North Carolina's ballot carries three proposed constitutional amendments this fall. Run each through one libertarian test and you get two yesses — one with an asterisk — and a no.

by: Rob Yates, LPNC Communications Director

This is an OpEd, and not the official position of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

This year, we have three proposed amendments to the North Carolina Constitution on our ballots. They’re all the way at the end, after Senate, House, NC Senate, NC House, local election, and anything else on which you might be voting, so make sure you don’t miss them.

All three were put there by the Republican majority in the General Assembly, and amendments skip the governor's desk entirely, so no veto stands between them and you. Kudos to the legislature for letting the people decide, although take that with a grain of salt, as they have run tried this before. In 2018, heading into a rough midterm, they loaded six amendments onto the ballot. Political scientists have been plain about the logic — put "taxes" and "limit" in the same sentence and base voters show up. That's no reason to vote against these. It's a reason to read them yourself instead of letting either party read them to you.

Libertarians can do that with a single test. A constitution exists to restrain the government, not the governed. So, ask of each amendment, does it increase freedom, or restrict it?

The question matters more than usual this year, because two of these amendments hinge on nearly the same sentence: the General Assembly "shall enact general laws" on the subject, "which may include exceptions." Each is a standing order to the legislature with the details left blank. What separates them is where the order points.

"Constitutional amendment to require all voters, not just those presenting to vote in person, to present photo identification before voting."

The first proposed amendment would broaden the ambit of voters required to show ID when voting. Currently, the constitution requires photo ID from voters "offering to vote in person." This amendment strikes "in person," extending the requirement to everyone, including absentee-by-mail voters.

In practice, it changes little, at least today. State law already requires mail-in voters to tuck a photocopy of an acceptable ID or an ID exception form into the envelope with their ballots. The amendment exists to move that rule out of a statute a future legislature could change and into the constitution, where it can't be touched without another statewide vote. Lawmakers approved it in a December 2024 lame-duck session, while Republicans still held the 72 House seats they needed to pass amendments without Democratic help. (The election a month earlier had already cost them the 72nd, arguably because of their failure to override the SB50 veto of constitutional carry.)

Run through the freedom test, this vote does not increase freedom. Instead, it restrains voters, and it gives the legislature a permanent constitutional mandate to decide which documents count and who qualifies for an exception. Voting is the one transaction with the state in which the citizen is supposed to be the unfettered, unrestricted boss. Requiring a government-issued credential to do it, and mailing a copy of your license to the county board to prove you're you, runs the relationship backward.

The LPNC opposed the 2018 in-person ID amendment as a solution in search of a problem, one that expands the state at the people's expense. Extending it to the mailbox doesn't change that.

This is not to say that there is no logic behind this amendment, especially in North Carolina. Mail-in voting is where North Carolina's most serious modern election-fraud scandal happened. The 2018 absentee-ballot operation in Bladen County forced a do-over of a congressional election. Supporters of the amendment argue that this is a small change to protect our elections, and that there is evidence to back up the request.

But that scheme was uncovered, the result thrown out and its organizer criminally charged, all achieved under laws already on the books. And the ID-copy rule this amendment would enshrine is already on the books, too. What the amendment adds isn't security, it's permanence. A constitution shouldn't be in the business of making burdens on citizens permanent.

Of all the ways the government can further insert itself into our lives and restrict freedom, voter ID is low on the list. It is not a significant imposition, and you are required to present ID for so many other things in your daily lives; the real issue is the government requiring you to carry government-issued papers that it can demand at its arbitrary will. (I will also note the incredible irony that the state wants a picture of you to vote, but wants to prosecute Susan Hogarth for sharing a picture of her vote. I call on everyone to post ballot selfies on November 3).

However, small imposition or not, it remains an imposition. In the humble opinion of your Communications Director, vote AGAINST this amendment.

"Constitutional amendment to keep the State income tax rate from being raised higher than three and one-half percent (3.5%)."

The second proposed amendment lowers the constitutional ceiling on the state income tax rate from 7% to 3.5%, for tax years beginning in 2027. The cap applies to "the rate of tax on incomes," personal and corporate alike.

In practice, this amendment changes nothing next April, or ostensibly in the subsequent few years. North Carolina's flat rate is 3.99% this year, and the budget enacted in July already drops it to 3.49% in 2027 and 3.24% in 2030, with more cuts scheduled after that. The corporate rate is already on a path to zero.

