In this year’s mid term elections North Carolinians will be voting on three Constitutional Amendments on the 2026 Ballot. While all three may initially appear quite appealing and elicit a knee jerk vote of approval, a deeper dive into each can reveal much more than meets the eye at first glance. Remember the cautionary tale of the Trojan Horse.

Unable to penetrate the fortified city of Troy, the Greek army built a hollow wooden statue of a horse and filled it with an elite strike force. While the main Greek army pretended to give up, burn their camp and sail away, they sent a spy who convinced the Trojans that the horse was a sacred peace offering to the goddess Athena. Believing they had won the battle, the Trojans pulled the massive wooden structure inside their city walls and celebrated. Under the cover of night, the hidden Greek soldiers crept out of the horse, opened the city gates for their returning army, and burned Troy to the ground.

The moral of the story to wary voters: Be ye not deceived by Constitutional Amendments disguised as gifts. Or to use another analogy, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it imbibe if it knows what’s been muddying the water. So, to clear things up and reveal the Trojan Horse on the ballot, I asked a smart bot for some help in preparing a fact based briefing for voters who want to look beyond an appealing veneer to see the danger hiding inside. Take the time to digest the following information. Look and learn why all three amendments may deserve a thumbs down.

North Carolina 2026 Constitutional Amendments: A Fact-Based Briefing for Voters Considering an “AGAINST” Vote on All Three

1. PHOTO IDENTIFICATION FOR ALL VOTERS

Exact ballot language

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

What North Carolina law currently provides

North Carolina already requires photo identification for voters voting in person. The General Assembly has also established an identification requirement for absentee-by-mail voters: they generally submit a copy of acceptable photo identification or an ID-exception form with their ballot.

The State Board of Elections currently provides numerous forms of acceptable identification and allows voters without acceptable ID to use specified exceptions. These include reasonable impediments such as lack of transportation, disability or illness, lack of required documents, work or school schedules, family responsibilities, and lost or stolen ID.

Arguments supporters may make

• A constitutional requirement would establish a uniform identification principle for all methods of voting, rather than distinguishing between in-person and absentee voting.
• Supporters can argue that requiring identification helps verify that the person casting a ballot is the registered voter.
• Putting the requirement in the Constitution could make the basic rule less susceptible to changes by future legislatures.

Reasons a voter might vote AGAINST

1. The amendment is largely constitutionalizing a requirement that already exists in statute.
North Carolina already has photo-ID requirements for both in-person and absentee voting. The principal constitutional change is extending the constitutional language to all voting methods.

2. It would make election procedures more difficult to change in the future.
The amendment would put the broader requirement in the Constitution while leaving implementation—including possible exceptions—to future legislation. A voter could reasonably conclude that detailed election procedures are better handled by ordinary law, where they can be adjusted as circumstances change.

3. It could create additional constitutional rigidity for absentee voting.
The existing statutory system permits an absentee voter who cannot provide ID to use an exception procedure. The amendment would establish a constitutional requirement covering all voters, potentially making future changes to absentee identification rules more constrained.

4. The voter can reasonably ask what problem requires a constitutional amendment.
Because North Carolina already has an identification system and exception procedures, an opponent could conclude that any additional changes should be accomplished through legislation rather than constitutional amendment.

Bottom line for an AGAINST voter:
“I can support secure elections and reasonable identification requirements without believing that the Constitution should permanently establish a broader photo-ID requirement when the state already has statutory requirements and exception procedures.”

---

2. CONSTITUTIONAL 3.5% INCOME-TAX CEILING

Exact ballot language

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

What the amendment would do

The current North Carolina Constitution allows an income-tax rate as high as 7%. This amendment would reduce that constitutional maximum to 3.5% for both personal and corporate income, beginning with taxable years after January 1, 2027.

Importantly, the constitutional ceiling is not the same thing as the actual tax rate.

Current law already provides for substantial future reductions in the personal income-tax rate. The General Assembly’s Fiscal Research Division reports the following schedule under current 2026 law:

Tax year	Personal income-tax rate
2026	3.99%
2027	3.49%
2028–2029	3.49%
2030–2032	3.24%
2033 onward	2.99%

The same legislative analysis notes that the corporate income-tax rate is scheduled to decline to 0% beginning in 2030 under current law.

Arguments supporters may make

• A constitutional ceiling could protect taxpayers against future increases in the income-tax rate.
• Supporters may argue that a lower tax burden encourages investment, economic activity and population growth.
• Constitutionalizing the ceiling would prevent a future General Assembly from raising the rate above 3.5% without another constitutional amendment.

Reasons a voter might vote AGAINST

1. The amendment may have little immediate practical effect.
The General Assembly’s nonpartisan Fiscal Research Division concluded in May 2026 that the amendment was expected to have no fiscal impact, because current law already projected the personal rate below 3.5% beginning in 2027.

That raises a basic question for voters:

Why amend the Constitution to establish a ceiling that current law is already expected to stay below?

2. It could unnecessarily restrict future legislatures.
North Carolina’s economic and fiscal circumstances could be very different decades from now. A 3.5% constitutional ceiling would limit the state’s ability to respond to an extraordinary fiscal situation through income taxation without first obtaining another constitutional amendment.

