A North Carolina court has approved a consent judgment requiring the State Board of Elections to use jury-duty records to identify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls, marking a significant legal victory for the Republican National Committee in its ongoing election integrity push.
Superior Court Judge Jennifer Bedford, an Obama appointee, approved the agreement after a 19-minute online hearing Wednesday. The judgment stems from a lawsuit the RNC and North Carolina Republican Party filed in 2024 accusing the state elections board of failing to comply with a North Carolina law requiring clerks of court to report individuals who claimed noncitizenship when seeking to be excused from jury service.
Under state law, noncitizens are barred from voting in North Carolina elections and from serving on juries. The consent judgment establishes a schedule through 2028 for county clerks to transmit jury-duty noncitizen declarations to the state elections board. Within 30 days of receiving that information, the board must review voter registrations, identify affected registered voters, and refer cases to the State Bureau of Investigation or district attorneys if someone appears to have voted before becoming a U.S. citizen.
"This agreement is a major win for election integrity in North Carolina," RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "It's straightforward: if someone admits they're not a U.S. citizen during jury duty, that information should be used to check the voter rolls and remove anyone who doesn't belong."
What the Right Is Saying
RNC officials emphasized that the agreement simply enforces existing North Carolina law that previously went unenforced. The committee said it filed a public-records request in 2024 seeking to determine whether the state board was complying with the jury-duty reporting requirement but received no response, prompting the lawsuit.
Conservative advocates argued the objection from progressive groups focused on privacy concerns ignores the straightforward nature of the underlying process: individuals who explicitly stated they were not U.S. citizens when seeking jury duty exemptions are being identified for review. They contend that maintaining accurate voter rolls is a basic function of election administration and that using existing court records represents an efficient, low-cost method to verify voter eligibility.
The RNC noted this case is part of a broader Republican legal push on voter eligibility, including litigation defending President Donald Trump's executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship and requests for the Supreme Court to hear cases involving Arizona's proof-of-citizenship law.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive groups argued against one provision of the settlement requiring the list of individuals claiming noncitizenship for jury-duty purposes to be posted on the state elections board's FTP website. Two organizations represented by the Elias Law Group, North Carolina Asian Americans Together and El Pueblo, objected to the public disclosure requirement.
Their attorney contended that publishing such information online could raise privacy concerns and have a chilling effect on individuals who may have made mistakes on jury forms or been confused about their citizenship status during brief court appearances. Groups supporting the objection noted that while the records are technically public under state law, posting them online for mass access creates risks of harassment or mistaken identity targeting legal residents or naturalized citizens.
Additionally, some Democratic critics pointed to former Gov. Roy Cooper's reasoning when he vetoed a 2019 bill that would have removed undocumented immigrants from voter rolls, arguing that such purges can inadvertently remove eligible voters and suppress turnout among immigrant communities. They note that errors in matching jury-duty records with voter registrations could lead to legitimate citizens being improperly flagged.
What the Numbers Show
A majority of North Carolina voters across party lines support removing noncitizens from voter registration rolls, according to Heritage Action polling. The survey found 83% of Republicans, 59% of Independents and 52% of Democrats favor such removals. Overall support for the policy crosses partisan lines in the battleground state.
The consent judgment establishes specific timelines: county clerks must transmit jury-duty noncitizen declarations on an ongoing schedule through 2028, with the elections board required to process received information within 30 days. Cases referred for potential prosecution involve individuals who appear to have voted before becoming U.S. citizens, suggesting authorities will distinguish between those who registered while lawfully not citizens versus those who naturalized after registration.
The Bottom Line
This consent judgment represents a template that RNC and state Republican parties may seek to replicate in other states with similar jury-duty reporting laws. The case highlights ongoing legal battles over voter roll maintenance methods, balancing election integrity arguments against privacy and error-prevention concerns raised by voting rights advocates.
Judge Bedford's comment during the hearing that "information submitted to the court system should also be recognized by other agencies" signals judicial receptiveness to using existing administrative records for voter eligibility verification. What remains to be seen is how many individuals will ultimately be identified through this process and whether any referred cases result in prosecutions. The 2028 endpoint aligns with upcoming federal election cycles, making implementation a focus for both parties ahead of midterm contests.