US District Judge Loretta Biggs in North Carolina has ruled that a 147-year-old state law, which prevents convicted felons from voting, is unconstitutional. Biggs found that the statute violates both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
The law faced contention due to a lawsuit brought forward by civil rights groups North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action. These groups challenged the statute from 1877 that was accused of having been written with the intent of excluding Black people from voting. The situation was further complicated as the law continues to enforce a disproportionately discriminatory impact when it comes to voting rights.
The court’s official opinion cited text from the legislation dating back to the era of Jim Crow, which stated its purpose was to “restore the ‘purity of the ballot’ and guard against certain characteristics attributed to the black race”. The state’s defense admitted that the historical context surrounding the enactment of such laws is indefensible, a concession that Biggs termed “extraordinary and telling”.
Earlier in the year, during legal debates, the state had attempted to add a “scienter requirement“, or good faith, to progressing charges of felony voting. This would require proof that an individual knowingly and intentionally voted while being barred from doing so. It was argued by state attorneys that this rendered the lawsuit moot, but Biggs disagreed, rejecting a recommendation for dismissal from a magistrate judge.
The attorneys for the state further suggested that the passing of the state constitution in 1971 absolved any “discriminatory taint” from the law. This argument was dismissed by Biggs citing no supportive case law that demonstrates changing a law can cleanse the discriminatory nature of another.
Ultimately, Biggs ruled that the statute, in its current form, fails the standard of the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, further declaring it unconstitutionally vague and inconsistently applied.
Earlier this year, US District Judge Thomas Schroeder blocked a different North Carolina voting provision, finding it was unconstitutional for tightening restrictions on same-day voter registration. Both cases could potentially be appealed to a higher court.