Barred from the Ballot Box: North Carolina’s Legal Battle Over Felony Disenfranchisement
The right for ex-felons to vote will have a significant impact on the upcoming elections, if upheld. Source for Photo: Ohio State University’s Origins
On Monday, March 28th, a North Carolina Superior Court ruled that a 1973 state law limiting the voting rights of those convicted of a felony was unconstitutional on the grounds of racial discrimination. The decision is the newest addition to the sweeping controversy regarding access to the ballot box and voting ethics in the Tarheel state. While the ruling is likely to be appealed by defending parties, it nonetheless signals a paradigm shift in ideology surrounding the franchise in North Carolina.
Conflict over who is granted keys to the voting booth isn’t a contemporary issue. Rather, it’s one ingrained in North Carolina’s flawed history of undermining racial minorities and their place in civic society. Disenfranchisement of those convicted of a felony finds its roots in Reconstruction-era attempts to thwart Black power, with the General Assembly adopting felony disenfranchisement in its state constitution in 1876. The General Amendment further amended this decision in 1973 through North Carolina General Statute 13-1, better known as NCGS 13-1. This provision granted restoration of voting rights to incarcerated persons only after completion of probation, parole, or any form of supervision after release from prison. The statue’s passage, spurred by groundbreaking reform efforts like the Voting Rights Act of 1965, might’ve seemed like a step in the direction toward a more equitable voting environment. Yet, normative penal procedures have made probation and parole commonalities, especially for Black Americans — a recent study by The Sentencing Project found “Black Americans are incarcerated in state prisons…at nearly five times the rate of whites.”
NCGS 13-1 first faced legal scrutiny in 2020 when community activists challenged the statue in North Carolina courts, which resulted in the decision to designate “those who are serving a felony sentence on community supervision..eligible to register and vote,” with a few small caveats. In 2021, a similar case in a superior court expanded on the 2020 opinion and ordered that all formerly incarcerated persons be granted access to the voting booth. Naturally the court’s ruling was appealed by defendants, to which both the NC Court of Appeals and the NC Supreme Court responded by reverting the decisions of the lower court until the case could finish the appeals process.
Most recently, Community Success Initiative v. Moore reappeared in an NC superior court, culminating in a ruling fairly consistent with the previous cases. The majority opinion, authored by Judges Lisa Bell and Keith Gregory, emphatically sided with the plaintiffs, citing violations of both the Equal Protection and Free Elections Clauses of the North Carolina Constitution. They write that “Section 13-1…unconstitutionally denies substantially equal voting power on the basis of race,” a sentiment echoed by the 2020 and 2021 court decisions. Since it is virtually impossible for NCGS 13-1 to be applied equally amongst racial groups — thanks the American justice system’s tendency towards racial inequity — the judges assert that this statute is inherently antithetical to the notion of elections portraying “the will of the people.” Judge John Dunlaw, on the other hand, took a contrasting approach by contending that the plaintiff’s argument lacked empirical evidence that African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by NCGS 13-1. He subscribes to a more social contract-esque argument, positing that post-incarcerated persons on probation or parole should not yet have their rights reinstated, and thus should remain barred from voting.
Within the last few weeks, the court’s decision has prompted quite provocative statements from notable politicians. Speaker of the House Tim Moore — plaintiff in the suit — tweeted the following: “the people of North Carolina are sick and tired of leftist judges who ignore the law…granting convicted felons the right to vote is an affront to every law-abiding voter in our state.” He, along with other high-ranking Republicans, have been quick to file a notice of appeal and a motion for stay in an attempt to halt the perpetuation of the court’s decision. Additionally, Senator Warren Daniel declared this “an unrivaled attempt to legislate from the bench,” another belief shared by a vast majority of the GOP. In light of these outcomes, the democratically-appointed State Board of Elections has asked the courts to be cognizant of the fast-approaching April 22nd voter registration deadline and to make a timely decision on the conflict. Attorney General Josh Stein, who is an elected Democrat, has continuously declined to spearhead an appeals process, signaling his belief in the legitimacy of the majority’s opinion.
While the court’s conclusion — which permits previously incarcerated individuals to vote — is currently at a standstill due to Republican resistance, the case is nonetheless representative of the enigmatic nature of this state’s government. The political pendulum of North Carolina frequently swings back-and-forth, with no definitive party claiming total dominion among the three branches. Considering the forthcoming election cycle for senate and house seats on both a state and national level, an additional 55,000 ballots — approximately how many previously incarcerated persons would be eligible if CSI v. Moore is affirmed — would immensely alter voter demographics throughout the state. It is imperative for folks to keep a watchful eye on the unfoldings of this court case; not only will it dictate the extent of natural rights for a neglected group of the state’s citizenry, but it also has the power to reconfigure the political makeup of North Carolina.