North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018)

Elections in North Carolina, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 12
• Early voting: Oct. 17 - Nov. 3
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: No
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: No
• Poll times: 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. House • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Democratic primaries • Republican primaries

North Carolina Voter ID Amendment
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Voting policy measures
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of North Carolina measuresNorth Carolina Income Tax CapNorth Carolina Judicial SelectionNorth Carolina Appointments to Elections BoardNorth Carolina Marsy's LawNorth Carolina Right to Hunt and FishNorth Carolina Voter IDSubmit

The North Carolina Voter ID Amendment was on the ballot in North Carolina as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. The ballot measure was approved. Court rulings prevented the amendment from taking effect, however, on April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed its decision in Holmes v. Moore, allowing the voter ID law to take effect.

A "yes" vote supported creating a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person.

A "no" vote opposed creating a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person.

Aftermath

Lawsuits overview
First lawsuit
Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot
Court: Wake County Superior Court
Ruling: North Carolina Supreme Court overturned previous rulings, allowing the voter ID amendment to take effect
Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina	Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore
Second lawsuit
Issue: Whether the amendment affects African American and Indian American voters negatively, places a cost on voting, and impedes one from exercising the right to vote
Court: Wake County Superior Court and North Carolina Supreme Court
Ruling: 2023
Plaintiff(s): Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, Shakoya Carrie Brown, and Paul Kearney, Sr.	Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore

  Sources: Wake County Superior Court

SB 824 (2018)

On December 5 and December 6, 2018, the General Assembly of North Carolina voted to approve Senate Bill 824 (SB 824), which was designed to provide for types of voter identification that would be accepted at the polls. SB 824 was introduced in response to voter approval of the Voter ID Amendment, which required photo identification to vote.

On December 14, 2018, Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vetoed SB 824, saying, "Requiring photo IDs for in-person voting is a solution in search of a problem." House Speaker Tim Moore (R-111) responded, "We are disappointed that Gov. Cooper chose to ignore the will of the people and reject a commonsense election integrity measure that is common in most states, but the North Carolina House will override his veto as soon as possible."

The state Senate overrode Gov. Cooper's veto on December 18, 2018, in a vote of 33-12. Republicans, along with one Democrat, voted to override the veto, while the remaining Democrats voted against the override. The state House overrode the veto on December 19, 2018, in a vote of 72-40. Like in the state Senate, Republicans, along with one Democrat, voted to override the veto, while the remaining Democrats voted against the override.

See also: Voter ID in North Carolina

On September 17, 2021, a three-judge panel of the Wake County Superior Court ruled 2-1 in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that "the evidence at trial [is] sufficient to show that the enactment of S.B. 824 was motivated at least in part by an unconstitutional intent to target African American voters." The court also ruled that "[o]ther, less restrictive voter ID laws would have sufficed to achieve the legitimate nonracial purposes of implementing the constitutional amendment requiring voter ID, deterring fraud, or enhancing voter confident." The court, therefore, permanently enjoined the enforcement of the law. Judges Michael O'Foghludha and Vince M. Rozier Jr. formed the majority. Judge Nathaniel J. Poovey dissented. Sam Hayes, general counsel for House Speaker Tim Moore (R), said Moore would appeal the ruling.

NAACP and Clear Air Carolina v. Moore and Berger

On August 6, 2018, the North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina sued the General Assembly of North Carolina in the Wake County Superior Court. The plaintiffs asked for four constitutional amendments—the Legislative Appointments to Elections Board and Commissions Amendment, Judicial Selection for Midterm Vacancies Amendment, Voter ID Amendment, and Income Tax Cap Amendment—to be removed from the ballot. The case was not decided before the election; voters approved the Voter ID Amendment and the Income Tax Cap Amendment, and voters rejected the Legislative Appointments to Commissions Amendment and the Judicial Selection for Midterm Vacancies Amendment.

The NAACP and Clean Air Carolina said that since some lawmakers were elected from districts that a federal court ruled were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the existing North Carolina State Legislature was a usurper legislature. Therefore, the plaintiffs argued that the constitutional amendments should be invalidated.

