§ 163-55. Qualifications to vote; exclusion from electoral franchise.

Case Name: Andrews v. Cody

Citation: 327 F.Supp. 793

Year: 1971

Case PDF: AndrewsvCody

Case Summary: The one-year residency requirement contained in North Carolina Constitution and statute was unconstitutional when applied to the right to vote in local elections.

Case Name: James v. Bartlett

Citation: 359 N.C. 260

Year: 2005

Case PDF: JamesvBartlett

Case Summary: The plain meaning of the statutory section setting forth qualifications to vote stipulated that voters were required to cast ballots on election day in their precincts of residence. Therefore, the Board of Elections improperly counted provisional ballots cast outside voters’ precincts of residence as state law does not permit out-of-precinct provisional ballots to be counted in elections.

Case Name: Lloyd v. Babb

Citation: 251 S.E.2d 843

Year: 1979

Case PDF: LloydvBabb

Case Summary: The classification between potential voters as residents entitled to vote and nonresidents not entitled to vote shall be upheld if such classifications are reasonable and not subject to a compelling state interest. However, state laws which have the effect of denying certain classes the right to vote must be supported of a compelling justification. Moreover, it would not be a denial of equal protection to make certain inquiries of students who sought to register to vote as to their respective residency which were not made of other would-be registrants. Although there is no denial of equal protection under the use of the presumption that a student who leaves his parents’ home to go to college is not domiciled in the place where the college is located for voting purposes. Students seeking registration in the local of which they went to college may be asked specific questions about their financial affairs, such as whether they had an automobile, and where their banking and business connections lay as these would not implicate voting classifications on the basis of wealth or property ownership. It was not an unjustifiable intrusion into the private affairs of students when compelling them to answer certain questions concerning their residency. Furthermore, a student who merely intends to remain at his place of schooling only until graduation is not demonstrative to their domicile for voting purposes; so long as the student intends to make his home in the community where he is physically present and has no intent to return to his former home upon graduation, he may claim the college community as his domicile for voting purposes. Additionally, registrars may use questionnaires to obtain necessary facts to determine whether a student is entitled to vote in a particular locality is permissible. In determining whether such person is a bona fide resident for voting purposes, the State has demonstrative authority and may issue domicile (or "residence") test which exclude only those necessary to preserve the basic conception of a political community. However, a voter residing in a town only three months before an election, whose name was registered by one of the candidates, is not a qualified elector. The qualifications of "domicile" for voting purposes are legal capacity, physical presence, the intent to acquire domicile which requires both an intent to abandon one's prior domicile and an intent to remain at the new domicile, and the acquisition of a new domicile which may be shown both by declarations of the registrant and by objective facts which may be obtained via inquiries directed to the registrant by the registrar. If evidence adduced at trial showed members and officials of the county board had failed to require students seeking registration to prove their domicile, a court could enjoin the board from further registering students without doing so.  The courts possesses the power to order count boards to use a specific set of questions in relation to student voter registration as it relates to their domicile. However, judicial purging of voter registrants was not an available remedy in a mandamus proceeding as it would be duplicative of the statutory process for challenging voters (challenging persons were not entitled to a judicial remedy identical to the administrative remedy). But an action of the State Board of Elections in determining voter registration does not arise from a "contested case" and therefore provides no basis for judicial review.

Case Name: People ex rel. Van Bokkelen v. Canaday

Citation: 73 N.C. 198

Year: 1875

Case URL: https://perma.cc/G5AD-3JV3

Case Summary: The general assembly has no power to change the qualifications of voters in state, county, township, city or town elections, therefore the amendment changing the requisite days of residence is unconstitutional and void. Furthermore the 1875 amendment regulating the election of aldermen is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental principle of the state constitution, that representation shall be apportioned to the popular vote. Cities and towns, including counties and townships, are within the state and organized for the convenience of local self-government. Therefore, the qualifications of voters are the same as they need be at least 21 years of age, 12 months' residence in the state and 30 days in the city or town.

Case Name: State ex rel. Gower v. Carter

Citation: 143 S.E. 513

Year: 1928

Case PDF: State ex rel. Grower v. Carter

Case Summary: The qualifications for voting in municipal elections are the same as in general elections. Therefore as applied to a vote of a citizen of Syria for the office of mayor is held illegal. Furthermore, school teachers voting for mayor must have established legal residence to be deemed qualified electors. In determining such legal residence for purposes of domicile, intention may be shown by acts, declarations, and other circumstances.

Case Name: State ex rel. Echerd v. Viele

Citation: 164 N.C. 122

Year: 1913

Case PDF: State ex rel. Echerd v. Viele

Case Summary: Municipal election qualifications are the same as those at general elections and hence voters must have paid a poll tax. Moreover, a vote cast in a mayoralty election by a person living outside of the town limits was properly disallowed.

Case Name: People ex rel. Attorney General ex rel. Boyer v. Teague

Citation: 11 S.E. 665

Year: 1890

Case Summary: An elector shall not be permitted to register an any other precinct in the county which he resides until he provides a certificate to the registrar that he has been removed, and his name has been stricken from the registration books. Although, a change in a persons true residence is a question for the jury where a voter has routinely departed his home in another county but comes to the county in which an election is held for the purpose of working there, claiming the county their new home, but then returning to the other county upon conclusion of the election season. Where it does not appear from direct testimony for what candidate an unqualified voter voted, the fact may be shown by circumstantial evidence. In voter challenges, record of a persons indictment and conviction of a voter of a crime, previous to an election, is admissible to show that they voted fraudulently. Furthermore, evidence showing that a voter voted against a contestant such as his declarations made at or before the time of voting, are admissible against the defendant. Although, a person handing an elector a ticket for a certain contesting candidate is competent evidence showing for whom such elector voted. Additionally, if a voter received a ticket from a poll table, where only the defendant's tickets were distributed, and then "came down the line within the ropes and voted" is sufficient showing he voted for the defendant. Ultimately, it is for the trial judge to say whether the evidence tending to show the illegality of a particular vote is sufficient as a foundation for compelling the voter to tell for whom he voted. However, a challenger in a quo warranto matter to try title to an office, may not demand a order requiring a bill of particulars setting forth the names of the alleged illegal voters.

Case Name: Hall v. Wake County Bd. of Elections

Citation: 187 S.E.2d 52

Year: 1972

Case PDF: Hall v. Wake

Case Summary: Domicile is a fact which may be proved by direct and circumstantial evidence. There shall be no change of domicile of persons staying at summer or winter resorts, or to acquire an education, or some art/skill in which the animus revertendi accompanies the whole period of absence. When determining student domicile, it is presumed a student who leaves his parents' home to enter college is not domiciled in the college town to which he goes, although such presumption is rebuttable. The term "residence" when used in reference to election law means domicile. To constitute a domicile, there need be residence and intent to make the place of residence a home, in addition to an actual abandonment of the first domicile accompanied by an intention not to return to it and the acquisition of new domicile by actual residence at another place to make the last acquired residence a permanent home. Specifically a student may acquire domicile where his university or college is situated so long as he intends to stay there indefinitely and has no intention of resuming his former home. Nonetheless, a person's testimony regarding such intention is considered competent evidence yet not conclusive of the question as all surrounding circumstances and affirmative conduct must be taken into consideration. Determining domicile depends on no one fact or combination of circumstances but rather upon the totality of evidence showing a preponderance in favor of some particular place as domicile.