A North Carolina court has ruled that the state violated its constitution by allowing certain nonresident individuals to vote in federal elections, handing a significant victory to the Republican National Committee and North Carolina Republican Party in an ongoing election integrity dispute.
Republican plaintiffs argued that the North Carolina Constitution limits voting rights to state residents and that individuals who have never lived in North Carolina cannot legally participate in any elections conducted by the state, including federal contests.
The State Board of Elections had previously stopped allowing “never residents” to vote in state elections after a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling but continued permitting them to vote in federal races.
Judge Tessener agreed with the Republican position, according to statements released following the ruling
“This ruling confirms the state constitution forbids voting by individuals who have never lived in North Carolina,” North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Jason Simmons said after the decision.
Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters also praised the ruling, calling it “a clear win for fair and lawful elections” and arguing that the court reaffirmed the principle that only North Carolina residents can vote in North Carolina elections.
The dispute traces back to litigation that emerged during the contested 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court race
Republican groups argued that the state constitution’s residency requirements apply equally to all elections and that state officials could not create separate standards for federal contests.
GOP attorneys maintained that previous appellate and state Supreme Court rulings had already established that “never residents” are constitutionally prohibited from voting in North Carolina elections.
Democrats and the State Board of Elections opposed the lawsuit, arguing that federal elections presented a different legal question and that state law explicitly authorized these overseas voters to participate in federal contests
The Democratic National Committee further argued that the lawsuit could disenfranchise military families and overseas citizens.
Under the challenged law, an individual born abroad could vote in North Carolina if a parent or legal guardian’s last eligible voting residence was in the state and the individual had never registered elsewhere. Republicans argued that provision violated the North Carolina Constitution’s residency requirements.
The ruling is not expected to affect voters covered under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which protects military personnel and overseas citizens who previously lived in a state before moving abroad
The decision represents another major development in North Carolina’s broader election law battles and could have implications for voter eligibility policies ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Republican groups hailed the ruling as reinforcing constitutional residency requirements, while opponents are expected to continue challenging restrictions affecting overseas voting eligibility.
The ruling could have implications beyond North Carolina
Election law experts have noted that several states maintain provisions allowing certain overseas citizens who have never resided in the United States to vote based on a parent’s last state of residence.
For Republicans, the decision represents another victory in a broader effort to tighten voter eligibility standards and strengthen election integrity measures ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
With the 2026 election cycle already underway, the ruling is likely to become another flashpoint in the national debate over voting rights, election administration, and who is ultimately eligible to participate in American elections.
