Two hot political bills met their expected fate under Gov. Josh Stein’s veto pen Monday, likely leading to overrides by the General Assembly.
House Bill 958 would make a number of changes to election rules, including reducing early voting to ten days from 17 for primaries, second primaries and runoff elections.
The state auditor would also be required to randomly evaluate every county in the state at least once every six years for efficiency, systems and operations.
Republicans are determined to “make early voting more difficult,” Stein said in a press event streamed live. He also accused Republicans of trying to set the stage for “partisan officials” to reject ballots up to three days after an election. Stein said that 200,000 people cast an early ballot in the first week of early voting for the March primary, and more than four million voted early in 2024.
The governor said the bill is part of a “years-long” effort by Republicans “to attack” elections and votes.
HB 958 strengthens purges of deceased, non-citizen, duplicate and ineligible voters, including those who have moved or have lost their right to vote due to criminal convictions. The bill also forces officials to stop registering non-citizens and bans foreign money on referendums. Proof of citizenship will be required for all newly registered voters. Candidates will not be allowed to run unless they have been affiliated with the same party for one calendar year.
Supporters note that by shortening early voting, elections officials have more time to handle provisional and absentees, resulting in fewer delays after Election Day. The State Board of Elections notes that North Carolina has the longest early voting period in the nation.
State officials responding to federal officials said 1,599 non-citizens may be actively casting ballots. Two recent campaigns in the state were decided by fewer than 1,000 votes.
“House Bill 958 continues practical election reforms so we all can have greater confidence that every lawful vote in North Carolina is counted fairly and accurately,” said N.C. House Election Law Chair Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke). “Gov. Stein’s veto of this legislation puts politics ahead of common sense and the peace of mind voters should have when they cast their ballots.”
State Board of Elections Executive Director Sam Hayes said on X that HB 958 “contains a number of significant changes to North Carolina’s election laws, including provisions to voter registration, list maintenance, audits and election administration. …our office hopes the General Assembly will revisit these provisions later this year.
“The State Board’s responsibility is to ensure that our voter roles are accurate and that every eligible voter can participate while maintaining the security and integrity of our elections,” Hayes continued. “We welcome the opportunity to work with legislators on thoughtful, practical improvements to strengthen those goals.”
The veto is expected to be overridden. Most of the new rules will not affect the November midterms.
The other bill Stein rejected would have allowed the state’s Chief Justice to suspend judges without pay during investigations. The measure came about after questions about sentencing and releases for defendants took center stage with the murder of Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte metro train.
Stein said that since most judges are elected, the chief justice should not have the power to remove judges, since party politics could come into play. The bill would require that the Judicial Standards Commission suggest a suspension, and the JSC would have to explain why the judge’s presence on the bench during an investigation would cause “immediate and irreparable harm to the public or the administration of justice.”
House Speaker Destin Hall (R-Caldwell) noted that the bill provides accountability for judges who allow lenient sentences for violent criminals, as well as those facing judicial review.
Judges facing discipline currently face penalties ranging from a public remand to removal. Punishments are determined by the Judicial Standards Commission, but those decisions could be set aside by the chief justice in favor of harsher or more lenient penalties if a majority of the state Supreme Court approves.
