I was fully grown when I learned that states have their own constitutions. As a young person, I learned about the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, We the People, all that good stuff.
If I remember correctly, I was required to memorize state capitals, state birds and state trees. But beyond that? Not much.
Even now, I’m kind of at a loss as to why we need 50 more constitutions for one country. Are there actually more than 50? Is the word “United” in our name? I can’t remember if Trump changed that one yet.
Does Puerto Rico have one? (Yes.) Washington, D.C.? (Sort of.) How different can they possibly be from the original? And what happens when they disagree? These are questions worth asking, especially since North Carolinians are being asked to change our state Constitution three times this November.
So I did a little homework.
Turns out, those state constitutions aren’t just 50 slightly different versions of the same document. And the differences matter. The U.S. Constitution establishes our federal government and sets certain fundamental rules and protections. State constitutions establish how individual states govern themselves. They can provide additional rights and protections, address issues the federal Constitution doesn’t specifically cover and establish rules for everything from public education to taxation.
They just can’t override the U.S. Constitution.
Think of it as a national rulebook and 50 state rulebooks. Everyone has to follow the national rules, but each state gets to write many of its own. And here in North Carolina, we’re being asked to make three changes to our rulebook this November. Changes involving income taxes, property taxes and voter identification.
I know. Riveting stuff. But unlike ordinary legislation, constitutional amendments aren’t easily undone. And these particular changes raise questions about public services, local government and access to voting.
So before we start checking boxes on our ballots, let’s figure out what we’re actually being asked to change.
I like keeping my money. I also like public schools, functioning roads, libraries and emergency services. Unfortunately, those things aren’t free. The first amendment on our roster would lower the maximum income-tax rate allowed under North Carolina’s Constitution from seven percent to 3.5 percent.
Sounds like a tax cut, right? Not exactly. According to WUNC, state law already schedules the individual income-tax rate to drop to 3.49 percent in 2027. The amendment wouldn’t give us another tax cut. It would prevent future lawmakers from raising the rate above 3.5 percent without another constitutional change.
Supporters say a permanent limit protects taxpayers and encourages economic growth. Critics, including the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, worry it would restrict the state’s ability to respond to future financial needs. For instance, what happens when schools need more teachers? When rural hospitals struggle? When another hurricane devastates our communities?
For LGBTQ+ people, particularly transgender youth, people with disabilities and families living in poverty, publicly funded services can be lifelines. School counselors, healthcare programs and other community resources matter. The amendment wouldn’t automatically cut those services. But it would restrict one way future lawmakers could raise money to support them.
Lower taxes sound wonderful. But so does having a functioning government.
The second amendment on our ballot deals with property taxes. I understand why homeowners dislike property taxes. Your property value goes up, your tax bill follows, and suddenly owning a home feels more expensive than you anticipated. And for some people, this isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s a genuine threat to their ability to stay in their homes.
We’ve seen what can happen when neighborhoods become more desirable; property values skyrocket and longtime residents find themselves struggling to afford the homes they’ve lived in for decades. Some have even paid off their mortgages, only to discover that owning their home outright doesn’t necessarily mean they can afford to stay.
The second amendment would require state lawmakers to limit how much local governments can increase property-tax levies. Here’s the interesting part: It doesn’t tell us what those limits would be.
The General Assembly would decide that later, including whether there should be exceptions. Supporters say property tax limits could protect homeowners, particularly retirees and people on fixed incomes, from escalating costs. But counties and municipalities rely on property taxes to fund schools, libraries, public transportation and emergency services.
Disability Rights North Carolina warns that limiting local revenue could mean fewer services or greater reliance on fees. Consider a disabled resident who needs accessible transportation, a queer teenager who finds community at a public library or a low-income family whose children depend on school resources. Those services have to be funded somehow.
And what about renters? A lower property-tax bill for a landlord doesn’t guarantee lower rent for the tenants.
There’s also the question of local control. Should communities decide how to pay for their own needs, or should lawmakers in Raleigh establish the limits? I’m not opposed to protecting homeowners from rising costs. I’m just wondering why we’re being asked to approve a constitutional requirement before we know what the actual limits will be.
Here’s where I really got confused. North Carolina already requires photo identification for voting. So why are we voting on another voter ID amendment?
This proposal would expand the existing constitutional requirement to cover all voters, including people voting absentee by mail. But according to the League of Women Voters, state law already requires identification for absentee voting and provides exceptions for voters who cannot reasonably obtain or present it. The amendment would place the broader identification requirement into the Constitution without explicitly protecting those exceptions.
Supporters argue that consistent identification requirements strengthen election security and public confidence. Disability Rights North Carolina raises concerns about additional barriers for disabled voters, older adults and military personnel. And I can’t help thinking about transgender and nonbinary voters whose identification may not match their appearance or current name. Or eligible naturalized citizens navigating unfamiliar election requirements. Or rural residents without reliable transportation or easy access to copying equipment.
None of these circumstances automatically makes someone ineligible to vote. But complicated requirements can make participation more difficult. The question isn’t whether elections should be secure. Of course they should. It’s whether this constitutional change adds meaningful safeguards and how it could affect eligible voters who already face obstacles.
I still haven’t read the entire North Carolina Constitution. Okay, let’s be honest. I’m not going to read the North Carolina Constitution. Even though, as a resident of this state, I’m expected to abide by it.
I’m tired. Are you tired? This adulting stuff is exhausting.
But here’s what I do understand. These amendments aren’t simply about taxes or identification. They’re about establishing rules that future lawmakers, local governments and North Carolinians will have to live with. And while those rules may apply to everyone, their consequences won’t necessarily be experienced equally.
A queer teenager can also be disabled. An immigrant can also be a homeowner. A transgender parent can also be struggling to pay rent. Our identities and circumstances overlap, and so do the effects of public policy.
On November 3, North Carolinians will have three separate opportunities to vote for or against changes to our Constitution. According to WUNC, the amendments will appear on the back of many ballots. Read them. Ask questions. Consider the arguments and the consequences. Because understanding what we’re changing matters just as much as understanding whom we’re electing.
This story is brought to you by Rosedale Health and Wellness and Dudley’s Place.
