NewsA federal judge in North Carolina found on Monday that the state’s 147-year-old voting law is unconstitutional. US District Judge Loretta Biggs found that the since-amended state law, which prevented convicted felons from casting a vote, violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
The lawsuit arose when civil rights group North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action challenged the statute from 1877, saying it was written with the intent to exclude Black people from voting and continues to have a disproportionately discriminatory impact. The law made it a serious crime for someone to vote while still on probation or parole for a felony conviction.
The court opinion cited language from the Jim Crow-era legislation, which said its purpose was to “restore the ‘purity of the ballot’ and guard’ against certain characteristics of [the black] race.'” Biggs commented that the state made “an extraordinary and telling concession” when it readily admitted that “the historical background from the original enactments of 1877 and 1899 is indefensible.”
During arguments in January, the state argued that the legislation added a “scienter requirement,” which means prosecutors pursuing the charge of felony voting would have to prove that the individual in question intentionally cast a vote, knowing they were barred from doing so. The vote could not be cast by accident, without knowledge. While this scienter requirement exists in a new law, the 1877 law has not yet been repealed, leading to a potential for some prosecutions to still take place under the old rule without the scienter requirement. After passing the new law with the scienter requirement, the state’s attorneys argued that the lawsuit was moot. Biggs did not agree, however, rejecting the recommendation of a magistrate judge who suggested the case should be dismissed.
Additionally, state attorneys claimed the law had been cleansed of its “discriminatory taint” with the passage of North Carolina’s state constitution in 1971. Biggs said there is no supporting case law showing that changing one law can indirectly cleanse another.
Executive Director of the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute Melvin Montford also responded:
A racially discriminatory law is now a relic of the past. It’s sad that in today’s society, we still have laws on the books that specifically discriminate against black voters, even if some people may choose to ignore this reality.
Ultimately, the court found that the version of the statute without the scienter requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Biggs also emphasized in her opinion that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and lacking in clear standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Additionally, Biggs found the law has been inconsistently applied, leading to confusion for voters who had violated the voting law by mistake.
The Equal Protection Clause mandates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Biggs’ opinion emphasized that the 147-year-old North Carolina law disproportionately impacted Black voters. By targeting this specific group, the law violates the principle of equal protection, according to Biggs. She also found that the Due Process Clause demands that laws be clear, predictable and uniformly applied. When a statute fails to meet these standards, it violates due process. Biggs found that the law lacked clarity and consistency. Its vagueness created uncertainty for voters, potentially leading to inadvertent violations.
Earlier this year another US District Judge Thomas Schroeder blocked a different North Carolina voting provision, finding it was unconstitutional. Schroeder found that the law in question unnecessarily tightened restrictions on same-day voter registration. It is possible both cases could still be appealed to a higher court.