Senate President Phil Berger (R-30) responded, "We predicted Democratic activists would launch absurd legal attacks to keep the voters from deciding on their own Constitution, but this one really jumps the shark. This absurd argument – which has already been rejected in federal court – is a sad and desperate attempt to stop North Carolina voters from joining 34 other states in requiring identification when casting a ballot."

On February 22, 2019, Judge Bryan Collins ruled in favor of the NAACP and Clean Air Carolina, striking down the Voter ID Amendment and the Income Tax Cap Amendment. Judge Collins said, "Thus, the unconstitutional racial gerrymander tainted the three-fifths majorities required by the state Constitution before an amendment proposal can be submitted to the people for a vote, breaking the requisite chain of popular sovereignty between North Carolina citizens and their representatives. … Accordingly, the constitutional amendments placed on the ballot on November 6, 2018 were approved by a General Assembly that did not represent the people of North Carolina."

Rev. Dr. T. Anthony Spearman, president of the NC NAACP, responded to the ruling, stating, "We are delighted that the acts of the previous majority, which came to power through the use of racially discriminatory maps, have been checked. The prior General Assembly’s attempt to use its ill-gotten power to enshrine a racist photo voter ID requirement in the state constitution was particularly egregious, and we applaud the court for invalidating these attempts at unconstitutional overreach." Senate President Berger also responded, saying, "We are duty-bound to appeal this absurd decision. The prospect of invalidating 18 months of laws is the definition of chaos and confusion. Based on tonight’s opinion and others over the past several years, it appears the idea of judicial restraint has completely left the state of North Carolina."

On February 25, 2019, the defendants—Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore—appealed the case to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

On April 29, 2019, the North Carolina NAACP petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court—instead of the North Carolina Court of Appeals—to directly review the case. In mid-June, the North Carolina Supreme Court declined to hear the case before it was heard by the court of appeals.

On July 5, 2019, a panel of three judges ruled 2-1 to temporarily overturn the lower court's injunction against the enforcement of the amendment but allow the appeal to continue. The ruling allows the implementation of the voter ID requirement while the case is being resolved.

Arguments were heard in the appeal case on October 31, 2019.

On September 15, 2020, the court of appeals reversed in a 2-1 decision Judge Collin's ruling that had invalidated the constitutional amendments. Judge Chris Dillon said, "It is simply beyond our power to thwart the otherwise lawful exercise of constitutional power by our legislative branch to pass bills proposing amendments." The NAACP appealed the decision to the North Carolina Supreme Court on October 21, 2020.

On August 19, 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature may not have the authority to place state constitutional amendments on the ballot because lawmakers were elected from a district map that was found to be "unconstitutionally racially gerrymandered." In the 4-3 decision, the majority opinion said, "[T]he potentially transformative consequences of amendments that could change basic tenets of our constitutional system of government warrant heightened scrutiny of amendments enacted through a process that required the participation of legislators whose claim to represent the people’s will has been disputed." The court ordered the case back to the Superior Court for review.

Federal lawsuit

On December 31, 2019, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs ruled in favor of the NAACP and blocked the implementation of the voter ID requirement for the March 3 primary elections. In the conclusion of Biggs' opinion, she said, "[T]he Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their discriminatory intent claims for at least the voter ID and ballot-challenge provisions of S.B. 824." Judge Biggs upheld the provision of S.B. 824 that increase the number of poll-observers from each party.

In response to the ruling, Senate President Berger said, "The voters saw the need for voter ID and approved the constitutional amendment. The legislature, acting on the will of the people, enacted one of the broadest voter ID laws in the nation. Now this lawsuit, and last-minute ruling, have sowed additional discord and confusion about the voting process."

On December 2, 2020, a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously reversed the 2019 injunction against the voter ID law. Circuit Judge Julius Richardson wrote, "A legislature’s past acts do not condemn the acts of a later legislature, which we must presume acts in good faith." Republican House Speaker Tim Moore (R) responded to the ruling saying, "Now that a federal appeals court has approved North Carolina’s voter ID law and constitutional amendment, they must be implemented for the next election cycle in our state."

