritzer said. The Illinois governor said he doesn't want to redraw the maps but "if they're going to take this drastic action, then we might also take drastic action to respond." "We want the country to understand [that] what's going on in Texas is a national battle," State Rep. Richard Pena Raymond, a Democrat from Laredo, said. Raymond told Pritzner that redistricting is "clearly aimed at affecting the entire country." Responsibility for determining Congressional district maps differs from state to state. In California, an independent commission approved by voters in 2010 works on the maps. Illinois maps, on the other hand, are put together by the state lawmakers have been drawn strongly to favor the Democrat Party in the state. Newsom said he is considering having a referendum to change the rules before the 2026 election, unless the Legislature comes up with another solution, which would take two-thirds of legislators voting in favor of. "We have to fight fire with fire," Newsom said. Other states Two other Democratic governors are considering new maps -- Phil Murphy in New Jersey and Kathy Hochul in New York. "There's other states that are violating the rules," Hochul said during a news conference on Thursday. "I'm going to look at it closely with Hakeem Jeffries," a New York member of the House, as well has House minority leader. In New York, Democrats have a 19-7 advantage as a result of their districting maps. "It's deplorable," Murphy said during an interview at the summer meeting of the bipartisan National Governors Association in Colorado Springs. "If they're going to play these games, we're going to have to be just as aggressive. We can't bring a knife to a gunfight." Democrats hold nine of the 12 seats in New Jersey. In Florida, the state Supreme Court on July 17 upheld its newest congressional map. He said he believes the state had been "malappropriated" and redistricting "would be appropriate" in a few years. Florida's congressional delegation is controlled by Republicans, 20-8. In Ohio, legislators are required to redraw maps before 2026. The GOP has 10 of the 15 seats. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis is against redistricting more frequently. The state's maps are overseen by an independent commission and it's eight U.S. House seats are evenly split 4-4. Texas situation Texas last redrew its borders in mid-cycle in 2003 after the GOP gained control of both chambers for the first time since Reconstruction. In Texas, Abbott noted a July 7 letter from the Justice Department that said majority Black and Hispanic districts in Dallas need to be redrawn based on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year. The DOJ said those districts are "unconstitutional racial gerrymanders," but Abbott argued the opposite in 2021. In federal court in El Paso, he argued race had not been taken into account there. "We are no longer compelled to have coalition districts," Abbott said in an interview with KDFW in Dallas. U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, a San Antonio Democrat, appeared at a state House hearing. "That's what's at stake here, whether you all are going to work for the people of Texas, as we used to do, to try to do, or whether you take your commandments from Donald Trump and the White House," Castro said. "I hope that you all will choose to do the business of the people of Texas, as this body has a history of being independent from the federal government."

Philippine Supreme Court blocks Duterte impeachment effort
Philippine Supreme Court blocks Duterte impeachment effort

UPI

time35 minutes ago

  • UPI

Philippine Supreme Court blocks Duterte impeachment effort

Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte criticized Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and accused him of being unfit for the job of the president during an Oct. 18 news conference. File Photo by Rolex Dela Pena/EPA-EFE July 26 (UPI) -- An impeachment proceeding against Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte can't proceed due to a constitutional limit on the annual number of impeachments, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled. The Philippine Constitution bans multiple impeachment proceedings in a given year, so Duterte could not be impeached until February, the nation's Supreme Court announced on Friday, the BBC reported. The ruling does not prevent Duterte's impeachment, but it delays it until an impeachment proceeding would not violate the Philippine Constitution. "It is not our duty to favor any political result," the court said in its ruling. "Ours is to ensure that politics are framed within the rule of just law." The court said it is prepared to address the claims against Duterte "at the proper time and before the appropriate forum." Lawmakers in the Philippine Parliament's lower house in February voted to impeach Duterte for allegedly misusing taxpayer dollars and threatening to kill President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. It was the fourth impeachment case received by the lower chamber from December to February, one of which was transferred to the Senate. Duterte is the daughter of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and formerly was a close political ally of Marcos. She is considered to be a viable candidate for the nation's presidency during the 2028 election cycle after she and Marcos had a political fallout. Duterte and Marcos in 2022 formed what they called the "Uniteam," which temporarily united two of the nation's most powerful political families. After the pair secured wins in the May 2022 elections, the Uniteam began to fray. Duterte's father called Marcos a "drug addict," and Duterte in November said she ensured the president would be killed if she were killed first. The elder Duterte afterward was extradited to the Hague to be tried for alleged crimes against humanity due the deaths of thousands arising from his administration's war on drugs. Rodrigo Duterte was president for six years from June 2016 to June 2022. Sara Duterte says the accusations against her are politically motivated, although many supporting her impeachment note that 12 of the nation's 15 Supreme Court justices were appointed by her father.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store