Election Oversight: A Partisan Endeavor

Another North Carolina elections bill, approved by a House committee, has stalled amid opposition from protesters and lawmakers who object to several provisions, including one that would allow the State Board of Elections to conduct certain hiring decisions in closed session.

Wait. What?

As lawmakers pursued competing approaches to election reform—with Republicans seeking to tighten voting requirements and Democrats advocating for fewer barriers to voting—the bill appeared poised to advance through the House committee process. However, the measure lost momentum after dozens of protesters turned out to voice their opposition.

House Bill 958, which proposes changes to North Carolina's election laws, received a favorable recommendation from the House Election Law Committee on Tuesday, June 16, and was referred to the House Rules Committee. However, the measure never reached the House floor before the legislative session ended, leaving its future uncertain, according to the June 19 edition of Carolina Journal.

Democrats have raised concerns about several provisions in the bill, including expanding the timeframe for challenging voter eligibility, granting additional authority to the state auditor, and allowing the State Board of Elections to conduct certain hiring decisions in closed session.

North Carolina is the only U.S. state in which the state auditor appoints members of the State Board of Elections. That authority shifted to the auditor following the 2024 general election, after an earlier 2023 legislative effort sought to place the board under the Secretary of State.

House Bill 958 would expand the state auditor's authority to review local elections, prohibit election officials from using public resources to encourage voter participation, and extend the period for challenging absentee and early voting ballots.

Critics argue that these provisions could discourage voter participation and complicate the vote-counting process. They also point to a provision that would allow the names of campaign contributors to be withheld during post-election audits, a measure that supporters describe as protecting privacy and opponents characterize as reducing transparency, according to WRAL.

“This ruling is about power being seized through procedural manipulation rather than earned through the democratic process,” according to Katelin Kaiser, Policy Director for Democracy North Carolina. The bill became public when WRAL and news outlets obtained copies of proposed changes.  As of Monday morning, June 15, with the bill not yet public, lawmakers had planned a Tuesday vote. Republicans in the North Carolina legislature quickly pushed through dozens of changes, however, protests halted the process.

House Bill 958 would also restrict elections officials from promoting voter turnout and extend the deadline to challenge absentee and early voting ballots.

The bill was posted on the legislature’s website Monday and passed the House Election Law Committee Tuesday morning. Lawmakers opened a portal on the legislature’s website for public comment on the bill Monday morning, then closed and reopened it Tuesday after Democrats raised concerns about the process. It’s unclear when legislators will return to the bill.

Three Republican senators have filed a separate bill duplicating the House bill only on the provision giving the State Auditor more power. The 36-page bill overhauls multiple parts of North Carolina election law.

Among notable changes are provisions extending the deadline for voters to challenge certain ballots. Another change requires using federal databases to identify and remove ineligible or deceased voters. Provisions raised concerns from some Democrats on the committee, arguing that the bill could erroneously remove eligible voters from voter rolls.

“If there’s an issue with registration or ineligibility, it seems like that should be raised when they register at the State Board of Elections or at their county boards of elections, rather than telling them after they voted, their all of a sudden their vote gets kicked out,” said state Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Democrat from Guilford County.

State Rep. Hugh Blackwell, R-Burke County, said, “Certainly we’re not trying to put up obstacles so much as to do what we can – to improve where we can – integrity of the voting process.”

The bill would require Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek to conduct post-election audits at the county level. Supporters say the measure is intended to strengthen public confidence in the electoral process. As one supporter stated, "Post-election audits focused on election processes and procedures will help improve confidence in our voting system."

Under current law, the State Auditor has the authority—but is not required—to conduct election audits. According to a spokesperson for the State Board of Elections, the auditor does not currently participate in election audits.

Democrats, including state Rep. Phil Rubin of Wake County, argued that because the State Auditor is an elected partisan official, the expanded authority could allow audits to be targeted toward counties where a particular political party—or the auditor himself—performed poorly. They contend that such discretion could raise concerns about the appearance of political bias in the audit process.

"I know the statute says it won't affect the outcome of an election," Rubin said. "But having members of a group running for office enter a county after an election and take possession of ballot boxes is going to send a message."

Current law already prohibits members of state and county boards of elections from publicly endorsing candidates or soliciting campaign contributions. House Bill 958 would add another restriction by barring election board members from publicly encouraging citizens to vote.

Democrats also criticized Republican leaders for moving the legislation rapidly through the House committee process, arguing that the accelerated timeline limited public review and debate.

Rep. Phil Rubin summarized the issue well when he said, "This is the kind of bill that deserves a deliberate and transparent legislative process. A draft should be available at least three weeks in advance, followed by two weeks for lawmakers to debate and refine the proposal. The public should then have at least a week to review the final version before a committee hearing lasting two to three hours, with no less than an hour reserved for public comment."

Regardless of where one stands on election policy, North Carolinians deserve an open, transparent, and thoughtful legislative process when changes to election laws are under consideration. Measures that affect the administration of elections should be subject to robust public review, meaningful debate, and opportunities for citizen input.

Betty Joyce Nash reported for the Greensboro News & Record and the Hendersonville Times-News before moving to Virginia where she worked as an economics writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. She co-edited Lock & Load: Armed Fiction, an anthology of literary short stories that probe Americans' complicated relationship to firearms. (University of New Mexico Press, 2017.)