Court Sides with GOP, Rules Nonresidents Cannot Vote in Federal Elections

A North Carolina court ruled that the state violated its constitution by allowing certain nonresident individuals to vote in federal elections, delivering a significant election integrity victory for the Republican National Committee and the North Carolina Republican Party.

The ruling from Wake County Superior Court Judge Hoyt Tessener centered on so-called “never resident” voters — individuals born overseas to U.S. citizen parents who have never physically lived in North Carolina but were allowed to vote under the state’s Uniform Military and Overseas Voter Act.

Republican plaintiffs argued that the North Carolina Constitution clearly limits voting rights to state residents. They maintained that individuals who have never lived in North Carolina should not be permitted to vote in any election administered by the state, including federal races.

The State Board of Elections had already stopped allowing “never residents” to vote in state elections after a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling. However, the board continued permitting those individuals to vote in federal contests.

Judge Tessener agreed with the Republican argument, according to statements released after the decision.

“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 ruling.

Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters also praised the decision, calling it “a clear win for fair and lawful elections” and saying the court reaffirmed a basic principle: only North Carolina residents should vote in North Carolina elections.

The legal fight grew out of litigation connected to the disputed 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court race.

Republican groups argued that the state constitution’s residency requirements apply to all elections and that state officials cannot create separate standards for federal contests.

GOP attorneys said previous appellate and state Supreme Court rulings 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. They argued that federal elections raised a separate legal question and that state law specifically allowed these overseas voters to cast ballots in federal races.

The Democratic National Committee also claimed the lawsuit could disenfranchise military families and overseas citizens.

Under the challenged law, a person born abroad could vote in North Carolina if a parent or legal guardian’s last eligible voting residence was in the state and that person had never registered to vote elsewhere.

Republicans argued that provision violated the North Carolina Constitution’s residency requirements.

The ruling is not expected to affect voters protected under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, which covers military personnel and overseas citizens who previously lived in a state before moving abroad.

The decision marks another major development in North Carolina’s long-running election law battles and could influence voter eligibility rules ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Republican groups celebrated the ruling as a reaffirmation of constitutional residency standards, while opponents are expected to continue challenging restrictions affecting overseas voting eligibility.

The ruling could also carry consequences beyond North Carolina. Several states have provisions allowing certain overseas citizens who have never lived in the United States to vote based on a parent’s last state of residence.

For Republicans, the decision represents another victory in the broader effort to tighten voter eligibility rules, protect lawful ballots, and strengthen public confidence in elections before the 2026 midterms.

As the next election cycle accelerates, the case is likely to become another flashpoint in the national fight over voting rights, election administration, and who is legally eligible to participate in American elections.

Whether Democrats appeal the ruling remains unclear, but the battle over voter eligibility in North Carolina appears far from over.

For conservatives, the court’s message is straightforward: citizenship alone is not enough to override state constitutional residency requirements, and election officials cannot bend the rules simply because the political stakes are high.