The North Carolina House passed a wide-ranging election law bill Monday, sending the measure to the Senate after weeks of GOP concerns, Democratic opposition, and revisions aimed at shoring up support.
House Bill 958, Election Law Changes, passed second reading 66-47 on Monday and then cleared third reading before being sent to the Senate. The bill was received by the Senate on Tuesday, passed first reading, and was referred to the Senate Rules and Operations Committee.
The measure has been revised several times since it was filed in April 2025. Its latest version includes a range of election-law changes, including provisions on ballot counting, absentee ballots, voter-list maintenance, election administration, and oversight of election officials.
Supporters and election-law analysts argue the bill contains several practical changes that would improve election administration and voter confidence.
“The bill has a host of features that will improve elections in North Carolina,” said Andy Jackson, director of the Civitas Center for Public Integrity at the John Locke Foundation. “They include requiring officials to stop the registration process when they discover that a prospective voter is not a US citizen, a ban on foreign money in referendum campaigns, and more time for election officials to deal with absentee and provisional ballots.”
Jackson said the bill’s election performance audit provision is especially important.
“An especially welcome feature is the addition of election performance audits, which will help find problems with how elections are conducted and give local officials a chance to correct them,” Jackson said.
The House vote marked a notable shift from last week, when the bill cleared House Rules with significant minority opposition and questions about whether Republicans had enough support to pass it.
Rep. Tricia Cotham, R-Mecklenburg, who voted against the bill in House Rules, voted yes on the House floor Monday.
Reps. Carla Cunningham, I-Mecklenburg; and Shelly Willingham, D-Edgecombe, whose absences were key to several recent veto overrides, remained opposed to the measure, both voting no on Monday. Their opposition could matter if Gov. Josh Stein vetoes the bill and Republican leaders later seek an override.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where its future is less certain. Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, told reporters Tuesday that the Senate was not committing to taking up the House legislation.
Before final passage on Monday, the House adopted two amendments and rejected one Democratic amendment.
The first adopted amendment from Rep. Hugh Blackwell, R-Burke, was adopted unanimously, 112-0. That amendment removed a section of the bill that addressed political statements and activities by State Board of Elections members and county board members.
Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, praised the amendment, saying Democrats had worked with Blackwell to remove what she described as a “gag” provision.
“This is a great amendment,” Harrison said. “We’ve been working with Rep. Blackwell to refine this provision, and I don’t think we could come up with language that did the trick. So this removes all the gag aspect of this, and I think restores the status quo, which was sufficient.”
A second Blackwell amendment was adopted 69-44. It added language allowing evidence of noise outside a public building or facility, made with the intent to disrupt voting or election-related activity, to be used to prove a violation.
Rep. Phil Rubin, D-Wake, opposed that amendment, arguing that election-law changes affecting voting or speech should require strong evidence of a problem.
“Democracy is noisy,” Rubin said. “That is a fact about democracy. It is messy, and it is noisy. And our First Amendment rights protect that, and they enshrine that.”
A second Blackwell amendment was adopted 69-44. It added language allowing evidence of noise outside a public building or facility, made with the intent to disrupt voting or election-related activity, to be used to prove a violation.
Democrats repeatedly acknowledged that negotiations had improved the bill, but they argued the final version still went too far.
Rubin said he appreciated Blackwell’s willingness to discuss changes but remained strongly opposed.
“Notwithstanding the collaboration that made some improvements to the bill that I’m glad for,” Rubin said, “a bill that is a little less harmful than the first draft is still not one that we can support or should ever support.”
Rubin argued the bill would make it easier to challenge eligible voters based on unreliable databases and would shift too much election authority toward the state auditor.
“The question that this body has to ask is whether this bill will protect the right to vote or restrict it,” Rubin said. “And because the answer to that question is the latter, I must stand against the bill.”
Democrats argued the bill would create confusion ahead of the next election. Rep. Brandon Price, D-Guilford, said voters deserve “normalcy and predictability” in elections.
“People are wondering, what do I have to do to make my choice at the ballot box?” Price said. “And this bill does not answer that question. In fact, it adds more confusion to it.”
Rep. Brian Turner, D-Buncombe, raised concerns about overseas voters, pointing to his own family’s experience while he served in the Navy.
“You’re a little bit confused on these specific circumstances, right?” Turner said, after questioning Blackwell about whether his children would have been eligible to vote in North Carolina while overseas. “Just imagine if you’re just a regular person serving in the military or not overseas; there’s going to be a lot of confusion, and you can’t call up staff to ask that question.”
The House vote followed a rocky path through committee. Last week, HB 958 advanced from House Rules on a 14-9 vote, with Cotham joining Democrats in opposition. Cunningham and Willingham also expressed concerns about the bill after previously signaling openness to parts of it.
The bill was not placed on the House calendar immediately after clearing Rules, which, at the time, raised questions about whether Republican leaders had the votes to pass it, which they ultimately did.
Stein has previously criticized the legislation, and a veto is expected if the bill reaches his desk.
With Berger declining to commit to taking up the House bill, HB 958’s fate now depends on whether Senate Republicans decide to move the legislation, amend it, or leave it in committee as the end of the legislative session is near.