Courts in Michigan and North Carolina have rejected attempts by Republicans to disqualify the ballots of certain overseas voters. The cases targeted individuals who were born overseas to parents who were residents of the state, despite not having lived in the state themselves. The Michigan case also included the spouses of military and overseas voters. However, the Michigan judge dismissed the case due to its late filing, less than a month before the election, but also found that the election language allowing these voters to cast ballots complied with state and federal law. The cases were part of a broader legal strategy against overseas ballots in presidential battleground states.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson criticized the lawsuit as frivolous and described the ruling as a win for election integrity, stating that it targeted the voting rights of U.S. citizens and their families living abroad. In North Carolina, a judge denied a preliminary injunction sought by Republicans against the state Board of Elections, allowing individuals born overseas to vote in the upcoming presidential election even if they have never lived in the state. Republicans argued that these individuals, known as “Never Residents,” could be part of a scheme to steal the election, but the judge found no evidence of fraud and dismissed the claim.
The judge in North Carolina noted that the Republicans had been unable to identify any instances of fraud related to the group of voters they targeted. The Democratic National Committee intervened in the case, pointing out that many affected voters are the children of U.S. military personnel stationed overseas. The committee argued that the last-minute legal filing aimed to sow mistrust in the election, especially since the law allowing these voters to participate had been in place since 2011. In Michigan, the judge emphasized that challenges should have been raised earlier, as the language in question had been in place since 2017.
The decision in North Carolina and Michigan to reject the attempts to disqualify overseas ballots is seen as a victory for election integrity and the voting rights of U.S. citizens living abroad. Critics of the lawsuits argue that they are part of a broader strategy to cast doubt on the security of the elections in these battleground states. The legal challenges were filed close to the election date, prompting the judges to dismiss them for their late timing. Despite claims by Republicans that allowing these voters to participate could lead to fraud, the courts found no evidence to support these allegations.
The rulings highlight the importance of protecting the voting rights of all eligible citizens, including those living overseas or born to parents from another state. Both Michigan and North Carolina have upheld the rights of these individuals to participate in the democratic process and have dismissed attempts to disenfranchise them based on their residency status. As the November presidential election approaches, it is crucial to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to have their voices heard and that legal challenges are based on evidence rather than speculation.
