Call to Action: N.C. Rules Review Commission and Third Parties

North Carolina State Board of Elections is attempting to create new rules that will severely handicap the petition process in North Carolina for new parties. If you would like to read these rules, you can find them here: https://www.ncsbe.gov/about-elections/legal-resources/rulemaking#petition

These rules essentially just codify the shenanigans that the last board tried in 2022 and 2024 to keep non-uniparty parties off the ballot. If you would like to object to these rules, you can send proposed rule objections to [email protected] AND [email protected].

You can use the letter template below, and edit as you see fit.

 

 

[Name]

[Address]

[Date]

 

N.C. Rules Review Commission

1711 New Hope Church Rd.

Raleigh, NC  27609

 

Re: [08 NCAC 22 .0105 PETITION CIRCULATORS,
08 NCAC 22 .0305 GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE NEW PARTY, ]

Members of the Commission:

I request that the above rule(s) be reviewed in the upcoming legislative session as set out in N.C.G.S. 150B-21.3. I further request that the rule(s) be subject to a delayed effective date as set out in that same provision.

I am objecting to:

08 NCAC 22 .0104 (C). This goes far and above current law and it will take much longer to petition. The intent of all political parties is understood to be to run and elect candidates to office and influence law.

08 NCAC 22 .0105 PETITION CIRCULATORS. This is a violation of an individual’s First Amendment rights, and it also places a new party at a disadvantage by making public a list of its volunteers. In addition, it will make it much more difficult to circulate a petition, as multiple individuals won’t be able to circulate the same petition sheet. This creates a particular challenge when working a multi-person event where multiple counties attend.

08 NCAC 22 .0305 GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE NEW PARTY. This rule is confusing and sets up a situation where members of the two major parties can choose to keep a small party from ever satisfying this requirement. The state board is very vague with this rule as to what it will accept and not accept. further, the state board has extreme power to arbitrarily determine if it agrees with what the party has done or said to meet the requirement of general purpose and intent. This part of NC law is old and outdated and was meant to stop the spread of the Communist party and communism in America as I understand its history.

Furthermore, Multiple Parties have begun their petition drives and changing the rules in the middle of their drives is unfair to those parties. 

[INSERT ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS HERE IF NECESSARY, OR EDIT THE ABOVE AS YOU SEE FIT]

Thank you for your consideration.

[Name]

 


Showing 2 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • James Nguyen
    commented 2025-08-28 18:59:04 -0400
    I encourage everyone to use this template and edit it as their own to send to the Rules Review Commission to put these rules along with any other rules that could hinder third parties up for review as soon as you can. I attended the public hearing through Webex this morning and the arguments in favor of increasing the restrictions for “clarity” and “competence” purposes are all complete BS. Adam Steele, who is the Associate General Counsel at NC State Board of Elections, supports these corrupt measures and the RRC is in favor of them too. Keep in mind this is the same board of elections who tag teamed with Marc Elias and the Democratic Party to attempt to get the Green Party off the ballot in 2022 and the Constitution, We The People, and especially Justice For All parties in 2024 with the use of harassment. It is apparent that these corrupt officials believe that the state board of elections’ right to harass voters to “disaffiliate” voters is more important than our right to assemble and the right to free speech. I see the actions of the state board and RRC as equivalent to the actions of a police state who wants to keep track of all your data in the name of “safety.” This reminds me of the YouTube AI Age verification situation and the OSHA (Online Child Safety Act) in Britain [Both by the way have received severe backlash due to their ineffectiveness, invasion of privacy, and the crackdown on those who are actually trying to solve these problems]. Let’s do this for the future of our state and remind the duopoly that a one-party dictatorship cannot, shall not, and will not be tolerated.
  • Rob Yates
    published this page in Featured Articles 2025-08-28 16:44:45 -0400
Get Involved Volunteer Donate