Suit: Unconstitutional NC Law Lets People Who Never Lived There Vote

North Carolina’s constitution requires that voters be residents of the state. But a state statute currently in place violates this requirement, opening the door for individuals who have never resided in the state to vote, a newly filed lawsuit alleges.

Congress established the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) in 1986, permitting military service members and select other overseas citizens to register and vote in federal elections. North Carolina also has its own Uniform Military and Overseas Act (UMOVA).

Under UMOVA, a voter who was born outside of the country and has never resided in the state is still eligible to vote if “the last place where a parent or legal guardian of the voter was, or under this Article would have been, eligible to vote before leaving the United States is within [North Carolina].”

But a suit filed Wednesday by Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE) alleges that the statute ignores the state constitution’s “unambiguous requirement of residency” and “purports to extend voter qualifications to certain individuals not covered by UOCAVA and who do not and have never resided in North Carolina.”

According to the North Carolina constitution, “[a]ny person who has resided in the State of North Carolina for one year and in the precinct, ward, or other election district for 30 days next preceding an election, and possesses the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in this State.”

Plaintiffs suggest that the language of UMOVA is defined to “include certain persons overseas who never actually resided in North Carolina,” and who ultimately “may never have resided anywhere in the United States, let alone North Carolina.”

The North Carolina election officials have also “unlawfully treated UMOVA voters as if they were UOCAVA voters, including by exempting them from voter identification requirements … that apply to first-time voters,” the suit alleges. “Only UOCAVA voters–not UMOVA voters–are entitled to exemption from those requirements.”

“Accordingly, North Carolina election officials have registered to vote people who have never resided in North Carolina and have allowed them to vote in North Carolina’s state and federal election without taking the required steps to verify their identities,” the suit continues, adding that “this not only exposes our elections to substantial risk of fraud and other misconduct, but it is contrary to state law.”

The suit was brought on behalf of two North Carolinians, the Republican National Committee, and the North Carolina Republican Party.

RITE’s CEO and President Derek Lyons argues the state’s constitution “unequivocally require[s] residency.”

“The North Carolina Constitution’s voter qualifications unequivocally require residency,” Lyons said in a statement. “However, the state is permitting individuals who have never resided in North Carolina, let alone the United States, to vote in all of the state’s elections, from President down to local offices.”

The suit also contends that the election officials are “impermissibly using UMOVA to circumvent their obligations to require certain identification from persons registering to vote.”

“Defendants’ failure to require this identification threatens the integrity of North Carolina’s elections because it permits the counting of ballots that do not meet the state’s legal requirements for counting and it degrades the validity and accuracy of the state’s voter registration lists,” the suit continues.

“Voting for our eligible military, and overseas should be easy, but that does not extend to those ineligible to vote, nor does it mean ignoring crucial verification requirements for others living in foreign countries who claim to be citizens,” Lyons said in a statement.

Plaintiffs, in part, seek declaratory judgment that “[a]ny participation by a non-North Carolina resident who has never resided in the state in the state’s elections is a violation of … the North Carolina Constitution as applied to Plaintiffs.” They also ask that the court “[o]rder Defendants to take all steps necessary to remedy the harm caused by their unconstitutional actions.”