Combating The Jim Crow Legacy: How The North Carolina Supreme Court voted to protect the rights of felons
From top row, left to right: Associate Justice Phil Berger Jr., Associate Justice Michael Morgan, Associate Justice Anita Earls, and Associate Justice Tamara Barringer. Bottom row, from left to right: Senior Associate Justice Robin Hudson, Chief Justice Paul Newby, and Associate Justice Sam Ervin IV. Source for picture: North Carolina Judicial Branch
On April 26, 2022, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled to reinstate voting rights for formerly incarcerated individuals. The lawsuit, CSI v. Moore, secured the right of currently incarcerated felons to register to vote while in prison and reinstated their right to cast a ballot immediately following release, regardless of parole status. Prior to the court ruling, North Carolinians convicted of a felony were prohibited from voting until their probation, post-release supervision, or parole period had elapsed. Now, following the amendment to North Carolina election law, an expected 55,000 North Carolina voters will gain access to the ballot.
The case was first filed in 2019 by Forward Justice, a nonpartisan group committed to advancing racial, social and economic justice in the South, and additional partners. The plaintiff’s argument rested on the discriminatory nature and history of N.C.G.S. 13-1, a state law that restricted voter eligibility. N.C.G.S. 13-1 required all convicted felons to be “unconditionally discharged” from incarceration, which included the completion of any probation, parole or suspended sentence before voting rights could be restored.
This aspect of the law presented multiple issues that discriminated based on class and race. In order to be “unconditionally discharged” by a court, North Carolina law required monetary fees such as court expenses or restitution be paid as a condition of completing post release sentencing. Not only did the law blatantly discriminate on the basis of economic class and the ability to essentially pay for the restoration of citizenship rights, but it also created a legal loophole that strategically prolonged the restoration of citizenship rights for many Black individuals – a loophole that was born from the discriminatory legislation of Jim Crow.
To put the financial burden of incarceration into perspective, North Carolina’s district court charges a flat fee of $176 and for each day an individual resides in a local jail they are charged an additional $40. In 2021 the Federal Reserve System released a report which found that 68 percent of Americans can’t afford an $400 emergency. Much less would the average American be able to afford North Carolina’s minimum felony sentence of 10 months. With exorbitant court fees acting as a barrier to the ballot, it is evident that withholding the right to vote after completing jail time is a sly tactic to curb the political representation of particular individuals.
The North Carolina Constitution restricts the right to vote for individuals who have been convicted of a felony and stipulates that voting rights can only be restored in “the manner prescribed by law.” This means that regaining the right to vote after a felony conviction is entirely dependent on the laws passed by The North Carolina General Assembly. And as a result, the brevity of the Constitutional wording has been taken advantage of by legislators since the Jim Crow Era.
Eight years after the adoption of the 15th Amendment in 1869 – which granted all male citizens the right to vote irrespective of race and previous enslavement – the state of North Carolina passed N.C.G.S. 13-1. The law’s timely passage suggests that it was a deliberate attempt to “disproportionately impact Black citizens,” according to the co-director of Forward Justice, Daryl Atkinson. Coinciding with North Carolina’s period of segregation, racially discriminatory laws such as N.C.G.S. 13-1 were passed to suppress the political power of Black Americans. By incarcerating a large percentage of Black North Carolinians and charging them with a felony, it effectively reduced the political representation and power of Black citizens. This enabled politicians who supported Jim Crow policies to assume and sustain political power in the General Assembly and elsewhere.
To date, a disproportionate number of Black and Brown individuals are incarcerated and disenfranchised across America. Specifically in North Carolina, Black individuals make up roughly 21 percent of the voting population. Yet, prior to the court ruling, 42 percent of disenfranchised North Carolinians were Black. With an additional 55,000 eligible voters, the swing state of North Carolina could experience significant political changes as numerous individuals become represented in elections. In fact, they may hold the tie breaking votes in upcoming state elections. In 2016, the gubernatorial race was won by Democrat Roy Cooper but only by a margin of 10,277 votes. And in 2020, Republican Paul Newby assumed the position of North Carolina Supreme Court Justice by only 401 more votes than his opponent.
Despite the historical nuances associated with the case, the most pressing matter to arise from the ruling is ensuring previously incarcerated individuals are aware of their recent enfranchisement and are educated on how to register to vote and can successfully cast their ballots in elections. To aid in this process, non-profit organizations across North Carolina like the Southern Coalition for Social Justice offer resources and programs that help inform incarcerated and previously incarcerated individuals of their newly afforded voting rights. Moving forward, it is imperative that North Carolina continues to deconstruct its Jim Crow legacy and gravitates toward protecting the rights of all North Carolinians.