A Lawsuit Built on Convenience, Not Law

Democrats push hard for every possible advantage in elections, but courts sometimes draw a line.

U.S. District Judge William L. Osteen Jr. delivered a ruling that defined those lines by rejecting a Democratic demand for early voting sites on three North Carolina university campuses. His ruling carried an unmistakable tone of impatience toward a case that tried to dress political convenience as constitutional necessity.

U.S. District Judge William Osteen rejected arguments by the College Democrats of North Carolina and some students that they were likely to win a recent lawsuit because decisions by GOP board members placed undue burdens on the right to vote.

The decision by Osteen — nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush — to deny a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order can be appealed.

Early in-person voting for the March 3 primary begins this coming Thursday. It features nomination races for U.S. Senate and House, the legislature, and local elections.

Osteen also wrote that formally backing efforts to open the sites so close to voting could risk confusion.

The College Democrats of North Carolina argued that without on-campus sites, students would need to travel off campus to vote, imposing time and transportation burdens on young voters.

That's the premise Judge Osteen rejected, making clear that elections aren't built to require perfect comfort; they just need access, order, and equal application of the law.

The Legal Theory That Arrived Too Late

Filed on January 27, 2026, the lawsuit also included four individual students who joined the College Democrats, claiming that the lack of campus polling sites violated the 26th Amendment by discriminating against younger voters and that their First and 14th Amendment rights were violated.

Election officials targeted both youth and black voters, claims attorney Uzoma Nkwonta. The court heard arguments on February 5 in Greensboro, and Judge Osteen denied the request, citing a lack of clear constitutional violation and no compelling emergency that justified court intervention so close to early voting.

Osteen asked why the plaintiffs waited until weeks before raising their voting concerns that may have existed for months. Their delay undercuts any claim of urgency, while urgency formed the basis of the request.

The Facts on the Ground Tell a Different Story

The complainants painted a dark picture of stranded students facing severe barriers to participation.

The facts lay out a far less dramatic story; North Carolina offers extensive early voting access. The 2026 primary includes 319 early voting sites across the state, up from 301 in 2022.

Both UNCG and NC A&T are located in Guilford County, which operates 17 locations. Jackson County operates four sites, including one roughly 1.5 miles from Western Carolina University, with free shuttle service. Same-day registration is available at all early voting locations.

Students navigate class schedules, employment, and beer runs every week. The claim that voting off campus transforms capable adults into hapless victims strains credibility. Judge Osteen pressed the plaintiffs on logistical details, while stating the absence of concrete operational plans for two of the three campuses.

Campus voting sites were open during the 2024 presidential election, while midterms historically omit them, a pattern the court treated as routine administration, not suppression.

Election Boards Push Back With Boring Reality

State and county election officials opposed the injunction, arguing it was rooted in logistics, not ideology. 

The North Carolina State Board of Elections emphasized that late filing disrupted required timelines for testing equipment, staffing, and assigning observers.

A lawyer for the state elections board, Phil Strach, told Judge Osteen that boards must serve entire counties rather than tailor operations around specific voting blocs. Guilford County Board of Elections Chair Eugene Lester pointed out the lack of campus polling sites during prior midterms, such as 2018 and 2022. Jackson County officials highlighted cost savings of $6,000 and $20,000 by maintaining four consolidated sites instead of spreading limited staff across additional locations.

Jackson County representatives stressed staffing constraints, while the Civitas Center for Public Integrity observed that college students count as adults under the law, capable of planning around voting schedules like the rest of us.

Suppression claims were traced to budget lines, staffing charts, and turnout data, suggesting that courts tend to favor the boring side of elections.

Final Thoughts

Judge Osteen declined to rescue a political strategy dressed up as a constitutional crisis. Students didn't lose voting rights; Democrats lost a preferred setup. Courts exist to protect equal access, not to guarantee electoral convenience where the law doesn't require it.

Treating students like adults isn't cruel or controversial, even when harsh sarcasm feels warranted. Regardless, I hope this brings a harbinger of reality to Democrats who continually try to game the system.

Election fights escalate because every denied request becomes the next grievance. PJ Media VIP keeps cutting through those tactics with clarity, context, and a refusal to indulge political theatrics. Join today and support analysis that still respects the law, while saving 60% using the word FIGHT.