State Supreme Court agrees to take up felon voting case | Beaufort County Now | The N.C. Supreme Court will decide a case that could add 56,000 felons to North Carolina's voting rolls.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the Carolina Journal. The author of this post is CJ Staff.

    The N.C. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could allow felons to vote in upcoming state elections. A victory for plaintiffs could open the door for 56,000 voters who are on parole, probation, or post-release supervision.

    The decision will not affect voting in the May 17 primary.

    A state Supreme Court order issued Friday takes the case out of the hands of the N.C. Court of Appeals. A split three-judge appellate panel ruled April 26 that felons would not be allowed to register or vote in the May 17 primary or in July 26 elections. But the 2-1 ruling opened the door for felons who have finished active prison time to register and vote in November.

    State legislative leaders filed paperwork on April 28 asking the full 15-member Court of Appeals to reconsider that decision in a rare "en banc" hearing. The Supreme Court's order removes the possibility of a 15-judge appellate ruling.

    Political observers have taken note of judges' partisan affiliations in this case. In a trial court decision striking down the state's 1973 law for felons to regain their voting rights, a Democrat and an unaffiliated judge ruled, 2-1, against a Republican colleague. In the Appeals Court panel, two Democratic judges overruled a Republican.

    Republicans outnumber Democrats, 10-5, on the full N.C. Court of Appeals. Democrats outnumber Republicans, 4-3, on the Supreme Court.

    While one new order signed by Democratic Justice Anita Earls confirms that the state's highest court will consider the case, two other orders released at the same time indicate that the case will not get an expedited schedule. The court dismissed as moot requests from plaintiffs to suspend normal rules and render a decision that could allow felons to vote in the May primaries.

    Republican legislative leaders have criticized the trial court ruling in the case. They say it ignores Article IV, Section 2(3) of the state Constitution. That provision proclaims felons cannot vote in state elections until they have been "first restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law."

    By striking down the 1973 law that set out a process for felons to regain voting rights, the trial court disenfranchised all felons, legislative leaders argued.

    Republican Appeals Court Judge Jefferson Griffin agreed. He dissented from the April 26 ruling allowing for felon voting to begin in the fall.

    "The framers of our State Constitution, and the people of this State, established ... that convicted felons would not be treated the same as similarly situated, law-abiding citizens and would not be entitled to [the] same right to vote in free elections," Griffin wrote. "Instead, convicted felons would not have the right to vote unless their voting rights are restored 'in the manner prescribed by law.'"

    Griffin warned of the "high risk of irreparable harm" to the public interest if felon voting proceeds before the legal dispute reaches its final resolution. "If convicted felons are permitted to vote in the November election and Petitioners subsequently prevail on the merits of their appeal, untold thousands of lawful votes cast by North Carolina citizens likely will be diluted by votes cast by convicted felons in violation of our State Constitution," he wrote.

    Both sides in the case will now file briefs with the state Supreme Court, which will hear the case later this year.

    The most recent Civitas Poll from the John Locke Foundation found that 66% of likely general election voters support the state constitution's current restrictions on felon voting. Among those surveyed, 54% opposed the trial court's ruling allowing felons to cast votes before completing their full sentences.
Go Back


Latest Op-Ed & Politics

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to answer questions on Monday about matters related to President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, including a newly released book and his foreign investments.
Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Democrats nationwide have been accusing the Supreme Court of taking rights from "women." Onlookers have confirmed this to be confusing, as it seems to suggest that Democrats do in fact know what a woman is.
President Joe Biden will sign a “historic” executive order Wednesday ordering the Department of Health and Human Services to expand efforts to increase the ability of Americans (including children) who identify as transgender to obtain sex-change surgeries.
Two new N.C. Supreme Court decisions set a 40-year maximum prison sentence for violent juvenile offenders, regardless of the number or severity of their crimes.
Intentional destruction of the USA


Retired NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar slammed Los Angeles’ Lakers player LeBron James after James recently gloated over an opposing team by making an “obscene gesture,” saying that the truly greatest players of all time do not need to gloat.
A few days ago, as I was finishing shaving, my wife mentioned that she had an upset stomach. So I handed her 2 Tums and set the bottle down on the vanity counter facing our mirror.
The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it would hike interest rates by 0.75% — the boldest action since 1994.
The gun-rights group Grass Roots North Carolina criticizes U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis' "misguided approach" to a possible compromise federal gun bill.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) claimed on Sunday that Democrats have enough votes to enact a new crackdown on guns before admitting that they, in fact, do not have enough votes because of the filibuster.


According to a recently uncovered ancient diary, Biblical scholars now believe that we may now know the words Moses spoke after leading the Israelites out of Egypt and fleeing Ramses with his army.


Back to Top