Court Ruling Restores Voting Rights For Some Disenfranchised North Carolina Citizens

Community Success Initiative v. Moore: A Guide to the Latest Court Ruling Affecting North Carolina’s Felon Disenfranchisement Law

Cynthia Hernandez

If you are convicted of a felony in North Carolina, you can temporarily lose many of your rights as a citizen, including the founding principle of our democracy: your right to vote. Known as disenfranchisement, restricting the right to vote began as an amendment to the North Carolina Constitution in 1900 and was intended to severely limit the ability of African Americans to vote. Although the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the denial of voting rights on the basis of race had been ratified thirty years earlier, the North Carolina General Assembly’s wording of the disenfranchisement amendment allowed it to evade federal protections against race-based discrimination and severely limit the ability of African American men to vote. Namely, though facially neutral, the amendment discriminated against African Americans by requiring prospective voters to take literacy tests and pay a poll tax.

Although more stringent civil rights legislation granting African Americans the right to vote was passed in the 1960s, voter disenfranchisement laws have continued to disproportionately impact the African American community. Adopted in 1971, the current felony disenfranchisement provision of the North Carolina Constitution provides:

Disqualification of felon. No person adjudged guilty of a felony against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, shall be permitted to vote unless that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.

That same year, the General Assembly passed a new statute endorsing its prior policy of disenfranchising citizens on probation and post-release supervision. Now, in its current form, N.C.G.S. § 13-1(1) states that North Carolinians who have been released from incarceration but who have not been “unconditionally discharged” from probation or post-release supervision are prohibited from voting. More often than not, this unconditional discharge is contingent upon outstanding monetary obligations. Put simply, even if they have completed all other portions of their sentence, convicted felons cannot vote absent payment of outstanding restitution, fees, or other court-imposed fines.

The Community Success Initiative (CSI), Justice Served NC, and the Carolina State Conference of the NAACP filed a complaint against various defendants in the General Assembly and the State Board of Elections. In their complaint they argued that N.C.G.S. § 13-1 targets tens of thousands of disenfranchised North Carolinians, at least 40% of whom are African Americans. Further, they believe this statute “strikes at the heart of the [North Carolina Constitution’s] Free Elections Clause’s guarantee that elections in North Carolina must ‘freely and honestly . . . ascertain . . . the will of the people.’ ” Moreover, the complaint cited a North Carolina Supreme Court case which states that the North Carolina Constitution, which affords broader protections than the United States Constitution, protects “the fundamental right of each North Carolinian to substantially equal voting power.” Finally, CSI argued that the monetary requirement to regain access to voting violates the North Carolina Constitution’s Ban of Property Qualifications, which states that “[a]s political rights and privileges are not dependent upon or modified by property, no property qualification shall affect the right to vote[.]” Of course, money is a form of property. 

According to a ruling handed down by a panel of three judges from across the state, they’re right, at least in part. On September 4, 2020, voting 2-1, the judges’ panel in the Wake County Superior Court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the State from enforcing N.C.G.S. § 13-1(1) in Community Success Initiative v. Moore, reasoning that the statute is unconstitutional because it “creates a wealth classification that punishes felons who are genuinely unable to comply.” In other words, requiring convicted felons to pay their fines when they have the inability to pay–even though they have completed the remaining conditions of their sentences–before being able to vote, is a violation of the state Constitution’s Ban of Property Qualifications. The majority, consisting of Mecklenburg County Superior Court Judge Lisa Bell and Wake County Superior Court Judge Keith Gregory, noted that if they had not struck down this portion of the statute, then many people would have suffered “substantial and irreparable” harm.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge John Dunlow of the Ninth Judicial District wrote that he would have denied all of the plaintiffs’ claims. Many others agreed, including North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Michael Whatley, who said the decision could interfere with the state’s November election process.

Though the judges declined to rule on the constitutionality of the disenfranchisement law in its entirety, this significant victory for thousands of North Carolinians–particularly North Carolinians of color who already face a number of societal and systemic barriers–comes at a critical time in our history. Not only will some formerly convicted felons now be able to fearlessly vote for the next President of the United States, but they will also have a voice in electing representatives at the local, state, and federal levels. In a battleground state like North Carolina, it matters.