When Constitutional Principles Become Partisan

Catawba-YouGov survey findings show that North Carolinians broadly embrace most constitutional rights—but sharply divide over one of the Fourteenth Amendment's defining promises.

By Michael Bitzer

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court’s decision involving birthright citizenship has once again focused national attention on one of the Fourteenth Amendment’s most debated provisions. Yet survey data collected from North Carolinians last year suggest that the legal debate mirrors a much broader public divide over the constitutional principle itself.

In June 2025, the Catawba-YouGov Survey asked 1,000 North Carolinians about their level of importance regarding fifty-one different principles related to American democracy.

Within these principles were sixteen principles related to constitutional rights and liberties. At the top of these rights and liberties are several related to criminal rights:

• At 91 percent, ‘when charged with violating the law, evidence must be presented in an open and transparent manner within a court of law’ had the highest level of importance;

• At 90 percent of importance, ‘citizens have basic rights and processes that the government or governmental officials must respect’; and,

• 90 percent of North Carolinians expressed the importance of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to a jury of peers, and punishment only after an open and fair process.

Of the overall 51 principles of American democracy, all but three had levels of importance at 70 percent or greater. The three that ranked below 70 percent had one thing in common: the 14th Amendment’s citizenship principle.

Just under 70 percent was the concept of ‘birthright citizenship,’ meaning that “if a person is born on American soil, they are considered a citizen of the United States.”

A little over two-thirds (69 percent) of North Carolinians said this was a very or somewhat important principle to American democracy. However, within the partisan self-identification, one finds a critical ‘stair-step’ dynamic at play.

Among North Carolina Democrats, over nine-in-ten said birthright citizenship was an important principle, while seven-in-ten Independents said so. But among North Carolina Republicans, less than half—47 percent—said it was an important principle, while 37 percent said it was ‘not important.’

When asked about an addendum to birthright citizenship—the qualification of being born on U.S. soil ‘even if their parents are non-citizens.’

To this principle, two-thirds of North Carolinians said it is important, with about the same level of ‘not important’ at two-in-ten. But again, the ‘stair-step’ dynamic is evident.

Again, nine-in-ten Democrats said that even if the parents are non-citizens, being born on U.S. soil grants citizenship. Almost seven-in-ten Independents agree, but only 45 percent of Republicans agreed, with 38 percent saying it was ‘not important.’

The final principle, which garnered the lowest importance level, was that of two specific words: “all persons.”

The 14th Amendment begins with “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” (emphasis added). The term ‘all persons’ begins the amendment with a clear repudiation of the Dred Scott decision.

The survey asked about that key phrase and its relationship to how citizens and non-citizens are viewed constitutionally:

This principle garnered the lowest level of importance: barely six out of ten North Carolinians, with a plurality of Republicans saying ‘it was not important,’ while 86 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Independents said it was important.

The debate over birthright citizenship will continue in the public square. But these survey findings suggest that in North Carolina, the disagreement extends beyond a single legal doctrine. They reveal differing understandings of what the Constitution itself promises and who those promises are intended to protect.

For most constitutional principles—from due process to the presumption of innocence—North Carolinians demonstrate broad agreement across political lines. Birthright citizenship, however, stands as one of the few exceptions, where partisan identity increasingly shapes how people interpret constitutional language that has existed for more than 150 years.

Public opinion reminds us that constitutional debates are never solely about legal interpretation. They are also debates about national identity, citizenship, and the enduring question of who belongs within the American constitutional community.