House Bill 958, Election Law Changes, appeared to be moving quickly through the General Assembly last year. It featured a host of election reforms, as seen in John Locke Foundation reviews of the original bill and a later amended version.
But then it suddenly dropped off the radar.
Now it is back, bigger and, mostly, better than ever. The House Election Law Committee will consider a proposed committee substitute (PCS: an amended version of the bill) on the morning of June 16. It could then move through the Rules Committee and on to a floor vote as soon as that afternoon.
A full description of the bill would be prohibitively long. But some highlights are below. (For a fuller description, read the bill overview prepared by legislative staff.)
Provisions retained from earlier versions of the bill
Here are some things in the PCS that were retained from earlier versions of the bill. Some of the items below are copied verbatim from earlier reviews of the bill, while others have been modified due to changes in the PCS.
- More time for fixing absentee and provisional ballot problems: Some problems with absentee ballot container envelopes, such as missing voter signatures, can be “cured” (fixed). The bill would change the deadline for curing ballots from three business days after election day to five. The bill also extends the deadline for county boards to determine if provisional ballots should be counted from three business days after election day to five.
- Earlier absentee ballot counting: County election boards may start counting absentee ballots that arrive before election day as soon as 9:00 AM on election day, rather than waiting until 5:00 PM, freeing them to do other work as they prepare for the close of polls.
- Only legally transmitted ballots counted: The bill would clarify that “only those voted absentee ballots transmitted to a county board in accordance with” this section shall be counted.” Legal forms of transmission for most voters include U.S. mail, commercial courier service, and hand-delivery by the voter or the voter’s near relative or verifiable legal guardian. Military and overseas voters would also have the option of electronic delivery. This would reverse a 2020 directive from former State Board of Elections Executive Director Karen Brinson Bell that stated, “A county board shall not disapprove an absentee ballot solely because it was delivered by someone who was not authorized to possess the ballot.”
- Ranked-choice voting: Ranked-choice voting, “a method that allows a voter the option to rank candidates for office in the voter’s order of preference,” would be banned in all elections in North Carolina.
- No electioneering by election board members: The current ban on State Board of Elections or county elections board members supporting or opposing candidates is expanded to also prohibit supporting or opposing political parties, supporting or opposing referenda, or trying to influence voter turnout. That last prohibition may be controversial in some quarters, but elections board members should focus on administering elections fairly and securely, not on influencing voter behavior. Promoting turnout by officials could affect different groups differently, potentially altering the electorate and election outcomes.
- Military and overseas voter ID: It would clarify that military and overseas voters must submit copies of their photo IDs with their ballots. Election officials must ensure that electronic copies of IDs can be submitted securely.
- Timeline for address verification: County officials must mail an address verification within two business days of receiving a voter registration application. If that verification is returned as undeliverable, they must send a second address verification by the next business day. Delaying registration verification has contributed to problems with ballots being counted from registrations later found to be unverifiable. A 2023 law fixed that problem, but a 2025 court settlement means it could return. More timely verification procedures would minimize the impact of that settlement.
- Privacy protection: If North Carolina joined a voter registration data-sharing arrangement such as the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), this would address concerns that groups could gain access to the records of people not registered to vote, thereby making such data “not a public record.”
- Ban payment per petition signature: As I noted in testimony to the North Carolina House Committee on Oversight and Reform in 2024, “any time you pay people to gather signatures… you increase the likelihood of fraud,” and recommended just such a ban.
- The return of 25 “exempt” positions at the State Board of Elections: The original bill included a provision that permitted the executive director of the State Board of Elections to exempt up to 25 positions from the state Human Resources Act. This would give the director discretion to fire and replace people in those positions, essentially making them political appointees. I wrote at the time, “While there is value in having a team with the same vision as the executive director, there is also value in having continuity in official positions as long as workers are not actively resisting the executive director’s direction.” The number of exempt positions was reduced in a later version of the bill, but unfortunately, it is now back up to 25.
- No foreign money in referendum campaigns: Referendum committees are not to accept “any contributions from a foreign national.” A foreign national is any individual who is not a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. Foreign governments, political parties, and businesses are also banned from contributing to referendum campaigns.
Bringing election performance audits to North Carolina
Election performance audits (also called procedural audits) are not about retabulating election results, but about ensuring that the results accurately reflect voter intent. Such audits would review the entire election process, from voter registration to post-election recounts.
As I pointed out in April, the State Auditor already has the authority to conduct election performance audits:
Under state law, all state and local governments and agencies are “subject to audit and investigation under the policy guidance of the Auditor” to provide the General Assembly, the executive branch, and the public with “an independent evaluation of public program performance.” The state auditor also has the authority to demand access to data and records and “may examine and copy all books, records, reports, vouchers, correspondence, files, personnel files, investments, and any other documentation of any State agency.”
In short, the auditor can already conduct election performance audits.
So, the goal for adding a performance audit to state election law is to set legislative expectations of what that audit would entail.
The audit in the bill has several elements designed to help make it part of a cycle of continuous improvement of our election system between elections. First, it would be conducted after the election is certified, and “no findings in audits under this section shall be used as grounds to challenge the final result of an election.” These audits are about correcting problems, not altering election results.
Second, it would examine the whole election process, including:
(1) The accuracy of voter rolls and compliance with list maintenance requirements in State and federal law.
(2) Procedures for testing voting equipment before counting ballots, including the ballots used for testing the equipment and the storage and maintenance of the equipment.
(3) Records of ballots distributed, ballots voted, poll book records, and ballots tabulated.
(4) Chain of custody and seal documentation.
(5) Absentee ballots, absentee ballot applications, absentee ballot envelopes, registrar records regarding absentee ballots, and records created and used by the ballot board to ensure appropriate processing and counting of absentee ballots.
(6) Provisional ballots, provisional ballot envelopes, and records regarding provisional ballots.
(7) Compliance with all State and federal laws regarding contact with voters and voter assistance.
(8) Any areas of concern regarding election accuracy, security, or credibility uncovered over the course of the audit.
Third, the State Board of Elections, county boards, and the Department of Motor Vehicles (which conducts most voter registrations in North Carolina) must cooperate and provide access to records as necessary to complete the audit. The bill also provides for election officials to be on hand during portions of the audit to maintain the chain of custody of election equipment and materials.
Finally, it includes an opportunity for the election boards mentioned in the audit to review it and provide comments.
The Office of the State Auditor would provide final audit reports to the governor, members of the General Assembly’s Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee, and other officials.
Other new provisions
Some of the other new provisions in the PCS include:
- Noncitizen voter registration: Requires the person receiving a voter registration form or helping someone register to vote not to proceed if the “applicant indicates that the applicant is not a citizen of the United States or declines to answer the question of whether the applicant is a citizen of the United States.”
- Protection from fake party members: People must be affiliated with a party for at least 365 days in order to file in that party’s primary (the current requirement is 90 days of party affiliation). The party’s state executive committee may provide a waiver. This would help prevent “unwelcome guests” from infiltrating party primaries.
- Nonpartisan observers: Candidates in nonpartisan elections may appoint election observers at each voting place where they are listed as candidates.
HB 958 includes additional provisions. Most of the provisions in the bill, old and new, will improve North Carolina’s elections and make them more secure.
