NC Court Reopens Fight Over Voter ID and Tax Cap as New Amendments Go to Voters

North Carolina politics, Raleigh power, local accountability, and the Constitutionalist for Liberty perspective

By Peter Boykin The Constitutionalist For Liberty

GoRightNC.com | GoRightNews.com | GoRightNC.Substack.com | PeterBoykin.com

American Political Commentator | Citizen Journalist | Activist | Constitutionalist for Liberty

Follow at GoRightNews and PeterBoykin_ on X

Read and Sub to the SubStack:

https://gorightnc.substack.com/p/nc-court-reopens-fight-over-voter

North Carolina voters are deciding whether to tighten the state’s constitutional rules on photo identification and income taxes. At the same time, a court is still examining whether the legislature that placed earlier versions of those rules on the ballot had the constitutional authority to do so.

On Wednesday, October 28, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard arguments in a long-running lawsuit challenging two amendments voters approved in 2018. One required photo identification for in-person voting. The other lowered the maximum allowable state income-tax rate from 10% to 7%.

The North Carolina NAACP argues that the legislature that proposed those amendments was elected under districts found to be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. Republican legislative leaders respond that voters ratified the amendments and that a trial court properly upheld them last year.

The appeals court issued no ruling Wednesday. The 2018 amendments remain in effect, and the November 3 election is proceeding under existing rules.

The new development is the hearing itself, which brought a major constitutional dispute back before judges just days before voters consider new amendments on similar subjects.

An Eight-Year Fight Returns to Raleigh

The legal battle began in 2018, after Republican lawmakers secured the legislative supermajorities needed to place constitutional amendments on the ballot. Voters approved the photo-ID and tax-cap proposals that November.

The controversy was not simply whether voter ID or lower taxes were desirable policies. It was whether legislators elected from unlawfully drawn districts could use their positions to initiate permanent changes to the state Constitution.

Federal courts had found 28 North Carolina legislative districts to be unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. Legislators elected under those maps remained in office long enough to propose the amendments.

In 2019, a Wake County judge struck down the two amendments. Appellate litigation followed. In August 2022, a divided North Carolina Supreme Court held that the circumstances could justify closer scrutiny, but it did not itself invalidate the amendments. Instead, it sent the case back for additional examination under a specified legal test.

A three-judge trial panel upheld both amendments in September 2025. The NAACP appealed, bringing the dispute to Wednesday’s hearing.

The Gerrymander Behind the Challenge

The 2022 Supreme Court ruling recognized two competing constitutional principles. Government must respect the people’s right to amend their Constitution, but officials who gained office through unconstitutional district maps cannot necessarily rely on their positions to shield their own power from scrutiny.

The court directed the lower court to examine whether legislators elected from the unconstitutional districts could have supplied decisive votes and whether either amendment presented a substantial risk of protecting those legislators from accountability, continuing exclusion from the political process, or intentionally discriminating against the voters harmed by the gerrymander.

That is a narrower inquiry than declaring every action of the 2018 legislature invalid.

The NAACP argues that a meaningful evidentiary examination was required. Legislative leaders argue that the legal standard was applied properly and that the allegations cannot justify overturning amendments approved by more than two million voters.

Both arguments involve constitutional legitimacy. One emphasizes fair representation in the process that put the questions on the ballot. The other emphasizes the public’s subsequent vote and the stability of laws adopted through the formal amendment process.

Did the Trial Court Follow Orders?

Much of Wednesday’s hearing concerned procedure rather than the ultimate merits of photo ID or tax policy.

The NAACP’s attorney, Kym Meyer, argued that the three-judge trial panel failed to carry out the Supreme Court’s 2022 direction for further fact-finding. The panel entered judgment on the pleadings, a legal ruling that can resolve a case without a full evidentiary trial.

Martin Warf, representing Republican legislative leaders, responded that the trial court applied the Supreme Court’s test and was permitted to conclude that the amendments survived as a matter of law.

Judges questioned both sides. Chief Judge Chris Dillon raised whether a trial court could determine that no additional evidence was legally necessary. Judge Donna Stroud asked whether passage of the new amendments in 2026 might make the dispute over the earlier ones moot.

Those questions do not predict the court’s final ruling. The judges took the arguments under consideration, and no decision was announced October 28.

The 2026 Ballot Meets the 2018 Fight

The timing makes the appeal especially consequential for public understanding.

