North Carolina politics moves in cycles. Control shifts. Margins tighten. Power that feels secure one election cycle often disappears in the next. That dynamic is not a flaw of democracy — it is one of its defining features.

Nowhere is that more evident than in the North Carolina House of Representatives, where Republicans currently hold a 71–49 majority in the 120-member chamber. That is a governing majority, but not a veto-proof one. Overriding a governor’s veto requires 72 votes, meaning a single vote can determine whether legislation becomes law.

That reality has already shaped outcomes.

In 2025, Gov. Josh Stein vetoed 14 bills. The General Assembly successfully overrode eight of those vetoes, which means House Democrats voted with Republicans multiple times to reach the three-fifths threshold. Republicans could not do it alone; bipartisan support was required.

That fact matters. It demonstrates two things at once: first, that the House is genuinely competitive; and second, that bipartisan governing is not hypothetical in North Carolina — it is already happening when margins demand it.

Looking ahead, it would not take a dramatic electoral wave to further change the math. All House seats are up every two years. A modest swing — far short of a Democratic takeover — could make veto overrides impossible without broader consensus. A larger swing could flip control outright.

The precise outcome is unknowable. The lesson is not.

No party in North Carolina should assume permanent power.

Bipartisanship by Arithmetic

The narrow House margin has already forced cooperation. When Democrats joined Republicans to override eight vetoes in 2025, they did so because they believed the bills warranted it — not because party labels required it.

This is what governing looks like in a closely divided legislature. It is uncomfortable at times, but healthier than one-party dominance insulated from accountability.

Moments like this — when power is constrained — are precisely when lawmakers should consider reforms that protect the system itself.

A Warning Ignored — and Its Consequences

North Carolina has been here before.

In the 2008–2010 period, when Democrats still controlled the General Assembly, John Hood of the John Locke Foundation urged lawmakers to lock in neutral, anti-gerrymandering rules before Republicans could take power. His argument was not partisan. It was structural: if Democrats continued to exploit redistricting rules, Republicans would eventually gain control and do the same.

In a December 2010 Carolina Journal column, Hood warned that unchecked partisan map-drawing would invite retaliation, litigation, and instability rather than durable legitimacy. Democrats did not act.

What followed was predictable. After Republicans gained control, redistricting became a central battleground. Following the 2020 Census, the Republican-controlled General Assembly drew new congressional and legislative maps that were challenged repeatedly in state court. In 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down those maps for violating state constitutional standards, forcing court-drawn interim maps for subsequent elections.

The result was years of litigation, uncertainty, and public distrust — exactly the outcome Hood had warned about more than a decade earlier.

Since then, control of the courts has shifted, and the latest iteration of Republican-drawn maps adopted in 2023 has largely been upheld by federal courts and is likely to remain in place through the 2026 cycle, even as limited litigation continues. The maps may now stick — but the institutional damage from the cycle of retaliation and lawsuits is already done.

That history should resonate today — not just with Democrats, but with Republicans.

Rules, Not Rulers

If lawmakers want to avoid repeating this cycle, the solution is not good intentions. It is rules-based redistricting.

Other states have adopted objective standards that constrain partisan abuse regardless of who holds power. Two examples that should draw bipartisan support:

  • Compactness standards, such as minimum thresholds based on the Polsby-Popper or Reock measures, which assess how closely a district resembles a tight, contiguous shape rather than a sprawling or contorted one.
  • Perimeter or dispersion limits, which restrict how far a district can stretch geographically unless justified by population distribution or natural boundaries.

These are not ideological tools. They are mathematical guardrails.

A System That Reflects the Electorate

North Carolina’s changing electorate also argues for modest, bipartisan reforms that expand participation without advantaging any party.

Unaffiliated voters now represent the largest voting bloc in the state, yet none of North Carolina’s nearly 500 county board of elections members is permitted to serve without party affiliation. At the same time, ballot-access rules for new parties still rely on paper-only, ink signatures — requiring roughly 15,000 physical signatures to qualify for statewide races.

These rules are not about election integrity; they are about administrative inertia.

Other states are beginning to modernize. Utah election officials are preparing systems that allow electronic petition signatures, replacing pen-and-paper collection. California voters have approved measures requiring the development of online petition signing systems for initiatives and recalls.

If government agencies can securely verify identities through photo-backed digital systems for air travel and federal services, North Carolina can explore driver’s-license-verified digital signatures for ballot access as well. Making participation easier for independents and new parties does not threaten stability — it reinforces legitimacy.

Power Is Temporary. Rules Are Not.

Republicans currently control the legislature. Democrats hold the governor’s office. Both sides have leverage — and both sides should be sober about the fact that they will not always have it.

That is why reforms that limit abuse when one’s own party is in power are the most credible and the most durable.

Anti-gerrymandering rules are one such reform. Term limits are another. A reasonable standard — such as the greater of two terms or 10 years in a given legislative chamber — would preserve experience while preventing permanent incumbency. Term limits enjoy broad bipartisan public support and reduce the incentive to treat power as something to be hoarded rather than stewarded.

These are not radical ideas. They are guardrails.

Legislating for the Inevitable Swing

North Carolina’s recent veto-override record already shows that bipartisan coalitions are possible — and sometimes necessary. The question is whether lawmakers treat those moments as transactional exceptions or as signals to legislate more responsibly while they can.

Country over party does not mean abandoning principles. It means recognizing that today’s advantage becomes tomorrow’s vulnerability.

The midterm swing is coming to North Carolina — as it always does. When it arrives, the real test will not be which party benefits, but whether the General Assembly used this narrow moment to strengthen the rules of the game.

That is what governing looks like in a competitive state.