Proposals addressing property taxes, income tax limits and voter identification will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot

By Nicole Bowman-Layton

North Carolina voters will decide whether to change the state’s Constitution in three areas when they cast their ballots in the Nov. 3 general election: property taxes, income tax limits and voter identification.

The proposed amendments will appear on ballots statewide, with in-person early voting beginning Thursday, Oct. 15.

According to the North Carolina General Assembly, lawmakers approved all three amendments for voters’ consideration. Each must receive a majority of the votes cast on that particular amendment to become part of the state constitution.

Unlike ordinary legislation, constitutional amendments cannot be changed by a simple vote of the General Assembly. Changing them generally requires another statewide referendum.

Here is what voters should know about each proposal.

Property tax amendment

Ballot language: “Constitutional amendment requiring limits on property tax increases by local governments.”

The first proposal would require the General Assembly to establish limits on how much counties, cities and other local governments can increase their property tax levies.

According to the North Carolina General Assembly’s analysis of House Bill 1089, the amendment would require lawmakers to enact limits on property tax levy increases, while allowing them to establish exceptions.

A property tax levy refers to the total property tax revenue collected by a local government, rather than the tax rate paid by an individual property owner.

The amendment itself does not specify a percentage limit, establish how increases would be calculated or identify which exceptions would be permitted. Those decisions would be left to future legislation.

That means approval would not automatically reduce homeowners’ property tax bills or guarantee that individual tax bills could increase by only a certain percentage.

Arguments for the amendment

Supporters say the proposal is intended to protect homeowners and businesses from rising property taxes and encourage greater accountability in local government spending.

Rep. Brian Echevarria, R-Cabarrus, a primary sponsor of the legislation, argued that rising property taxes have created affordability concerns for families.

During debate on the proposal in May, Echevarria said property tax increases have been substantial and that homeowners and renters need greater financial stability, according to reporting by WUNC.

Supporters contend that establishing limits would provide taxpayers with more predictability and encourage local governments to make spending decisions within defined revenue constraints.

Arguments against the amendment

The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners has opposed the proposed constitutional amendment, arguing that restrictions on property tax revenue could affect counties’ ability to provide essential services.

Property taxes are a major source of county revenue, supporting public schools, law enforcement, emergency services, public health and other local government responsibilities.

In a May 15 legislative update, the association noted that some lawmakers had raised concerns about the effects of state mandates and responsibilities shifted to local governments without corresponding funding.

The association also noted that levy limits used in other states have sometimes been tied to factors such as inflation and population growth. However, North Carolina’s proposed amendment does not establish a particular formula.

Critics have also questioned whether a statewide approach would adequately account for differences among counties.

Rep. Maria Cervania, D-Wake, a former county commissioner, told WUNC that a uniform limit could create difficulties because counties have vastly different financial circumstances.

“Bertie County is not Mecklenburg County,” Cervania told WUNC, questioning whether one statewide limit would work for communities with different needs and tax bases.

The concern could be particularly relevant in northeastern North Carolina, where smaller populations and limited tax bases can make it more difficult for counties to generate revenue.

However, the actual financial impact would depend on the limits and exceptions lawmakers establish if the amendment passes.

The question for voters is whether requiring statewide limits would provide greater protection against property tax increases or restrict local governments’ ability to respond to changing community needs.

Income tax amendment

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

The second proposal would lower the maximum income tax rate allowed under North Carolina’s constitution from 7% to 3.5%.

According to the General Assembly’s summary of Senate Bill 1080, the proposed limit would apply to both personal and corporate income taxes beginning with the 2027 tax year.

The distinction between the constitutional maximum and the actual tax rate is important.

North Carolina’s individual income tax rate is 3.99% for 2026. However, legislation approved earlier this year already schedules the rate to decline to 3.49% in 2027, according to WUNC’s September reporting.

The constitutional amendment would not itself create that reduction. Instead, it would prevent future legislatures from increasing the income tax rate above 3.5% without another constitutional amendment.

Arguments for the amendment

Supporters argue that establishing a lower constitutional ceiling would protect taxpayers from future increases and provide greater financial certainty for residents and businesses.

Sen. Michael Lee, R-New Hanover, a sponsor of the legislation, has described the proposal as part of the state’s broader effort to reduce taxes.

