By Jordan Meadows
Staff Writer
A Wake County Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of state and national Republican Party groups in a legal dispute over whether certain overseas voters—known as “never residents”—can participate in North Carolina elections.
Special Superior Court Judge Hoyt Tessener issued the ruling this week, siding with the Republican National Committee and the North Carolina Republican Party in their challenge against the State Board of Elections and the Democratic National Committee. Republican leaders quickly praised the decision as a reaffirmation of the state constitution’s limits on who can vote.
At the center of the case are “never residents,” individuals born outside the United States whose parents or legal guardians last lived in North Carolina before moving overseas. Under a state law known as the Uniform Military and Overseas Voter Act, these individuals had been allowed to register and vote in North Carolina elections, even if they themselves had never lived in the state. Republican plaintiffs argued that this practice violates the North Carolina Constitution, which they say restricts voting rights to state residents.
Tessener’s ruling builds on earlier decisions from North Carolina appellate courts, including a state Supreme Court ruling tied to the closely contested 2024 state Supreme Court race. In that case, courts determined that “never residents” could not vote in state and local elections. However, the State Board of Elections had continued allowing those voters to participate in federal elections, citing the existing state statute.
The new ruling appears to reject that distinction, finding that residency requirements apply across all elections conducted in North Carolina, including federal races. Republican groups argued that allowing non-residents to vote in federal contests created inconsistent standards and risked affecting election outcomes, especially with the 2026 midterm elections approaching.
“This ruling confirms the state constitution forbids voting by individuals who have never lived in North Carolina,” said North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Jason Simmons in a statement. Republican National Committee Chairman Joe Gruters also called the decision “a clear win for fair and lawful elections,” emphasizing that only eligible residents should be able to vote in the state.
Democrats and election officials had pushed back strongly against the lawsuit. In court filings, the Democratic National Committee argued the case was an attempt to broadly disenfranchise military families and overseas voters without considering individual circumstances. They also contended that the issue had already been addressed in prior court decisions and that the law still allows “never residents” to vote in federal elections. The State Board of Elections similarly argued that earlier court rulings only applied to state contests and did not invalidate the statute governing federal elections.
The legal fight stems in part from the aftermath of the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election, one of the closest in state history. Democrat Allison Riggs ultimately defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin by just 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million cast. Griffin challenged tens of thousands of ballots, including those from overseas voters and “never residents,” delaying certification of the race until May 2025. That dispute drew national attention. The recent decision has no effect on the certified results of the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court race.
The current case, known as Kivett v. State Board of Elections, was filed in 2024 and continued even as control over appointments to the elections board shifted following new legislation. Importantly, the ruling does not affect all overseas voters. Individuals covered under the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act—such as U.S. citizens who previously lived in North Carolina and are now serving overseas—remain eligible to vote.
State officials are expected to review and potentially update election procedures in response to the court’s decision.
