Election bill is good, but here is how it could be better

• House Bill 958 has numerous election law reforms that will make North Carolina elections better administered and more secure
• The bill’s sections on State Board of Elections employees and the foreign funding of referendum campaigns, however, should be improved
• Several changes, such as adding performance election audits and removing the literacy test from the state constitution, would make the bill even better

The General Assembly has delivered on several election policy reforms over the past several years, especially House Bill (HB) 747, passed in 2023. That broad sweeping bill included several reforms, including making election day the deadline for election boards to receive ballots, banning the private funding of election administration, and requiring verification of same-day registration ballots before they are counted. 

Now, another omnibus election bill is working its way through the legislature. While not as comprehensive as the 2023 bill, this session’s House Bill 958 will improve state election law and practices. Some changes and additions could make it even better.

Representatives Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke) and Sarah Stevens (R-Surry, Wilkes) sponsor the bill. They happen to be the chairs of the House Election Law Committee, meaning that this bill has backing from leadership and stands a strong chance of getting through the legislature this year or during next year’s short session.

This review is of the version of the bill reported out of that committee on June 26.

What is good in HB 958

The bill has several changes that would make North Carolina’s elections more secure and better administered. Some of those changes include:

• More time for curing absentee ballots: 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.
• 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.”
• The dead may not vote: North Carolina law already states that a voter’s ballot may be challenged as an illegal vote if that “person is dead” (G.S. § 163‑85(a)(6)). The Wake County Board of Elections decided in 2024 to accept the ballots from three of the 42 voters who had submitted ballots but died before election day. The bill would clarify that ballots would not be counted if the voter died before “6:30 A.M. on election day.”
• 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 voter turnout solicitation by election officials: Election officials would be banned from “encouraging or promoting voter turnout in any election.” Election officials should be focused on administering elections fairly and securely, not 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.

The bill includes several other reforms, including protections for yard signs at voting locations from vandalism, penalties for reporting any voting results before the close of polls on election day, and early counting of early and absentee ballots on election day.

What could be improved

Not exempting so many positions at the State Board of Elections: The bill would allow the executive director of the SBE 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.

According to a list obtained from the SBE, it currently has 68 positions. That means that over a third of SBE staff would be serving at the pleasure of the executive director, which would seem excessive. 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. We also do not want to be at a point where elections would result in massive changeovers in SBE staff every few years.

The executive director should be able to assemble a team of trusted staff leaders and attorneys, so positions such as chief of staff, general counsel, deputy general counsel, communications director, chief information officer, and perhaps one or two others should be exempt. Other positions should continue to be staffed in accordance with the Human Resources Act.

Banning donations to referendum campaigns by foreign nationals: Federal law already bans donations by foreign nationals to federal, state, or local elections. That law “does not bar foreign nationals from issue advocacy,” however.

In short, there is no federal protection from foreign nationals donating to campaigns regarding ballot measures, such as bond referendums or constitutional amendments, in North Carolina. As seen in the chart below, however, several states have such protections in their laws. Nine states have added bans on foreign funding of ballot measure campaigns so far in 2025, including Missouri, which joined the list in early July.

Chart source: Ballotpedia

HB 958 would ban referendum committees from accepting “any contributions from a foreign national.” A foreign national could be any individual who is not a citizen or a lawful permanent resident, a foreign government or political party, or a foreign business. There is an exception for American subsidiaries of foreign companies if all the money donated is generated in the U. S. and citizens or lawful permanent residents make all donation decisions. Referendum committees include those organized in favor of or opposing constitutional amendments and bond issues.

Two changes would strengthen the ban. First, donations should be limited to U.S. citizens, as with Ohio’s foreign money ban. Second, referendum committee treasurers should be required to affirm that donations did not directly or indirectly come from foreign nationals, as is required by law in Kentucky, Kansas, and other states.

What is not in HB 958, but should be

While HB 958 contains numerous election reforms, a few more should be added as the bill moves through the legislature. In a January 29 article at the John Locke Foundation, we noted several election reforms the General Assembly should pass. I will not repost the complete list here, but here are some highlights:

• Removing the literacy test from the state constitution: Put up an amendment for the people to vote on removing the literacy test from the state constitution.
• Hand-marked paper ballots: Require all counties to use hand-marked paper ballots (with touchscreen options for disabled people). Either give counties using ballot-marking devices until 2030 to replace them or provide those counties with funding to replace them sooner.
• Candidate disclosure rule: Remove the exception clause in the statute governing the Felony Disclosure form and require that candidates who knowingly fail to disclose their felony convictions be removed from the ballot.
• Independent performance election audits: Performance audits, sometimes called “compliance” or “procedural” audits, review whether election laws and procedures, including ballot chain-of-custody, were followed. An independent election audit unit could be housed in the Office of the State Auditor.
• Redistricting: It is never too early to consider redistricting reforms. They may be easier to pass now, when the results of the 2030 election are less certain, than just before the 2031 round of redistricting. One of the most substantial reforms would be to ban the use of any political or demographic data other than head counts when drawing districts.

House Bill 958 is a good package of election reforms. With a couple of changes and a few additions, it would be a great package of election reforms.

The post Election bill is good, but here is how it could be better first appeared on John Locke Foundation.