GOP and RNC Rightly Blocked Last-Minute Democratic-Aligned Bid to Weaken North Carolina Absentee Ballot Safeguards
Source: M.D. Kittle. "GOP Foils Dems' Election Integrity Shenanigans In North Carolina." October 21, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says Republicans stopped a late attempt by left-leaning groups to make North Carolina count absentee ballots that weren't returned in sealed envelopes. The judge said the groups waited too long, and the author argues the rule is simple common sense and that the groups are being hypocritical about court timing rules.
Conclusion
The RNC and North Carolina GOP's defeat of a left-wing lawsuit seeking to loosen absentee ballot sealing requirements was a legitimate election integrity victory, and the challengers' effort was an improper, hypocritical, last-minute attempt to undermine commonsense ballot safeguards.
Premises
- A federal judge denied the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs sought to change election rules after voting had already begun, which the Supreme Court's Purcell principle discourages.
- The plaintiffs delayed: they waited 18 days after the memo was issued to sue and filed for an injunction only the day before absentee ballot counting began, while tens of thousands of ballots had already been cast.
- North Carolina law clearly requires absentee ballots to be sealed in the container-return envelope and completed, and unsealed ballots are to be tossed; the plaintiffs sought to have such ballots counted.
- A similar attempt in 2024 to count unsealed ballots was defeated by the RNC, with the interpretation allowing them found incorrect and creating a chain-of-custody problem.
- Left-wing groups argued Purcell did not apply here, yet previously invoked it against Trump's 2020 election challenges, showing inconsistency.
- Requiring signed, sealed absentee ballots is a basic, commonsense protection, and the plaintiffs are using the courts to circumvent the legislature's clear statutory rules.
Assumptions
- Sealed-envelope and signature requirements meaningfully protect election integrity and chain of custody
- A court ruling on timeliness (Purcell) is equivalent to validation of the substantive election-integrity position
- Plaintiffs' motives are partisan and aimed at weakening safeguards rather than good-faith protection of voters' rights
- Inconsistent invocation of Purcell by plaintiffs indicates bad faith rather than a legitimate distinction between cases
- Strict enforcement of the statute does not unjustly disenfranchise eligible voters
- The Materiality Provision claim lacks merit, though the court did not rule on it