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.
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.”
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.
“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.
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.