3. It applies to corporate as well as personal income.
The constitutional limit covers both categories. Current corporate rates are already scheduled below 3.5%, eventually reaching zero under current law.

A voter could therefore conclude that there is little reason to permanently surrender future legislative flexibility on corporate taxation.

4. The Constitution is an unusually rigid place for tax policy.
Tax policy can change with recessions, demographic changes, infrastructure needs, education requirements, disasters and other circumstances. An opponent could reasonably prefer to let elected legislators make those decisions—and be held accountable by voters—rather than locking the maximum rate into the Constitution.

Bottom line for an AGAINST voter:
“I may favor keeping taxes reasonable, but I do not see a need to amend the Constitution to establish a 3.5% ceiling when current law is already taking the rates below that level. Future legislatures should retain flexibility to respond to circumstances we cannot predict.”

---

3. LIMITS ON LOCAL PROPERTY-TAX INCREASES

Exact ballot language

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

What the amendment actually says

The amendment would require the General Assembly to enact laws “limiting the amount by which the levy of taxes on property may increase,” while allowing those laws to include exceptions.

Crucially, the amendment itself does not establish the percentage or formula for the limit.

The General Assembly’s Fiscal Research Division explicitly noted that the proposed amendment does not specify whether future limits would be based on inflation, population growth, a fixed percentage, or another formula. Those details would have to be determined later by legislation.

Arguments supporters may make

• Property taxpayers could receive greater protection against rapidly increasing local tax levies.
• A statewide constitutional requirement could establish greater uniformity among counties and municipalities.
• Supporters may argue that local governments should be required to control spending before increasing property-tax collections.

Reasons a voter might vote AGAINST

1. Voters are being asked to approve a constitutional requirement without knowing what the actual limit will be.

This is arguably the most straightforward objection.

The amendment tells the General Assembly to establish a limit but doesn’t tell voters what that limit will be. The state’s own Fiscal Research Division confirms that the critical details would be determined by subsequent legislation.

A voter could reasonably conclude:

“I should know what the property-tax limit is before I put the requirement into my state’s Constitution.”

2. It could restrict local governments’ ability to respond to local needs.

Counties and municipalities differ substantially in population growth, infrastructure requirements, emergency-service needs, debt obligations and economic conditions.

A uniform statewide limitation could make it harder for a rapidly growing community to finance necessary services.

3. Restricting property-tax revenue doesn’t necessarily eliminate government costs.

If a county or municipality needs additional money but cannot raise sufficient property-tax revenue, it could respond through some combination of:

• service reductions;
• delayed capital projects;
• increased fees or charges;
• borrowing;
• seeking additional state assistance.

Thus, an opponent could argue that a property-tax ceiling could shift costs rather than eliminate them.

4. The amendment would shift authority from local governments to the General Assembly.

The Constitution would require the General Assembly in Raleigh to establish the limits applicable to local governments throughout the state.

A voter who values local control could reasonably object that local elected officials—and ultimately local voters—should have substantial authority over local taxation and spending.

5. The exceptions are also left unspecified.

The amendment says future laws “may include exceptions,” but does not identify what those exceptions must be.

An opponent could therefore conclude that voters are being asked to approve the constitutional principle before seeing the legislation that will determine how it actually operates.

Bottom line for an AGAINST voter:
“I may support property-tax relief, but I do not want to put an undefined tax limitation into the Constitution before knowing its percentage, formula, exceptions and consequences for local services.”

---

THE COMMON CASE FOR VOTING AGAINST ALL THREE

A voter considering AGAINST on all three does not have to oppose voter identification, lower taxes or property-tax relief.

The common argument can instead be summarized in three questions:

1. Is a constitutional amendment necessary?

For the income-tax proposal, current law already projects rates below the proposed 3.5% ceiling.

For voter ID, North Carolina already has statutory requirements for both in-person and absentee voting.

For property taxes, the proposed amendment does not itself establish the actual limit.

2. Would putting the policy in the Constitution reduce future flexibility?

Yes, by design. Constitutional provisions are substantially harder to change than ordinary statutes because changing them requires another constitutional amendment approved by voters.

3. Are voters being asked to approve something whose future details are uncertain?

This is particularly significant with the property-tax amendment: the constitutional requirement would be approved now, while the actual limits and formulas would be written later by the General Assembly.

---

Official sources voters can consult

• North Carolina State Board of Elections — Voter ID information — current identification requirements, acceptable IDs and exceptions.
• NC General Assembly — S.L. 2024-58 / Voter ID Amendment — amendment and nonpartisan legislative analysis.
• NC General Assembly — S.L. 2026-4 / Income-Tax Amendment — ballot language and scope.
• NC General Assembly — Fiscal Research Division analysis of S.B. 1080 — current and projected tax rates and fiscal analysis.
• NC General Assembly — S.L. 2026-5 / Property-Tax Amendment — exact constitutional language and ballot question.
• NC General Assembly — Fiscal Research Division property-tax analysis — explains why the actual property-tax formula would have to be established later.
• North Carolina State Board of Elections — 2026 General Election — election date and official voter information.

In short: the most factually defensible case for voting AGAINST all three is not that their stated objectives are inherently objectionable. It is that each amendment puts a policy choice into the Constitution that can arguably be handled through ordinary legislation—and, in the property-tax case, asks voters to approve the constitutional mandate before the actual limits are even known.