That's the opposition's favored refrain. Gov. Josh Stein calls the amendment a "millionaire protection cap" and argues it won't lower anyone's taxes. On the second point he's right, and it doesn't matter. This isn't a tax cut. It's a lock on the door after the tax cut, insurance against the next legislature that decides North Carolinians are undertaxed. Majorities in Raleigh change; Republicans lost their House supermajority two years ago. A constitutional cap outlasts all of them.

As for "millionaire protection," the cap protects every earner from the same thing, a rate above 3.5%. What it rules out is a graduated schedule with a top bracket above that line. Libertarians call that a feature.

It passes the freedom test cleanly. This amendment restrains government — specifically, the state's claim on what you earn. When voters lowered the cap from 10% to 7% in 2018, the LPNC endorsed it on the grounds that, while Libertarians would rather workers keep everything they earn, a ceiling is at least a step toward controlling the growth of government. Same logic, half the number.

Of course, a rate cap isn't a spending cap. A state that can't raise income taxes can still grow through sales taxes, fees, borrowing, and federal dollars, as well as by pushing costs down to counties, which raise money the old-fashioned way, from your house. That's why the two tax amendments arrived together, out of the same budget deal between Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall. Real change that benefits the economy of North Carolina and the wallets of its people will require significant cuts in spending as well.

Regardless, a tax cap is a tax cap, and tax caps that get lower are a good thing. In the humble opinion of your Communications Director, vote FOR this amendment.

"Constitutional amendment requiring limits on property tax increases by local governments."

The third constitutional amendment on the ballot this year would require the General Assembly to pass laws limiting how much local property tax levies can increase. However, it doesn't set the number. That comes later, in legislation, and "may include exceptions."

What would this amendment change right away?

Potentially a lot.

North Carolina has no state property tax; counties and cities set their own, and they've long had a reliable move. A revaluation sends home values up, the board trims the rate a little, announces a "rate cut" and collects considerably more money. State law requires local budget officers to calculate a revenue-neutral rate in revaluation years. Nothing requires the board to adopt it.

A levy limit goes after the right number. Not the rate, which officials can trim, rename and spin, but the levy, or the total dollars taken. Cap how fast that can grow and the revaluation trick stops working. Local governments have to do what households do when income doesn't keep pace with wants — set priorities.

This matters most to the people least able to fight back. A retiree who paid off her house decades ago hasn't seen her income keep pace with her assessment. Under the current system, a county commission can tax her out of a home she owns free and clear without ever casting a vote to "raise taxes." A limit on levy growth gives her something local government has never offered, predictability.

Opponents argue that one statewide limit can't fit both Bertie County and Mecklenburg. That argument doesn’t hold water, though, as the amendment limits growth, not level. The argument about county-by-county applicability takes issue with statute, not principle.

This amendment passes the freedom test. However, it comes with a giant asterisk.

Read the new sentence closely, because of what it takes for granted. It doesn't limit the property tax. It limits increases in the property tax. The constitution already assumes local governments will tax property; this amendment goes a step further and writes the tax's growth into the constitutional design, as something to be metered rather than questioned. Whatever your county levies today becomes the protected baseline. The amendment asks nothing of it.

That's a problem for libertarians, because the property tax is the purest expression of the idea that you never really own anything. Pay off the mortgage and you still owe rent — to the county, every year, for the rest of your life, on pain of foreclosure. A levy limit makes that arrangement more bearable. That's the point of it. And bearable things last. Every shocking revaluation notice puts pressure on the system and opens the question of whether homes should be taxed at all. A limit releases that pressure. A relief valve also keeps the boiler running.

The income tax amendment's sponsor, Sen. Michael Lee, pitches his measure as locking in progress. This one locks in the property tax.

Nevertheless, it is, in fact, a real limit on a real abuse, and it puts homeowners on firmer ground than they stand on today. In the humble opinion of your Communications Director, vote FOR this amendment.

Just remember, the fight doesn't end on Election Day. The number and the exceptions get written by the legislature after the vote, and "may include exceptions" is a door wide enough to drive a county budget through. And a slower increase was never the goal. The goal is a home you actually own.

Of all the proposed amendments, the thing that shines the brightest, or perhaps looms the darkest, are the amendments that aren’t there. North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature has, for years now, completely and utterly failed to override the veto of SB50, which would give North Carolinians the legal right to constitutional carry. Of course, bills can be overturned, while a constitutional amendment faces a higher bar to change, and is not subject to the whims of a hostile general assembly.

And, while we’re at it, nestled in the amendments that seek to restrict the government’s ability to steal your money through income and property tax is a lack of restrictions on government’s ability to spend money. It’s far past time to amend our constitution to include both constitutional carry and significant spending restrictions. Alas, that’s for another day.