What started as a practical solution to Election Day congestion has become a central battleground for debates over voting rights, election integrity, and political power.
Photo of an early voting sign taken near North Carolina State University.
By Joshua Peters
North Carolina has a rich and complex history with early voting, a process that has played a significant role in shaping voter turnout and election outcomes. Since its introduction, early voting in North Carolina has been influenced by political, legal, and social forces that have continually evolved, reflecting both the state's demographic changes and broader national trends. This review will cover the history of early voting in North Carolina, key influencers, policy shifts, and significant results that have shaped its trajectory.
Early voting, also known as "one-stop absentee voting," was first introduced in North Carolina in 2000 as a response to the challenges of long lines and administrative burdens on Election Day. This move was part of a nationwide trend to improve voter access and make the voting process more convenient. By allowing voters to cast ballots prior to Election Day, early voting aimed to increase turnout by providing more flexibility for working individuals, the elderly, and those with busy schedules.
Early voting has had a demonstrable impact on voter turnout in North Carolina, particularly in presidential election years. In the 2008 election, for example, the use of early voting surged, with nearly 60% of all ballots being cast before Election Day. This wave of early voting was credited with helping then-Senator Barack Obama win the state.
The initial implementation of early voting was largely non-controversial and widely viewed as a positive step toward increasing voter participation. However, as early voting became more popular and widely used, it started to attract political attention. North Carolina's political climate shifted over the years, particularly after the 2010 and 2012 elections, where early voting played a significant role in the outcome of races at both the state and national levels.
One of the most significant legal challenges came after the 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively nullified key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. North Carolina lawmakers swiftly passed a law (H.B. 589) that reduced the number of early voting days from 17 to 10, eliminated same-day voter registration, and implemented stricter voter ID requirements. Proponents argued that these changes were necessary to prevent voter fraud, while opponents claimed they disproportionately affected African American, Latino, and young voters, who were more likely to use early voting.
Opponents of H.B. 589 argued that the law disproportionately affected African American voters, who had historically relied on early voting and same-day registration in large numbers. In response, civil rights groups filed lawsuits challenging the law. In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that key provisions of H.B. 589 were unconstitutional. The court's ruling was particularly scathing, stating that the law targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision." The decision highlighted how legislators had used data on African American voting patterns to craft policies that would make it harder for them to vote, effectively disenfranchising a significant portion of the electorate.
The court's decision restored the 17-day early voting period and same-day voter registration, emphasizing the crucial role these measures play in ensuring broader access to the ballot, particularly for historically marginalized communities. The restoration of these policies was seen as a victory for voting rights advocates, who argued that early voting increases participation, reduces long lines on Election Day, and offers greater flexibility for working-class voters. Despite attempts to reduce early voting access in 2016, the state's electorate continued to make heavy use of it.
North Carolina's early voting policies have had a direct effect on election outcomes, with fluctuations in the number of early voting days and polling locations leading to varying levels of voter participation. For example, the restoration of early voting in 2016 likely contributed to the close margins in the gubernatorial and presidential races, showing just how critical this voting method has become to both parties' electoral strategies.