WASHINGTON, D.C. — A North Carolina court has ruled that the state violated its constitution by permitting certain nonresident individuals to vote in federal elections, delivering a victory to the Republican National Committee and the North Carolina Republican Party in an ongoing election integrity dispute. Wake County Superior Court Judge Hoyt Tessener issued the decision in response to a legal challenge concerning “never resident” voters — individuals born overseas to U.S. citizen parents who have never physically resided in North Carolina but were allowed to participate under the state’s Uniform Military and Overseas Voter Act.

Republican plaintiffs contended that the North Carolina Constitution restricts voting rights to state residents and that persons who have never lived in the state cannot lawfully cast ballots in any elections conducted there, including federal contests. The State Board of Elections had previously ceased allowing “never residents” to vote in state and local elections following a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, but continued to permit their participation in federal races.

Judge Tessener sided with the Republican position. North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Jason Simmons stated that the ruling confirms the state constitution prohibits voting by individuals who have never lived in North Carolina. Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters described the decision as “a clear win for fair and lawful elections,” asserting that it reaffirms the principle that only North Carolina residents may vote in North Carolina elections.

The litigation originated during the contested 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court race. Republican groups argued that the state constitution’s residency requirements apply uniformly to all elections and that state officials could not establish separate standards for federal contests. GOP attorneys maintained that prior appellate and state Supreme Court decisions had already established that “never residents” are constitutionally barred from voting in North Carolina elections.

Democrats and the State Board of Elections opposed the lawsuit, contending that federal elections presented a distinct legal question and that state law explicitly authorized these overseas voters to participate in federal contests. The Democratic National Committee argued that the challenge could disenfranchise military families and overseas citizens.

Under the challenged provision, an individual born abroad could qualify to 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 to vote elsewhere. Republicans asserted that this arrangement violated the North Carolina Constitution’s residency requirements. The ruling does not affect voters covered under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which safeguards military personnel and overseas citizens who previously resided in a state before relocating abroad.

The decision represents the latest development in North Carolina’s extended battles over election laws and could influence voter eligibility policies ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Republican groups welcomed the outcome as reinforcing constitutional residency standards, while opponents are expected to pursue further legal challenges concerning overseas voting rules. Election law experts have observed that several other states maintain similar provisions allowing certain overseas citizens who have never resided in the United States to vote based on a parent’s prior state of residence.

For Republicans, the ruling constitutes another success in a broader initiative to strengthen voter eligibility standards and election integrity measures in advance of the 2026 midterms. With the election cycle already underway, the decision is likely to intensify the national conversation regarding voting rights, election administration, and eligibility criteria. Democrats have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the ruling, but the legal and political contest over voter eligibility in North Carolina appears set to continue.

The outcome underscores persistent partisan differences over the scope of voting rights and the interpretation of state constitutional provisions in the context of federal elections. Both parties continue to monitor developments closely as they prepare strategies for the upcoming midterm contests.