North Carolina voters approve 3 constitutional amendments on taxes and voter ID

North Carolina voters approved three constitutional amendments Nov. 3, placing limits on state income taxes, local property tax increases and voter identification requirements. The results reveal mounting concerns about affordability, government spending, population growth, rural development, and election security, as the weight of these challenges settles on the minds of citizens, while raising questions about the long-term effects on state and local government authority.

Income Tax Limit

The constitutional amendment preventing the State income tax rate from exceeding 3.5% was approved by 62% of the vote.

The personal income tax rate for 2026 is 3.99%, with a scheduled reduction to 3.49% in 2027. The proposed amendment capping the rate at 3.5% would restrict the General Assembly from raising the income tax rate beyond 0.1% in subsequent sessions without further constitutional approval. This fall’s polls revealed substantial bipartisan support for the tax cap among likely voters, notwithstanding dissent from many Democrats, including Governor Josh Stein, and progressive factions opposing the tax cap put forth by Republican lawmakers.

Stein and progressive Democrats argued that the cap could hinder the state’s ability to react to economic declines, population expansion, and growing needs in public education, healthcare, transportation, and related services. But is the population boom the result of Stein’s hands? Stein centered his election campaign around the pledge of providing affordable housing. Read how his push for more housing has affected the state and quality of life in NC Gov. Stein’s housing plan: affordable homes or a realtor-funded growth agenda?

Some opponents argue that limiting revenue options could place greater pressure on local governments to raise property taxes or force the state to reduce spending or delay investments in public services. Additionally, requiring another constitutional amendment to exceed the cap could make future fiscal adjustments more difficult, even when circumstances warrant them. Proponents, however, say it may force local officials to limit growth where there is no infrastructure, creating much-needed balance.

Property Tax Limit

The new constitutional amendment enforces caps on property tax hikes by local authorities. The proposal passed, securing 60% support. The legislature currently possesses the authority to restrict property taxes; however, the amendment would mandate legislators to enact a bill imposing such limits. Deliberations in the 2026 legislative session focused on eliminating property tax loopholes and implementing a levy cap, yet both proposals failed to pass. The tax amendments were presented on ballots while economic concerns and high expenses dominate election discussions across the country.

The property tax limit may help senior citizens stay in their homes.

Opponents argue that limiting local property tax hikes may constrain the capacity of municipalities and counties to manage inflation, population expansion, and increasing costs associated with schools, public safety, infrastructure, and essential services. Which is a problem generated by liberal policies under Stein to construct more housing and push industrial growth into rural areas.

Property taxes constitute a major source of revenue for local governments, and restricting their growth may compel officials to cut services, postpone capital projects, raise fees, or pursue alternative funding. The amendment brings up questions about the criteria the state would use to determine reasonable limits, factor in community disparities, and balance the protection of taxpayers with local governments’ capacity to serve public interests.

One resulting factor to consider is how legislating impact fees, forcing developers to pay for needed infrastructure for projects, and donating land for schools next to subdivisions may now be necessary.

During a political campaign launch this summer, Dem. April Montgomery participated in a public Q & A and said she would introduce a bill for developers to pay impact fees. After the public Q & A, she said she may not be allowed to introduce the bill because she was new and unaffiliated. However, the legislation allows any house representative to introduce bills. On Nov. 3, it seems Montgomery won House Representative District 51.

Montgomery also agreed to find answers on how Lee County agreed to purchase the Magneti Marelli (site of the Moore Center) property with its known hazardous chemical history. She did not, however, deliver an answer.

Contact Montgomery to learn when she will introduce the bill to make developers pay impact fees. info@aprilmontgomeryfornc.com

Voter I.D.

The amendment to the constitution requires every voter, regardless of whether they vote in person, to provide photo identification prior to casting their vote. The proposal secured 60% of the vote in its favor.

Republican lawmakers asserted that the amendment was crucial to reinforce the voter identification requirement. The existing voter I.D. provisions in the North Carolina Constitution refer exclusively to in-person voting. Identification is required for mail voting under a separate state law. A large number of Democrats in the legislature rejected the proposal to put the amendment on the ballot, stating it was excessive.

NC STATE

View state contests.

MOORE

View all contests.

LEE

View all contests.

HARNETT

View all contests.

Nov. 4, 2026

Stephanie M. Sellers

Subscribe to Sandhills News and support this conservative journalism with advertising.

Submit news tips, events and interview requests to editor@sandhills.news.

Sandhills News is plain-English local government reporting that explains how decisions affect your land, taxes, schools and rights.