Court of Appeals judges Tom Murry and Valerie Zachary's campaigns financially supported Griffin’s last fall raising concerns about their impartiality in Griffin's challenge of Allison Riggs. Griffin has issued a vague statement that he “won’t participate” in the case but has not made a public and official recusal. From left to right: Tom Murry, Jefferson Griffin, and Valerie Zachary. (File photos)

It’s a basic cornerstone of the American justice system that judges must not participate in cases in which they have a conflict of interest or even the appearance of one.

That’s why state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs promptly and publicly recused herself from the court’s consideration of a lawsuit filed by her opponent in last fall’s election — Court of Appeals Judge Jefferson Griffin — challenging the outcome.

Weirdly and disturbingly, however, Griffin has yet to follow suit. Instead, he’s simply issued a vague statement that he quote, “won’t participate” in the case should it come before the court on which he sits. And that’s simply not enough. A plainspoken, public and official recusal is required.

And that’s also the case for two other Court of Appeals judges, Tom Murry and Valerie Zachary, whose campaigns financially supported Griffin’s last fall — actions that, apart from the election case, raise important ethical concerns.

The bottom line: Judge Griffin seeks a seat on the state’s highest court. His actions since last November provide little evidence that he’s ready to fill such a position.

For NC Newsline, I’m Rob Schofield.