Holmes v. Moore

Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, Shakoya Carrie Brown, and Paul Kearney, Sr. filed the lawsuit against the North Carolina General Assembly on December 18, 2018, the same day Senate Bill 824 was signed into law, in the Wake County Superior Court. The plaintiffs argued that SB 824 was unconstitutional because it negatively affected African American voters and placed a barrier on certain citizens' right to vote. On February 18, 2020, a three-judge panel issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the law from taking effect while the lawsuit is litigated.

In response to the ruling, Jane O’Brien, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, the law firm representing the plaintiffs, said, "We are pleased that the North Carolina Court of Appeals recognized that the evidence strongly suggests S.B. 824 was enacted with discriminatory intent, and should not be allowed to go into effect." Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives and the primary defendant in the suit, Timothy K. Moore, released a statement about the ruling, where he wrote, "North Carolinians know that General Assembly leaders will continue to fight on their behalf for a commonsense voter ID law that they chose to put in our state constitution, and we will not be deterred by judicial attempts to suppress the people’s voice in the democratic process." The temporary block of SB 824 blocked the voter ID requirements for the March 3 primary in North Carolina.

On July 9, 2020, Speaker Timothy K. Moore (R-111), Senator Phil Berger (R-30), Representative David Lewis, Sr. (R-53), and Senator Ralph Hise (R-47) filed a motion requesting that the court order banning the enforcement of the voter ID requirements be lifted due to a law passed during the 2020 legislative session that increased the number of ID types that could be used for the voting requirement.

On September 17, 2021, a three-judge panel of Superior Court judges ruled in a 2-1 decision that the voter ID law was unconstitutional. Wake County Judge Vince Rozier and Durham County Judge Michael O'Foghludha ruled that state legislators were not racist toward Black voters but that the effect of the law was still discriminatory. They said, "In reaching this conclusion, we do not find that any member of the General Assembly who voted in favor of (voter ID) harbors any racial animus or hatred towards African American voters, but rather ... that the Republican majority 'target[ed] voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constitute[s] racial discrimination.'" Catawba County Judge Nathaniel J. Poovey dissented. Lawyers for Moore said they planned on appealing the decision.

State Supreme Court ruling, 2023

On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed its decision in Holmes v. Moore, allowing the voter ID law to take effect. The court's five Republican members were in favor of voter ID while the three Democratic justices opposed it. In the majority opinion, the court wrote, "Plaintiffs here have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that S.B. 824 was enacted with discriminatory intent or that the law actually produces a meaningful disparate impact along racial lines. The prior opinion is withdrawn, and we reverse and remand to the trial court for entry of an order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim with prejudice."

Berger v. North Carolina NAACP 2022

See also: Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

On June 7, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina's decision that it was unnecessary for North Carolina legislators to intervene and defend the voter ID amendment in court. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision on June 23, 2022, holding that Senate President Philip Berger (R) and other state legislators could defend the voter ID amendment's constitutionality against legal challenges. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Berger. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, "This litigation illustrates how divided state governments sometimes warrant participation by multiple state officials in federal court." This does not directly affect the amendment itself, but the lawsuits challenging it.

Election results

North Carolina Voter ID Amendment
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,049,121	55.49%
No		1,643,983	44.51%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did this ballot measure do?

The ballot measure added language to the North Carolina Constitution to require voters to present a photo ID to vote in person. The North Carolina State Legislature was responsible for passing laws to govern the photo ID requirement.

What was the status of voter ID laws in North Carolina?

As of 2018, 34 states had laws requiring or requesting that voters provide some form of identification at the polls. Seventeen states had photo ID requirements. In 2013, the North Carolina State Legislature passed a statute to require that voters present a photo ID to vote beginning in 2016. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck down the state's photo ID requirement on July 29, 2016. The Court of Appeals ruled that the state legislature had enacted the requirement with racially-discriminatory intent. The statute defined identification to include a state driver’s license, a state-issued ID card, a military ID, or a U.S. passport.

How did the measure get on the ballot?

