by Dr. Mark Creech
Director of Government Relations
Return America
On August 17, Gov. Josh Stein vetoed House Bill 958 – Election Law Changes, a wide-ranging measure approved by the General Assembly to tighten several of North Carolina’s election procedures. The bill would strengthen citizenship verification, expand voter-roll maintenance, add election auditing, prohibit ranked-choice voting, shorten early voting in primaries and certain other elections, and permit specified challenges to early-voting ballots after Election Day. The House concurred in the final Senate version by a vote of 62–47 before sending the measure to the governor.
Stein condemned the legislation in unusually strong terms. He called HB 958 “anti-voter,” arguing that it would make voting more difficult, encourage efforts to invalidate ballots after Election Day, and undermine confidence in elections. He specifically objected to eliminating one week of early primary voting and allowing challenges to early-voting ballots for several days after an election.
Yet the governor’s description raises an important question. Is the bill truly an attack on voting, or does it provide reasonable safeguards to protect the integrity of the ballot itself?
Citizenship Verification
HB 958 seeks to strengthen voter-registration procedures by requiring applicants to affirm their United States citizenship before registration proceeds.
This seems to be a commonsense safeguard. Citizenship is already required by law to vote. The bill does not change who may vote; it simply establishes a clearer process for confirming an existing qualification.
Accurate Voter Rolls
The bill also provides additional mechanisms to identify deceased voters and others who may no longer be eligible to remain on North Carolina’s voter rolls.
Accurate registration records are fundamental to trustworthy elections. Proper voter-roll maintenance is not voter suppression; it is routine administrative work intended to ensure that election records reflect those legally eligible to vote.
Independent Election Audits
HB 958 also provides for election-related auditing by the State Auditor.
Institutions that exercise significant governmental authority should be subject to independent review. Audits do not necessarily indicate wrongdoing. They are a standard way to identify weaknesses, correct deficiencies, and demonstrate that systems operate as intended.
Challenges to Potentially Ineligible Ballots
One of the bill’s most disputed provisions addresses challenges to ballots cast during early voting.
Gov. Stein argues that allowing certain challenges after Election Day could invite attempts to overturn legitimate election results. But if reliable official information shows that a ballot was cast by someone legally ineligible to vote, should the timing of that discovery alone automatically require the ballot to be counted?
The answer seems unavoidable: an ineligible ballot should not become eligible merely because it has already been cast.
Ten Days of Primary Early Voting
HB 958 would also reduce early voting in primaries and certain other elections from 17 to 10 days.
The bill does nothing to abolish early voting. It also does not shorten the standard early-voting period for November general elections. Ten days still provides substantial opportunity to vote before Election Day.
For generations, Election Day voting was the norm, and the constitutional right to vote didn’t entail weeks of advance voting. A shorter early-voting period simplifies election administration, reduces costs, and keeps voters making decisions within a narrower window of shared information.
Long early-voting periods can mean some voters cast ballots before late-breaking debates, revelations, withdrawals, or other major developments. The question, then, is whether extending voting over several weeks actually improves the electoral process – or whether a shorter period better enables voters to make their choices with the fullest possible information.
Prohibiting Ranked-Choice Voting
HB 958 would prohibit ranked-choice voting in North Carolina elections.
Ranked-choice voting lets voters rank multiple candidates rather than choosing just one. If a voter’s first-choice candidate is eliminated, that vote can move to the voter’s second choice, and the process continues through additional rounds if necessary. North Carolina has experimented with ranked-choice voting on a limited basis, including municipal elections in Cary and Hendersonville, but it has never been the state’s standard method of conducting elections. HB 958 would prohibit its future use.
The traditional system of selecting one candidate, with the winner determined by the required number or a plurality of direct votes, is much simpler to understand, administer, audit, and explain to the public.
Election Administration
The measure includes provisions on precinct officials, training requirements, and the authority of county boards of elections to suspend or remove officials as necessary.
Why would this be a good idea? Because election integrity depends not only on ballots and registration lists but also on competent administration. Clear standards and adequate training can reduce errors and provide accountability when officials fail to carry out their duties properly.
Conclusion
We accept this principle almost everywhere else in life. A bank verifies identity before releasing funds. An airline checks identification before allowing a passenger to board. An auditor reviews financial records not because wrongdoing is assumed, but because accountability matters. Elections involve something even more consequential – the transfer of governing authority over our lives. It should hardly be surprising that elections, too, should require clear rules and the best in verifiable procedures.
That is what makes the debate over HB 958 so important. The issue is not whether eligible citizens should be able to vote. That they should is a given. The question is whether reasonable safeguards, such as confirming citizenship, maintaining accurate voter rolls, auditing election systems, properly training election officials, and examining potentially ineligible ballots, should be portrayed as “anti-voter.” That description is not only inaccurate but the worst kind of hyperbole.
No election system will command public confidence simply because officials tell us it’s trustworthy.
Whatever ultimately happens to HB 958 after Gov. Stein’s unfortunate veto, the larger principle should not be lost: protecting the right to vote and safeguarding the integrity of the vote are not opposing goals. A trustworthy election system can and should do both.
