Noah Jabusch
At the close of the 2018 legislative session, North Carolina’s General Assembly approved an astounding six proposed amendments to the state’s constitution for the November ballot. The three-fifths vote requirement for proposing amendments was no obstacle for the Republican Party, which holds a supermajority in both the state house and Senate, but may not keep it after the fall elections.
The North Carolina State Constitution provides that the General Assembly may propose amendments, “but only if three-fifths of all the members of each house shall adopt an act submitting the proposal to the qualified voters of the State for their ratification or rejection.”
Although this is a fairly blatant power play by the legislature, the fact is that they clearly have the authority to place these amendments on the ballot. Fortunately, the ball is now in the voters’ court, and we have an obligation as citizens of North Carolina to learn more about these proposed changes to the basic structure of our state government, especially as some of them are deceptively worded.
Perhaps the most striking change would be the proposed voter ID requirement. Currently, in North Carolina, as in 15 other states and D.C., no identification is required to vote on election day. Once registered, a voter simply walks into their precinct’s polling site, states their name, and fills out their ballot.
The proposed amendment would not directly create a voter ID law, merely pass a mandate to the General Assembly to write one, but this mandate would still force the legislature’s hand, even if Democrats — who tend to oppose these laws — take control of one or both houses. Voters also will not have a direct say over what IDs will be accepted, or whether House Speaker Tim Moore’s offer to provide free IDs to those without them will be implemented.
Proponents of the law point to it as a way of fighting voter fraud, even though WUNC notes that this issue is vanishingly rare, with a New Hampshire investigation of the 2016 election finding a total of five instances within the state. Opponents fear that the requirement would lower turnout among minority groups. According to WUNC and The Washington Post, although minorities are less likely to have IDs, past research has failed to conclusively link laws to changes in turnout.
Regardless of one’s views on voter ID, this amendment is probably among the least problematic because it quite clearly states its end goal. More at issue are two amendments that purport to remove partisanship from the judiciary and the state elections board, respectively, but actually remove significant powers from the governor.
The first is the “Bipartisan State Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement” amendment, which would replace the current elections board, which recent court cases have ruled is under the control of the governor, with a new eight-member board whose members are chosen by the General Assembly’s leaders, with a cap of four members per party.
The second would set up a new system for filling judicial vacancies. Currently these are appointed by the governor, but under this amendment, an independent commission would investigate citizen-submitted nominees and pass on their findings to the assembly, which would then pick only two names for the governor to choose between, a severe check on his power.
The legislature has previously attempted to drastically disempower the governorship, beginning shortly after Governor Cooper was elected. One of these lame-duck laws also tried to reduce the number of seats on the state board of elections from five to four, with two from each party, but was overruled. That bill was followed by a second attempt that merged the elections board and ethics commission, which was overruled this January.
These three amendments, as well as the others which would entrench hunting rights, lower the income tax cap from 10 percent to 7 percent — the current tax rate is 5.5 percent — and revise the section on victims’ rights during criminal proceedings.
While these amendments vary in their impact on the population of the state, on each one it is our constitutional responsibility as voters to make our voices heard by the voices in power. Do we want to force voters to take the added step of bringing an ID to the polls? Should the governor or legislature have more say on the elections board or judiciary? These questions are up to us as voters to decide. When we head to the polls on Nov. 6, we should all be prepared to answer them.