The state Legislature referred the constitutional amendment to the ballot. The North Carolina House of Representatives passed the amendment 74 to 43. Republicans controlled 75 seats in the state House, and 74 House Republicans voted for the amendment. Democrats voted against the amendment. On June 29, 2018, the North Carolina State Senate passed the measure in a 33 to 12 vote. Republicans supported the amendment, and Democrats opposed the amendment. As a constitutional amendment, the governor's signatures was not required to put the amendment on the ballot.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

[   ] For [   ] Against Constitutional amendment to require voters to provide photo identification before voting in person.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Require Photographic Identification to Vote This amendment requires you to show photographic identification to a poll-worker before you can vote in person. It does not apply to absentee voting. The Legislature would make laws providing the details of acceptable and unacceptable forms of photographic identification after passage of the proposed amendment. The Legislature would be authorized to establish exceptions to the requirement to present photographic identification before voting. However, it is not required to make any exceptions. There are no further details at this time on how voters could acquire valid photographic identification for the purposes of voting. There is no official estimate of how much this proposal would cost if it is approved.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VI, North Carolina Constitution

The ballot measure amended Section 2 and Section 3 of Article VI of the North Carolina Constitution. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

Sec. 2. Qualifications of Voter (1) Residence period for State elections. Any person who has resided in the State of North Carolina for one year and in the precinct, ward, or other election district for 30 days next preceding an election, and possesses the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election held in this State. Removal from one precinct, ward, or other election district to another in this State shall not operate to deprive any person of the right to vote in the precinct, ward, or other election district from which that person has removed until 30 days after the removal. (2) Residence period for presidential elections. The General Assembly may reduce the time of residence for persons voting in presidential elections. A person made eligible by reason of a reduction in time of residence shall possess the other qualifications set out in this Article, shall only be entitled to vote for President and Vice President of the United States or for electors for President and Vice President, and shall not thereby become eligible to hold office in this State. (3) Disqualification of felon. No person adjudged guilty of a felony against this State or the United States, or adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, shall be permitted to vote unless that person shall be first restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law. (4) Photo identification for voting in person. Voters offering to vote in person shall present photographic identification before voting. The General Assembly shall enact general laws governing the requirements of such photographic identification, which may include exceptions. Sec. 3. Registration; Voting in Person. (1) Every person offering to vote shall be at the time legally registered as a voter as herein prescribed and in the manner provided by law. The General Assembly shall enact general laws governing the registration of voters. (2) Voters offering to vote in person shall present photographic identification before voting. The General Assembly shall enact general laws governing the requirements of such photographic identification, which may include exceptions.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The legislature and the NC Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 18, and the FRE is -8. The word count for the ballot title is 13, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 10, and the FRE is 36. The word count for the ballot summary is 115, and the estimated reading time is 30 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Supporters

• Rep. Tim Moore (R-111)
• Rep. David R. Lewis (R-53)
• Rep. Michele D. Presnell (R-118)
• Rep. John Sauls (R-51)

Arguments

• Jay N. DeLancy, director of the Voter Integrity Project of North Carolina, said, "While no single preventative measure can stop all vote fraud, a well-designed voter ID law would mitigate certain types. And it would greatly reduce North Carolina’s easiest form of disenfranchisement — voter impersonation fraud. ... Prevention is far more efficient than detection and that’s why North Carolina should join the 34 other states that already require some form of voter ID and why we strongly support the voter ID amendment on November’s ballot."

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Roy Cooper (D)
• Rep. Marcia Morey (D-30)

Parties

• North Carolina Democratic Party

Organizations

• Serve America Movement

Arguments

• Reed Galen, chief strategist of the Serve America Movement, said, "This measure is the extension of the Legislature’s worst political instincts. Worse, it enshrines fundamentally undemocratic processes in North Carolina’s state constitution. It’s inappropriate and will only serve to discourage voters from participating in the democratic process."
• Rep. Marcia Morey (D-30) stated, "The real voting crisis in our country is not voter fraud, but hacking and the integrity of our voting system. This amendment does nothing to define what a valid photo ID will be. What if your driver’s license expires a week before the election? Would you be denied to right to vote? How many hours or days will voters have to stand in line to get a government issued photo ID? This amendment could disenfranchise 300,000 voters, including people with disabilities, elderly citizens, college students and those who do not drive."