“We’ve made a commitment to the voters, to the citizens of North Carolina, to reduce the tax burden on them,” Lee said earlier this year, according to WUNC.

Republican lawmakers supporting the measure have argued that lower income taxes allow residents to retain more of their earnings and can encourage business investment and economic growth.

They also point to previous reductions in North Carolina’s income tax rates as evidence that the state can operate with a lower tax burden.

Arguments against the amendment

Opponents argue that a lower constitutional ceiling could limit future lawmakers’ ability to respond to economic downturns or increased demand for government services.

The NC Budget & Tax Center, a nonprofit organization focused on state fiscal policy, opposes the proposal. The organization argues that reducing the constitutional maximum would limit future revenue options and could make it more difficult to fund public services.

Income taxes are a significant source of funding for state government, including public education, transportation and other programs.

Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, raised similar concerns during legislative debate, according to WUNC, arguing that limiting revenue options could eventually affect the government’s ability to provide essential services.

Supporters of the amendment maintain that constitutional tax limits encourage spending discipline, while opponents contend that future legislatures should retain flexibility to adjust tax policy as conditions change.

The amendment would not prohibit additional income tax reductions. It would establish the highest rate the state could impose without changing the constitution again.

Voter identification amendment

Ballot language: “Constitutional amendment to require all voters, not just those presenting to vote in person, to present photo identification before voting.”

The third amendment would expand the state’s constitutional voter identification requirement to include voters who cast ballots by mail.

According to the North Carolina General Assembly’s summary of Senate Bill 921, the amendment would revise the constitution’s existing photo identification provision, which voters approved in 2018.

North Carolina law already requires photo identification for in-person voting and identification documentation for absentee voting by mail, with exceptions available under certain circumstances.

The proposed amendment would place the broader identification requirement directly into the constitution, making it more difficult for future legislatures to remove.

Arguments for the amendment

Supporters say requiring identification for all methods of voting would provide consistent election security standards and strengthen public confidence in election results.

Rep. Mike Schietzelt, R-Wake, told WUNC that election laws must balance access for eligible voters with safeguards against improper voting.

Schietzelt said the goal is to ensure eligible residents can participate while limiting opportunities for interference in elections.

Supporters also argue that placing the broader requirement in the constitution would provide greater permanence and prevent future lawmakers from eliminating identification requirements through ordinary legislation.

Arguments against the amendment

Opponents question whether another constitutional requirement is necessary when identification rules for both in-person and absentee voting already exist under state law.

Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, told WUNC that the proposal could create unnecessary voting obstacles and that constitutional requirements can be difficult to change when circumstances evolve.

Civil rights and voting access organizations have also raised concerns about identification requirements potentially affecting voters who have difficulty obtaining acceptable documents, including some older residents, students and people with disabilities.

Supporters maintain that identification requirements are reasonable election safeguards and that state law provides exceptions for voters unable to present acceptable identification.

The amendment would not eliminate the General Assembly’s authority to establish exceptions.

Regardless of the referendum’s outcome, North Carolina’s existing voter identification requirements remain in place for the November election.

The North Carolina State Board of Elections provides information about acceptable identification and the exceptions available to eligible voters.

What happens if an amendment passes?

According to the North Carolina General Assembly, each amendment must receive approval from a majority of voters casting ballots on that question.

Voters may select “For” or “Against” on each proposed amendment independently.

If approved, the property tax amendment would require lawmakers to establish levy limits through future legislation. The income tax amendment would apply to taxable years beginning Jan. 1, 2027. The voter identification amendment would take effect upon certification of the referendum results.

If an amendment is rejected, the existing constitutional language would remain unchanged.

Early voting

According to the North Carolina State Board of Elections, in-person early voting for the Nov. 3 general election begins Thursday, Oct. 15, and continues through Saturday, Oct. 31.

Early voting ends at 3 p.m. on the final Saturday.

During the early voting period, residents may cast ballots at any designated early voting location in their county. Eligible residents may also register and vote during early voting, provided they meet the state’s requirements.

Voters can review their registration information, find early voting locations and access sample ballots through the State Board of Elections website.

The three constitutional amendments will appear as separate ballot questions, giving voters the opportunity to decide each proposal individually.