Show summary Hide summary
State election rules in North Carolina that critics say will make it easier to discard ballots and remove voters from polling places have drawn sharp warnings that the changes echo discrimination tactics outlawed decades ago, columnist Mary C. Curtis writes. The measures were adopted by the Republican-controlled State Board of Elections and, according to Curtis, reflect a broader push by some state officials to tighten control of how ballots are counted.
What the board changed
Under rules adopted by the elections board, county boards would no longer need unanimous bipartisan agreement to discard a ballot when a voter claims an exemption to the state’s photo ID requirement and their reason is judged false. Curtis reports the previous standard required unanimity; the new standard allows a simple majority to decide. Because Republicans hold majorities on each county board across North Carolina, Curtis says the change could significantly increase the number of ballots rejected starting in the 2026 midterms.
The board also approved a rule that would permit volunteers to remove any voter, campaigner, politician or protester deemed too noisy at a polling place, Curtis reports. She cites reporting from WRAL in noting Republican board member Angela Hawkins’ support for lowering the threshold to toss ballots and her comment that “It’s very difficult to find falsity in what someone says,” a remark reported by WRAL.
Britt McHenry steps down from State Department role after basketball altercation
eBay plans roughly 1,000 job cuts in its second wave of layoffs this year
Reaction and legal context
Advocates and voting-rights groups have pushed back. As Curtis notes, Common Cause North Carolina said in a statement, “Partisanship has no business in the counting of eligible voters’ ballots.” The group framed its warning around concerns the new rules could be applied unevenly in a politically close state.
Curtis places the developments in a wider legal and historical context. She recalls that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned arbitrary tests — the column cites the infamous “jelly bean” and soap-bubble tests used in the Jim Crow era — and says recent Supreme Court decisions have limited the ability to consider discriminatory effect when evaluating voting policies. Curtis cites a line attributed to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., written when he was a young lawyer, describing federal court oversight as “the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes.”
The column also points to a recent shift in state appointment power that Curtis says helped secure Republican control of the elections board: she reports that North Carolina’s state Supreme Court approved moving certain appointment authority from the Democratic governor, Josh Stein, to the Republican state auditor. That change, she writes, has made board majorities more secure.
Broader political backdrop
Curtis connects the board’s actions to national debates over federal election legislation and statements by federal officials. She contrasts Republican state-level moves with failed congressional initiatives such as the SAVE Act, and criticizes rhetoric from national figures that has alleged widespread fraud without substantiation. Curtis also cites comments by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, saying his threats to local election officials to comply with federal directives show a misunderstanding of constitutional authority over elections, which Curtis says belongs to Congress and the states.
Advocates warn the North Carolina changes could be especially consequential in tight federal races. Curtis recalls that a federal court previously found some voting restrictions in the state targeted African American voters “with almost surgical precision,” language she uses to underscore historical concerns about discriminatory enforcement of voting rules.
Curtis describes the rules change as part of a pattern she views as an erosion of safeguards designed to prevent partisan interference in ballot counting and voter access. In closing, the columnist urges election officials to reject measures that replicate the most objectionable aspects of past practices and to uphold impartial administration of the franchise.
The analysis and quotations above are drawn from an opinion column by Mary C. Curtis; she can be followed on Twitter at https://twitter.com/mcurtisnc3.