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$673,500.00
Opposition:	$9,266,902.46

See also: Campaign finance requirements for North Carolina ballot measures

The NC Voter ID PAC was registered in support of the measure. The committee raised $673,500 and spent $655,189. The Republican State Leadership Committee provided the largest contribution, which was $650,000.

By the People and Stop Deceptive Amendments were registered in opposition to the measure, as well as each of the other five amendments on the ballot in North Carolina. Therefore, the committees were raising and spending funds on each of the measures. Together, the committees had raised $9.27 million and expended $9.17 million.

Support

Committees in support of the Voter ID Amendment Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures NC Voter ID PAC $673,500.00 $0.00 $655,189.00 Total $673,500.00 $0.00 $655,189.00

Totals in support Total raised: $673,500.00 Total spent: $655,189.00

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Republican State Leadership Committee	$650,000.00	$0.00	$650,000.00
Fair Judges PAC	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to the Voter ID Amendment Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures By the People $1,100,342.25 $327,978.21 $1,092,925.74 Stop Deceptive Amendments $7,819,291.00 $19,291.00 $7,731,669.00 Total $8,919,633.25 $347,269.21 $8,824,594.74

Totals in opposition Total raised: $9,266,902.46 Total spent: $9,171,863.95

Donors

The following were the top six donors who contributed to the opposition committees:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Sixteen Thirty Fund	$3,500,000.00	$0.00	$3,500,000.00
State Engagement Fund	$1,650,000.00	$3,680.25	$1,650,000.00
NC Citizen’s For Protecting Our Schools	$775,000.00	$0.00	$775,000.00
America Votes	$750,000.00	$9,549	$759,549.00
Open Society Policy Center, Inc.	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
National Education Association	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: 2018 ballot measure polls

North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
SurveyUSA October 2, 2018 - October 8, 2018	64.0%	27.0%	9.0%	+/-4.8	561
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Voter ID requirements in the U.S.

See also: Voter identification laws by state

As of 2018, 34 states had laws requiring or requesting that voters provide some form of identification at the polls. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, voter ID laws can be categorized as four types based on two factors: (1) strict and non-strict and (2) photo and non-photo. The following table explains the differences:

	Strict	Non-Strict
Photo	• Requires a voter to present a photo ID to vote • Requires a voter without a photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and bring a photo ID to election officials within a specific time period after the election for the ballot to be counted	• Requests that a voter present a photo ID to vote • Allows a voter without a photo ID to cast a ballot without needing to take further steps after the election (some states require the voter to sign an affidavit, while others require election officials to cross-check the voter's name with records)
Non-Photo	• Requires that a voter to present an ID, with or without a photo • Requires a voter without an ID to cast a provisional ballot and bring an ID to election officials within a specific time period after the election for the ballot to be counted	• Requests that a voter to present an ID, with or without a photo • Allows a voter without an ID to cast a ballot without needing to take further steps after the election (some states require the voter to sign an affidavit, while others require election officials to cross-check the voter's name with records)

The following map illustrates the voter ID requirements in each state. As of 2018, seven states had strict photo ID requirements; three states had strict non-photo ID requirements; 10 states had non-strict photo ID requirements; and 14 states had non-strict non-photo ID requirements.

North Carolina voter ID law

In 2013, the North Carolina State Legislature approved House Bill 589 (HB 589), which enacted a photo voter ID requirement for elections beginning in 2016. Gov. Pat McCrory (R) signed the bill into law. HB 589 defined identification to include a state driver’s license, a state-issued ID card, a military ID, or a U.S. passport.

On September 30, 2013, the United States Department of Justice sued the state over the requirements, charging that the law's new limits on voting discriminated against minorities and thus violated the Voting Rights Act.

On July 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit struck down the state's photo ID requirement, ruling that the state legislature had enacted the requirement with racially-discriminatory intent. On May 15, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the state's appeal, letting the Fourth Circuit's decision stand.

Voter ID ballot measures

See also: Voting policy measures on the ballot

As of 2018, ballot measures related to enacting voter ID requirements had been voted on in four states. Voters approved the measures in three states and rejected a measure in one state.

