Courts in Michigan and North Carolina on Monday rejected attempts by Republicans to disqualify the ballots of certain overseas voters.
Both cases targeted people who have never lived in the state but were born overseas to parents who were residents of the state. The Michigan case also targeted the spouses of military and overseas voters.
A state judge in Michigan dismissed the Republicans’ case because it was filed so late — less than a month before the Nov. 5 presidential election. But the judge also found that the election language allowing those voters to cast ballots complied with both state and federal law, as well as the Michigan Constitution.
The state GOPs and the Republican National Committee were among the plaintiffs bringing both cases, which were filed as part of a broader legal strategy against overseas ballots in presidential battleground states ahead of the Nov. 5 election.
The RNC did not immediately return requests for comment.
In North Carolina, a judge hearing a case in Wake County Superior Court denied a preliminary injunction the Republicans were seeking against the state Board of Elections.
The decision will allow people who have never lived in the state, but were born overseas to parents or guardians who were North Carolina residents, to vote as usual in the November presidential election.
Republicans argued that North Carolina is allowing these “Never Residents” to vote under a 2011 state law that disregards the state constitution’s requirement that voters be residents of the state. They contend those ballots could be part of an elaborate scheme to steal the election, a claim for which there is no evidence.
In the decision issued Monday, the judge said there is “absolutely no evidence” of any such fraud occurring in North Carolina and the Republicans had been unable to identify even a single case related to the group of voters they targeted.
The Democratic National Committee intervened in the North Carolina case and told the court that many of the affected voters are the children of U.S. military personnel stationed overseas. It argued that the 11th hour legal filing regarding a law passed more than 13 years ago aimed to sow distrust in advance in this year’s election.
In Michigan, the judge noted that the language targeted by the Republicans’ lawsuit had been in place since 2017.
“A challenge could have been raised at any time after 2017, and should have at least been brought earlier in the year leading up to the general election, not 28 days before,” Michigan Court of Claims Judge Sima G. Patel said in the ruling issued Monday.
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
