Federal Judge Upholds North Carolina Absentee Ballot Rules for Midterms

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — New mail-in voting requirements will remain active across North Carolina through the midterm elections following a decision by a federal judge on Monday evening. U.S. District Judge Thomas Schroeder denied an emergency request by voting rights organizations and individual voters who sought to halt the recently implemented state rules.

The lawsuit was filed in September by the North Carolina Alliance for Retired Americans, North Carolina Asian Americans Together, Down Home North Carolina, and two voters against the state board of elections and two county election boards. The groups argued that newly enacted ballot-handling procedures imposed an undue burden on voters and threatened to disenfranchise eligible citizens.

The Challenged Absentee Ballot Rules

The updated rules require local election officials to disqualify otherwise valid absentee ballots if they are not sealed inside an inner envelope. In addition, election workers must conduct signature verification to confirm that the person who requested the ballot is the one who filled it out. Under guidance from the state board of elections, county boards are instructed to presume a signature belongs to the voter unless there is clear evidence indicating otherwise, even if handwriting is illegible.

These procedures represent a shift from earlier practices. Prior to the rule change, an absentee ballot contained in an unsealed inner envelope would still be counted. Under existing state law, absentee voters must also complete their ballots in front of two witnesses and include a copy of their photo identification, a requirement in place since 2023.

Why the Federal Court Declined to Intervene

In a 72-page opinion, Judge Schroeder declined to grant an injunction to pause the rules. He noted that the state board of elections adopted the policy changes on Sept. 4, just hours before the state began mailing out absentee ballots, but the plaintiffs waited 18 days before filing their legal challenge.

Schroeder concluded that changing procedures while voting is already underway would be disruptive and that the plaintiffs had not shown they were likely to succeed on the merits. In his ruling, Schroeder explained that “plaintiffs have delayed in seeking the relief they now seek, and implementing the changes sought is infeasible at this stage in the midst of voting.” The judge determined that the rules impose only a modest burden because the instructions are printed on ballot materials and voters whose ballots are spoiled still have alternatives to cast a ballot.

What the Decision Means for North Carolina Voters

With county election boards already sorting ballots and spoiling those that do not comply with the rules, absentee voters must adhere strictly to the submission requirements. To ensure a ballot is accepted, voters must place it inside the provided inner envelope, seal that envelope completely, sign their name, have two witnesses present, and include a copy of an acceptable photo ID.

If local election officials spoil an absentee ballot due to an unsealed inner envelope or an unverified signature, the voter has options. A voter whose ballot is rejected has the opportunity to submit a corrected ballot, cast a ballot during in-person early voting, or vote in person on Election Day. However, plaintiffs cautioned that not all voters whose ballots are rejected will receive notice in time to request and return a replacement ballot before Election Day deadlines. More than 40,000 residents have already submitted ballots by mail, and nearly 150,000 absentee ballots have been requested statewide.

When Legal Guidance May Help

Voters who experience disputes regarding ballot disqualification or who need clarification on absentee curing procedures may benefit from consulting an attorney or a nonpartisan voting rights organization. Legal professionals familiar with election law can advise voters on statutory correction procedures and state administrative rules governing ballot challenges.

This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 20, 2026.