State	Year	Initiative	Type	Status	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”
Oklahoma	2010	Question 746	Statute	a	74.34%	25.66%
Mississippi	2011	Initiative 27	Amendment	a	62.07%	37.93%
Minnesota	2012	Amendment 2	Amendment	d	46.16%	53.84%
Missouri	2016	Amendment 6	Amendment	a	63.01%	36.99%
Average					61.40%	38.60%

In 2010, Oklahoma became the first state to pass a ballot measure designed to require voter identification at the polls. The measure was a state statute. Voters passed the measure 74 percent to 26 percent. The measure required that officials ask voters to present a government-issued identification document containing the voter's name and a photograph. State Question 746 allowed voters without appropriate identification to sign a sworn statement and cast a provisional ballot that election officials would later cross-check with registered voter rolls.

Mississippi passed Initiative 27 in 2012. Over 62 percent of voters cast ballots in favor of the initiative. The initiated constitutional amendment required voters to show a government-issued photo identification document before being allowed to vote. The measure exempted voters living in state-licensed care facilities from needing identification and allowed voters with religious objections to being photographed and voters who have, but are unable to present, a government-issued photo identification to cast affidavit ballots. Initiative 27 required those who cast affidavit ballots to sign an affidavit in a circuit court within five days following the election.

Voters in Minnesota defeated a constitutional amendment, titled Amendment 2, to require voter identification before voting. The vote was 46 percent to 54 percent. Amendment 2 would have required a government-issued photo identification to vote in person and a government-issued non-photo identification to vote absentee. Minnesota would have been required to provide government-issued photo identifications free of charge to eligible voters. Voters without valid identification documents would have been permitted to cast provisional ballots.

In 2016, 63 percent of Missouri voters approved Amendment 6. The amendment itself did not require a voter identification, but rather authorized the Missouri State Legislature to develop and pass a statute requiring one.

Election policy on the ballot in 2018

Electoral system
Electoral systems by state
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
Academic studies on RCV
Election dates
Election agencies
Election terms
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

Voters considered ballot measures addressing election policy in 15 states in 2018.

Redistricting:

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot

• Ohio Issue 1, Congressional Redistricting Procedures Amendment (May 2018) a - The Ohio State Legislature, through a bipartisan vote, referred Issue 1 to the ballot for the election on May 8, 2018. The measure was written to change the vote requirements to pass congressional redistricting maps and the standards used in congressional redistricting in Ohio. Voters approved Issue 1.

• Colorado Amendment Y, Independent Commission for Congressional Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's congressional districts. Democrats and Republicans in the Colorado State Legislature voted to refer the measure. It was approved.

• Colorado Amendment Z, Independent Commission for State Legislative Redistricting Amendment (2018) a - The amendment was written to create a 12-member commission responsible for approving district maps for Colorado's state House and state Senate. Democrats and Republicans in the legislature voted to refer the amendment. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) a - The organization Voters Not Politicians collected more than the required 315,654 signatures for the initiative. The initiative was designed to transfer the power to draw the state's congressional and legislative districts from the Michigan State Legislature to an independent redistricting commission. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The PAC Clean Missouri collected signatures to get the initiated amendment on the ballot. The measure made changes to the state's lobbying laws, campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates, and legislative redistricting process. The position of nonpartisan state demographer was created. Amendment 1 made the demographer responsible for drawing legislative redistricting maps and presenting them to the House and Senate apportionment commissions.

• Utah Proposition 4, Independent Advisory Commission on Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - The measure created a seven-member independent redistricting commission to draft maps for congressional and state legislative districts. The committee Utahns for Responsive Government collected more than the required 113,143 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot.

Voting requirements and ballot access:

• Arkansas Issue 2, Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - Issue 2 was designed to require individuals to present a valid photo ID to cast non-provisional ballots in person or absentee. The Arkansas State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot, with Republicans and four of 30 Democrats voting to put Issue 2 on the ballot. It was approved.

• Florida Amendment 4, Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) a - The committee Floridians for a Fair Democracy collected more than the required 766,200 signatures to get Amendment 4 placed on the ballot. The measure was designed to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation. It was approved.

