Courts dismiss RNC lawsuits contesting certain international votes in Michigan and North Carolina, respectively.
The rulings in two distinct cases on a recent Monday pose challenges to Republican initiatives aiming to scrutinize overseas voting, a practice traditionally regarded as untouchable due to its connection to the military. However, with the expanding pool of civilian expats surpassing military voters living abroad, this demographic becomes a significant voting bloc for Democrats.
Donald Trump and his Republican comrades have declared these cases essential for safeguarding the integrity of the 2024 election. Nevertheless, their arguments fared poorly in court. A Michigan judge deemed the lawsuit an attempt to disenfranchise voters, while a North Carolina judge stated that Republicans failed to provide any solid evidence of the alleged voter fraud they sought to stop.
The RNC initiated lawsuits in Michigan and North Carolina, aiming to impede policies permitting citizens living abroad to vote in these states if their parents (or, in the case of Michigan, their spouse) had resided there prior to emigration, regardless of whether the voters had lived there themselves.
Judge Sima Patel of Michigan's Court of Claims, in her decision, criticized the Republicans for filing their lawsuit at the eleventh hour, referring to it as a last-minute attempt to disenfranchise spouses and children of former Michigan residents now residing abroad.
In North Carolina, Wake County Superior Court Judge John W. Smith turned down the RNC's request for an emergency court order requiring election officials to discard ballots from overseas voters who had not previously resided in the state.
Smith opined that the RNC challenged voting policies endorsed by the North Carolina legislature with bipartisan support, and the Republicans had provided no substantial evidence of any instance where the alleged voter fraud had ever occurred.
CNN reached out to the RNC, the Democratic National Committee, and election officials in Michigan and North Carolina for comment.
In both states, legislation permitting overseas voting has been in place for several years. However, the number of civilian voters abroad surpassed the military vote abroad starting in 2016. Democrats announced a substantial financial investment into mobilizing eligible Democrats abroad, with a particular focus on those who can vote in battleground states.
Michigan Republicans mentioned the Democratic turnout effort in their court documents as part of their challenge in the state.
Despite filing their lawsuit just a few weeks before the election and past the federal deadline for states to deliver ballots to overseas voters, Patel was skeptical of the Republicans' claims. She expressed concern about the complexity and preparations needed for election officials in the final days leading up to the election, stating that it would be challenging or impossible to reject potentially thousands of ballots at such a late stage.
Moreover, Patel was unconvinced by the Republicans' arguments that the Michigan Constitution's residency requirements prevented the state law enabling overseas citizens who had never resided in Michigan to vote there if they had a sufficient family connection. Patel found merit in the arguments presented by election officials supporting the policy, who maintained that the Michigan Constitution also granted the legislature the authority to increase the pool of eligible voters.
As of last week, Michigan officials reported receiving approximately 16,000 requests for overseas ballots. Given the 8.4 million registered voters in the state and over 5.5 million Michiganders who cast their votes in the 2020 election, this number represents a minuscule fraction of the overall electorate.
CNN's Devan Cole contributed to this report.
The ongoing political debates surrounding overseas voting have led Donald Trump and his Republican allies to support legal challenges in Michigan and North Carolina. Regardless of their efforts, both judges in these cases ruled against the Republicans, viewing their arguments as attempts to disenfranchise voters.
