A federal judge has struck down a nearly 150-year-old North Carolina law prohibiting felons from voting.
The law, enacted in 1877, had made it a new felony offense for “any person convicted of a crime which excludes the person from the right of suffrage, to vote at any primary or election without having been restored to the right of citizenship.”
The North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute, a self-described black trade unionist advocacy group; and a civil rights advocacy group called Action NC, had challenged the state’s law prohibiting convicted felons from voting.
The plaintiffs originally brought their lawsuit against the North Carolina Board of Elections in 2020.
The plaintiffs had argued the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that it was so vague as to violate the amendment’s Due Process Clause as well.
In particular, they argued that the North Carolina Board of Elections does not clearly distinguish which types of prior convictions would bar an individual from the right to vote, and has “caused eligible individuals with criminal convictions to refrain from voting, for fear of unintentionally violating the law and triggering criminal charges.”
On April 22, U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs ruled that the law “was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters.”
Judge Biggs, who is black and who was appointed by President Barack Obama, declared the challenged state law to be in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, and enjoined and restrained state officials from enforcing the law.
The state had argued that the law is not so vague as to violate anyone’s due process rights.
An October 2020 filing says that the North Carolina constitution brings all felonies within the class of crimes for which those convicted would lose their voting rights, and states that voting rights are automatically restored upon “the unconditional discharge of an inmate, of a probationer, or of a parolee” by the state or federal agency “having jurisdiction” of that person.
“If an ordinary person were to read the statutes, and that person had been convicted of a felony, the next question they must ask themselves is whether they continue to be supervised by the state for that conviction,” the October 2020 defense filing states.
“This inquiry can be answered by any layperson who has been convicted of a felony. They will know whether they are still incarcerated, or are still required to make court appearances for their conviction, or are still required to be in contact with their probation or parole officer. If they remain subject to such conditions, they know not to vote.”
A Legislative Update
In 2023, the North Carolina state legislature passed new legislation regarding its voting laws, which stated that the felony charge associated with a prohibited person casting a vote applies only if that person did so with full knowledge that their voting rights were not restored.
The state noted that amendment to the law in a 2023 motion for summary judgment in the case.
Despite the defense arguments, Judge Biggs said that some prosecutors in the state had declined to prosecute some cases based on the conclusion that they’d have to provide some evidence that a suspect voted with full knowledge that their voting rights had been suspended, while other prosecutors brought charges without any showing of intent by the suspects.
“Thus, the evidence in the record demonstrates that the Challenged Statute ‘lacks sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,'” Judge Biggs wrote.
Ms. Bigg’s new ruling comes after U.S. Magistrate Judge Joel Webster issued a recommendation in January that the lawsuit be dismissed, having concluded the 2023 change to the North Carolina state law “substantially diminishes any prospective voter’s perceived threat of prosecution and any resulting confusion.”