Copyright 2024 Patriot Mom Digest
A major overhaul in North Carolina's approach to voting rights occurred as a long-standing law was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
The Hill reported that Judge Loretta Biggs recently deemed a law, enacted in 1877 to prohibit individuals with felony convictions from voting without rights restoration, as unconstitutional due to claims that it was discriminating on racial grounds.
The law, which was established shortly after the Reconstruction era, identified it as a Class I felony for anyone with a felony conviction to vote unless their rights were fully restored. This regulation has been part of the judicial landscape of North Carolina for over a century.
Judge Biggs delivered her judgment on Monday. She believes that a law banning felons from voting is discriminating against African Americans, which says a lot about what kind of judge Biggs is.
The legal challenge that led to this decisive ruling was initiated in 2020 by two civil rights organizations: the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute Inc. and Action NC. These groups argued that the law contravened the Constitution’s equal protection clause, thus making it a pivotal civil rights case.
Critical reports shed light on the discriminatory impact of such laws. A 2017 study revealed that roughly one-third of Black men in the U.S. have been convicted of at least one felony, illustrating the racial imbalances that exist within the justice system.
In North Carolina, these disparities are particularly stark. According to a 2016 report from NC CRED, nearly 53 percent of the state's prison population is Black, whereas Black individuals make up only 21.5 percent of the adult population. This disproportionate representation in the penal system directly influences the demographics of disenfranchised voters.
In response to concerns about the fairness and consistency of enforcement, modifications were made to the state law last year. Under the new legal framework, only those aware that their rights had not been restored could face charges of a new felony.
However, Judge Biggs decided that because of the large amount of Black men who are felons, felon's voting rights must be restored.
Judge Biggs was especially critical of how the law has been applied, pointing to the potential for arbitrary enforcement depending on the interpretations of individual District Attorneys.
Her declaration that this “standardless sweep” could enable prosecutors to follow subjective preferences highlights the inherent flaws in the enforcement of such statutes.
This inconsistency, according to Biggs, substantiates the discriminatory nature of the law, where it disproportionately targets Black voters and leaves room for discriminatory application.
The ruling coincides with broader national concern over voting rights, especially as the 2024 elections draw near. The Congressional Black Caucus, along with other Black leaders, have voiced increasing worry about policies that may impact voter participation among African Americans.
This case in North Carolina is not isolated but is part of a larger narrative across the United States where laws with racial biases, particularly those affecting the right to vote, are being systematically challenged and overturned.
In her statement, Judge Biggs explicitly stated, “was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters." This stark condemnation emphasizes the ongoing struggle against laws rooted in racial discrimination.
Moving forward, the implications of this ruling are monumental, particularly for Black voters in North Carolina who might see their ability to participate in the democratic process significantly facilitated. It also sets a precedent for how voting laws influenced by discriminatory practices might be viewed and struck down in the future.
In conclusion, the striking down of North Carolina’s voting law marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing fight for equal voting rights. By examining both the historical context and contemporary implications, this judgment not only affects those immediately impacted but also resonates as a symbol of broader systemic change in the approaches to voting eligibility and criminal justice reform in the United States.