• Louisiana Amendment 1, Felons Disqualified to Run for Office for Five Years Amendment (2018) a - This measure was put on the ballot by the state legislature. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 9 in 1998 to prevent convicted felons from seeking or holding public office for 15 years following the completion of their sentences. Amendment 9 was struck down by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2016. It was approved.

• Maryland Question 2, Election-Day Voter Registration Amendment (2018) a - Legislative Democrats voted to place the amendment the ballot. The measure was designed to authorize a process for registering qualified individuals to vote at a precinct polling place on election day. It was approved.

• Michigan Proposal 3, Voting Policies in State Constitution Initiative (2018) a - Promote the Vote collected more than 315,654 valid signatures to get the initiative placed on the ballot. Proposal 3 was designed to add several voting policies to the Michigan Constitution, including straight-ticket voting, automatic voter registration, no-excuse absentee voting, and same-day voter registration. It was approved.

• Montana LR-129, Ballot Collection Measure (2018) a - The Montana State Legislature voted to place the measure on the ballot, through the support of 80 of 91 Republicans and one of 59 Democrats. The measure was written to ban persons from collecting the election ballots of other people, with exceptions for certain individuals. It was approved.

• Nevada Question 5, Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative (2018) a - The measure was designed to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The Nevada Election Administration Committee, a project of iVote, collected more than the required 55,234 signatures to get Question 5 placed on the ballot. It was approved.

• North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) a - This amendment was referred to the ballot by the state legislature along party lines with Republicans voting in favor of it and Democrats voting against it. It created a constitutional requirement that voters present a photo ID to vote in person. It was approved.

• North Dakota Measure 2, Citizen Requirement for Voting Amendment Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Citizen Voting collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure was designed to clarify that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal, state, and local elections in North Dakota. It was approved.

Arkansas Issue 3, a legislative term limits initiative, was certified for the ballot but was blocked by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling. The measure would have imposed term limits of six years for members of the Arkansas House of Representatives and eight years for members of the Arkansas Senate. The ruling came too late to remove the measure from the ballot, but the supreme court ordered election officials to not count or certify votes for Issue 3.

Campaign finance, political spending, and ethics:

• Colorado Amendment 75, Campaign Contribution Limits Initiative (2018) d - Proponents collected more than the required 136,328 valid signatures and met the state's distribution requirement to qualify this initiative for the ballot. The measure would have established that if any candidate for state office directs (by loan or contribution) more than one million dollars in support of his or her own campaign, then every candidate for the same office in the same primary or general election may accept five times the aggregate amount of campaign contributions normally allowed. It was defeated.

• Massachusetts Question 2, Advisory Commission for Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood and Political Spending Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative was designed to establish a 15-member citizens' commission to advocate for certain amendments to the United States Constitution regarding political spending and corporate personhood. It was approved.

• Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) a - Besides the redistricting provisions of Amendment 1 described above, Missouri Amendment one also made changes to the state's lobbying laws and campaign finance limits for state legislative candidates.

• North Dakota Measure 1, Ethics Commission, Foreign Political Contribution Ban, and Conflicts of Interest Initiative (2018) a - North Dakotans for Public Integrity collected more than the required 26,904 valid signatures to qualify this initiative for the ballot. Measure 1 established an ethics commission, ban foreign political contributions, and enact provisions related to lobbying and conflicts of interest. It was approved.

• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment W, State Campaign Finance and Lobbying Laws, Government Accountability Board, and Initiative Process Amendment (2018) d - The committee Represent South Dakota collected more than the required 27,741 signatures to get the initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was designed to revise campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a government accountability board, and enact new laws governing the initiative and referendum process. It was defeated.

• South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) a - This citizen initiative banned out-of-state contributions to committees supporting or opposing ballot measures within South Dakota. Rep. Mark Mickelson (R-13), speaker of the South Dakota House of Representatives, sponsored the initiative. It was approved.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the North Carolina Constitution

In North Carolina, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a 60 percent vote in each house of the state legislature during one legislative session.

The amendment was introduced into the legislature as House Bill 1092 (HB 1092) on June 7, 2018.

The North Carolina House of Representatives approved the amendment 74 to 43 with three members absent on June 26, 2018. Republicans controlled 75 seats in the state House, and 74 House Republicans voted for the amendment. Democrats voted against the amendment.

