A Jim Crow relic just met its reckoning. In a major victory for voting rights, a federal appeals court has struck down North Carolina's century-old law that barred people with felony convictions from voting, citing its racist origins and disproportionate impact on Black voters.
The Key Players
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are two nonprofit organizations: the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC. Both groups work to help people in North Carolina, especially Black communities and those affected by poverty, get involved in voting and civic life. Philip Randolph is connected to a national civil rights group and focuses on helping African Americans register to vote, learn about elections, and get to the polls. Action NC works in cities like Charlotte, Durham, and Raleigh to fight poverty and inequality, and runs voter registration drives in low-income neighborhoods.
The defendants in this lawsuit are the North Carolina State Board of Elections and several top officials who oversee elections in the state. These officials are responsible for running North Carolina’s elections, managing voter registration lists, and making sure that only eligible voters can cast ballots. Together, these defendants are the state authorities charged with enforcing North Carolina’s voting laws.
A Law With a Racist Legacy
For many years, North Carolina has had a law that makes it a felony for people with past felony convictions to vote before they have finished their entire sentence, even if they don’t realize they’re not allowed to vote yet. This law doesn’t require proof that someone meant to break the law; just voting before your sentence is over can get you charged with a crime.
The law was part of a broader effort by white legislators to suppress Black political power after Reconstruction, including amendments in 1875 that aimed to “reduce the political influence of African Americans.” Although North Carolina adopted a new constitution in 1971, expanding disenfranchisement to out-of-state felonies, the legislature never substantively amended the challenged statute to address its discriminatory origins or effects. When the plaintiffs brought their lawsuit, the law had been on the books for centuries, mostly unchanged.
In recent years, district attorneys in North Carolina have started prosecuting people under this law, including several cases in which most of those charged were Black and said they didn’t know they were ineligible. While about 22% of North Carolina’s population is Black, between 2015 and 2022, about 63% of those investigated for violating the statute were Black. In specific counties and years, nearly all those prosecuted under the law were Black (e.g., Alamance County in 2018 and Hoke County in 2019).
When Fear Silences Votes
These prosecutions and the confusing rules around who can vote have made many people with criminal records afraid to register or vote, even when they are eligible. Community organizations like Philip Randolph and Action NC found it harder to do their work because people were scared of being arrested for voting by mistake. Because of all this confusion and fear, these groups sued the state in federal court, arguing that the law is unfair, confusing, and discriminates against Black voters.
Plaintiffs argued the statute’s history and ongoing impact show the law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They also claimed a Due Process violation: that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it does not clearly define which crimes “exclude” someone from voting or how citizenship rights are restored. This vagueness also leads to arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement; some district attorneys prosecuted people who didn’t know they were ineligible; others declined prosecution unless there was proof of intent.
NC’s ‘Too Little, Too Late’ Defense
While the case was pending in district court, North Carolina amended the law (effective January 1, 2024) to add a “scienter” requirement: now, a person could only be prosecuted if they knew their voting rights had not been restored.
Defendants claimed that since the challenged “strict liability” version of the law would no longer apply to future conduct, there was no longer a live controversy for the court to resolve. In other words, they argued that the plaintiffs’ concerns about chilling effects on voter registration and participation were no longer relevant because prosecutions could only happen under the amended law going forward, which included a knowledge requirement and thus addressed plaintiffs’ complaints.
They also argued that any risk of prosecution under the old law was speculative and unlikely to impact future elections or voter behavior, so the plaintiffs no longer had a “concrete interest” in the outcome. Therefore, defendants claimed, the case should be dismissed as moot since the court could not provide meaningful relief regarding a law that was no longer in effect for future conduct.
The district court ruled that the case was not moot, then ruled that the law violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and permanently blocked its enforcement. North Carolina then appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Victory for Voting Rights
The Fourth Circuit handed down a win for the plaintiffs.
The court held that the case was not moot for the same reasons the district court had articulated: because prosecutions under the old law could still continue for conduct that occurred before the amendment. The court found that it could still grant “effectual relief” by declaring the old law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement, especially since ongoing prosecutions and publicity about them would likely cause voter confusion and chill participation in the communities served by the plaintiffs.
The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court that the felony voting law violated the Equal Protection Clause. It held so under similar reasons: because it was originally enacted with racially discriminatory intent (to disenfranchise Black voters) and continues to disproportionately harm Black North Carolinians, and there has been no subsequent legislative action to “cleanse” the statute of its racist origins or intent.
As for the Due Process claim, the Fourth Circuit declined to address it – because, well, it didn’t need to. After finding North Carolina’s felony voting law unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, it affirmed the district court’s ruling solely on that ground and explicitly stated it was unnecessary to reach the Due Process issue.
What Does the Ruling Mean?
The upshot is that the old law is struck down, and North Carolina officials are permanently barred from prosecuting anyone under the old version of the law, including for conduct that occurred before the 2024 amendment. This ruling protects eligible voters and ensures that only the amended statute (with a knowledge requirement) governs future cases.
Related Resources:
- Fifteenth Amendment – Racial Equality in Voting (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution Pages)
- How the Fourteenth Amendment Protects Voting Rights (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution Pages)
- Voting Rights and Discrimination FAQ (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