On November 3, North Carolinians will vote on a proposal to reduce the constitutional maximum income-tax rate from 7% to 3.5%. A second proposal would extend the Constitution’s photo-identification language to all voters, rather than only those voting in person.

State law already has identification requirements and exceptions for absentee voting, so the proposal’s constitutional effect should not be confused with an entirely new statutory ID system.

A separate property-tax amendment is also on the ballot, but it is not part of this lawsuit.

At Wednesday’s hearing, legislative counsel argued that approval of the newer voter-ID and income-tax amendments could make parts of the 2018 dispute moot. The NAACP disagreed that the issue could be resolved in advance of the vote.

The litigation does not automatically suspend this year’s ballot questions. Nor does it change what identification voters must provide today. North Carolina’s official election guidance remains the proper source for voting procedures.

For taxpayers and families in Alamance, Guilford, and the rest of the state, the larger issue is whether constitutional tax and election rules are adopted through a process that remains legitimate when political power changes hands.

The Constitution Must Bind Every Branch

The Go Right with Peter Boykin Perspective

I support secure elections, reasonable voter identification rules, and responsible limits on taxation. I also believe eligible voters must have workable ways to comply with election requirements and that taxpayers deserve to know what permanent limits actually mean.

But none of those preferences should determine how a court handles a constitutional case.

If legislators were elected from districts a court found unconstitutional, that history cannot simply be brushed aside.

And if millions of voters approved an amendment, their decision cannot be treated as meaningless either.

The proper question is whether the constitutional process was followed and whether the courts applied the legal standard they were required to apply.

I do not want judges making decisions because Republicans or Democrats benefit. I want judges following the Constitution, the evidence, and controlling law.

The same standard should apply to the General Assembly.

When lawmakers ask the public to permanently restrict future government power, the language must be clear and the process must be lawful.

North Carolina does not need to choose between election integrity and legitimate ballot access, or between taxpayer protection and constitutional accountability.

We should insist on both.

A Constitution That Must Outlast Politics

The October 28 hearing did not remove voter ID from North Carolina’s Constitution or change the income-tax ceiling. It did not decide the November 3 ballot questions.

It did, however, force the courts to confront an unresolved question about the authority of a legislature elected under unconstitutional district maps and the effect of a later statewide vote.

Whatever the appellate judges decide, the explanation should be clear enough for citizens to understand.

A state Constitution must be more durable than the political majority of the moment, and the rules for changing it must be respected by every party.

What To Watch

Watch for a written opinion from the Court of Appeals in North Carolina NAACP v. Hall, docket COA26-286.

The court could uphold the 2025 dismissal, reverse it, or order further proceedings. Further review by the North Carolina Supreme Court may follow.

Watch the November 3 vote on the new income-tax and voter-ID amendments, while keeping that separate from the litigation over 2018.

Early in-person voting ends October 31 at 3 p.m., according to the State Board of Elections.

Until a new court order says otherwise, the existing constitutional provisions and voting procedures remain in force.

Read more and subscribe at GoRightNews.Substack.com

North Carolina’s Court of Appeals heard a new challenge to the voter-ID and income-tax amendments approved in 2018, just days before voters decide whether to strengthen similar constitutional provisions in 2026. The judges have not ruled. Here is what the case means for constitutional authority, election rules, and taxpayer protections.

#GoRightNC, #GoRightNews, #NorthCarolina, #NCPolitics, #NCCourts, #NCConstitution, #VoterID, #IncomeTax, #Election2026, #Gerrymandering, #DueProcess, #TaxpayerRights, #ElectionIntegrity, #AlamanceCounty, #GuilfordCounty, #ConstitutionalistForLiberty

Sources

WRAL, October 28, 2026: Court Revisits Challenge to 2018 Amendments

Read WRAL’s October 28 reporting

Carolina Journal, October 28, 2026: Voter ID and Tax Cap Appeal Hearing

Read Carolina Journal’s hearing report

North Carolina Supreme Court, August 19, 2022: NAACP v. Moore, 2022-NCSC-99

Read the 2022 Supreme Court opinion

North Carolina Court of Appeals, July 2026: Legislative Leaders’ Brief, COA26-286

Read the appellate brief

Forward Justice, October 26, 2026: Plaintiffs’ Statement About the Hearing

Read the plaintiffs’ announcement

North Carolina State Board of Elections: Official 2026 Statewide Referendum Wording

View the official ballot wording

North Carolina State Board of Elections: November 3 Election Information

Official election dates and procedures

Subscribe to the Substack for Daily News

Go Right News

Go Right NC

Gays For Liberty