On June 29, 2018, the North Carolina State Senate passed the measure in a 33 to 12 vote. Republicans supported the amendment, and Democrats opposed the amendment. At least 30 votes were needed to pass the amendment.

As the amendment received more than a 60 percent vote in each legislative chamber, the amendment was certified for the ballot.

Vote in the North Carolina House of Representatives June 26, 2018
Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 72  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	74	43	3
Total percent	61.67%	35.83%	2.50%
Democrat	0	43	2
Republican	74	0	1

Vote in the North Carolina State Senate June 29, 2018
Requirement: Three-fifths (60 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 30  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	33	12	5
Total percent	66.00%	24.00%	10.00%
Democrat	0	12	3
Republican	33	0	2

NAACP v. North Carolina State Legislature

On November 6, 2018, the North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina sued the state legislature in the Wake County Superior Court. The plaintiffs asked for four constitutional amendments—the Legislative Appointments to Elections Board and Commissions Amendment, Judicial Selection for Midterm Vacancies Amendment, Voter ID Amendment, and Income Tax Cap Amendment—to be removed from the ballot. The NAACP and Clean Air Carolina said that since some lawmakers were elected from districts that a federal court ruled were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the existing North Carolina State Legislature was a usurper legislature. Therefore, said the plaintiffs, the constitutional amendments should be invalidated.

Senate President Phil Berger responded, "We predicted Democratic activists would launch absurd legal attacks to keep the voters from deciding on their own Constitution, but this one really jumps the shark. This absurd argument – which has already been rejected in federal court – is a sad and desperate attempt to stop North Carolina voters from joining 34 other states in requiring identification when casting a ballot."

A three-judge panel—Judges Forrest D. Bridges, Thomas H. Lock and Jeffery Carpenter—heard arguments in the case. The judges dismissed the litigation to remove the Voter ID Amendment and Income Tax Cap Amendment from the ballot.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in North Carolina

Poll times

In North Carolina, polling places are open from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time. Any voter who is standing in line at the time polls close must be permitted to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in North Carolina, each applicant must be a United States citizen and a resident of the county in which they are registering to vote for at least 30 days before the election. Applicants must be at least 18 years old by the time of the election. The North Carolina voter registration application is available online. Voter registration applications must be received by the county board of elections at least 25 days before the election. Voter registration services are also provided by the following agencies:

• North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles
• Departments of Social Services (DSS)
• Departments of Public Health (WIC)
• Vocational rehabilitation offices
• Departments of Services for the Blind
• Departments of Services for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
• Departments of Mental Health Services
• Employment Security Commission (ESC)

Automatic registration

North Carolina does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

North Carolina has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

North Carolina allows same-day voter registration during the early voting period only.

Residency requirements

Prospective voters must reside in the county in which they are registering to vote for at least 30 days before the election.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

North Carolina does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Verifying your registration

The North Carolina State Board of Elections allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

North Carolina requires voters to present photo ID when voting.

Note: According to the Board of Elections website, "On April 28, 2023, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed an injunction against implementation of photo ID legislation. As a result, photo ID laws enacted in 2018 and 2019 will be implemented moving forward, starting with the municipal elections in September, October, and November 2023. A separate federal case challenging the same laws is pending, but no injunction against the laws exists in that case." The injunction was issued on December 16, 2022.

The following documents were acceptable forms of identification as of May 2023:

• IDs that must be valid and unexpired, or expired for less than a year:
  • NC driver's license
  • Driver's license from another state (only accepted if voter registered with 90 days of the election)
  • Nonoperators ID card
  • U. S. passport
  • NC voter photo ID card
  • Student ID card issued by an eligible NC university or community college
  • Employee ID card issued by a state or local government entity (including schools)
• U.S. military ID card
• U.S. Veterans ID card issued
• Tribal enrollment card issued by a state or federally recognized tribe.
• Public assistance ID card issued by a U.S. department, agency, or entity

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Voting policy measures on the ballot
• 2018 legislative sessions

North Carolina

• North Carolina ballot measures
• North Carolina ballot measure laws
• Voter identification laws by state

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• House Bill 1092