North Carolina GOP Eyes Constitutional Amendments to Energize Base Ahead of 2026 Elections

With the 2026 midterm elections on the horizon, North Carolina’s Republican lawmakers are strategically considering a significant number of proposed constitutional amendments. This move appears to be a deliberate effort to energize their base and counteract potential voter apathy, a trend suggested by recent polling data indicating lower enthusiasm among Republican voters and widening leads for Democratic candidates.

Political analysts observe that this strategy echoes tactics employed in 2018, when a similar political climate prompted Republicans to place six constitutional amendments on the ballot. These proposals, which included measures like an income tax cap and a constitutional right to hunt, aimed to appeal to conservative voters. While these amendments did not prevent Republicans from losing their legislative supermajorities, some believe they helped mitigate the extent of those losses.

“They’re probably seeing the winds of the political mood of the state against them,” noted Michael Bitzer, director of the Center for Politics and Public Service at Catawba College. “The standard is that registered Republicans always overperform in terms of turnout, and they will need that historic turnout advantage to blunt what is obvious in the mood of the state and the country against the Republican party.”

Proposed Amendments Target Key Conservative Issues

Currently, one amendment has already secured a spot on the November ballot: a measure requiring photo identification for mail-in voters. Though already state law, enshrining it in the constitution would make it more difficult to alter.

As of May 19, 2026, six additional proposals are under active consideration, with committees reviewing them within a tight 24-hour period. The flexibility of constitutional amendments means more could be introduced, as they are exempt from the usual legislative session limitations.

Fiscal and Rights-Based Proposals

Two of these proposals focus on fiscal limitations. Senate Bill 1080 seeks to reduce the state’s constitutional income tax cap from 7% to 3.5%. While the state’s actual income tax rate is projected to fall below this new cap by 2027, the amendment would prevent future legislatures from raising it without voter approval.

Another measure, House Bill 1089, aims to establish a property tax levy limit, though it currently lacks specific details on the proposed cap. This could restrict the ability of county governments to increase property tax rates.

Enshrining Existing Laws

Two other proposed amendments focus on codifying existing state laws into the constitution. Senate Bill 1081 would grant a constitutional right to engage in farming and forestry, building upon the state’s right-to-farm law enacted in 1979. Similarly, Senate Bill 1082 would enshrine the state’s 1947 right-to-work law. During committee hearings, proponents of these bills were unable to articulate specific threats to the current laws that would necessitate constitutional protection.

Shifting Gubernatorial Power

The remaining two proposals aim to curtail the governor’s appointment powers. House Bill 144 would shift the selection of State Board of Education members from the governor to voters, with elections likely organized by congressional district. The elected Superintendent of Public Instruction would then chair the board.

House Bill 443 would define the process for replacing elected members of the Council of State in the event of a vacancy. Under this proposal, the departing official’s party would nominate three candidates, from whom the governor would select a replacement.

Strategic Maneuvering Ahead of Elections

Experts suggest that these amendments represent policy priorities that Republican leadership wishes to solidify, particularly if they face losses in legislative control in November. Constitutional amendments, by their nature, are not subject to gubernatorial veto, offering a more permanent route for policy implementation.

“The most stable and hardest to change is a constitutional amendment,” Bitzer explained. “When it comes to enacting conservative policy objectives, the most stable and hardest to change is a constitutional amendment.”

Achieving the necessary three-fifths vote in both the House and Senate is a key hurdle. While Senate Republicans hold sufficient seats, House Republicans are one vote short. However, their history of securing bipartisan support, potentially through budget negotiations and project earmarks, suggests they may find the necessary votes.

Once on the ballot, constitutional amendments require only a simple majority to pass. The 2018 income tax cap amendment, for instance, passed with 57% of the vote, indicating potential for crossover appeal. Bitzer anticipates that tax-related proposals, framed as limitations or caps, could resonate broadly with the electorate, making voter education a critical component of the debate.

Critics have labeled these efforts as using the constitution as a “political tool” to enhance electoral prospects. Bitzer likens this to the phenomenon of “gerrymaxxing” seen across the South, where political strategies are pushed to extremes. “We’re taking politics and moving it to the extremes, so why not make constitutions into political tools in this hyper-polarized environment?” he remarked. “Welcome to North Carolina in 2026.”