Absentee voting has begun in North Carolina, but voters will not see the State Board of Elections’ newly drafted rules until the 2027 cycle. The board spent the summer preparing 15 rule proposals that would clarify how absentee ballots are counted, how photo‑ID exception forms are processed, and what noise levels are permissible outside voting sites.
Legislative review holds up implementation
Last week the Rules Review Commission approved the proposals, but more than ten legislators formally requested a review of each rule. Under state law, such a request triggers a delay, giving lawmakers time to examine and possibly reject the changes. Because the General Assembly is unlikely to reconvene in Raleigh before the November election, the board expects most of the rules to be postponed until the next election cycle.
Possible fast‑track for administrative items
State Board spokesperson Jason Tyson indicated the board may seek an alternative path at its next meeting to adopt a few less controversial, purely administrative rules for the 2026 election. These could include minor adjustments that do not require full legislative scrutiny.
From numbered memos to permanent rules
Historically, the board has issued numbered memos to guide county election officials on issues such as disaster response, recount procedures, and ballot eligibility. While helpful, memos are not law and have sometimes been ignored. To give guidance greater enforceability, the board is moving many of these memos into the formal rulemaking process, which involves public hearings, comment periods, and review by the Rules Review Commission.
Voting‑site noise limits spark debate
One proposed rule would empower chief judges to curb excessive noise outside voting enclosures. If noise can be heard inside the polling place for more than a minute or occurs repeatedly, judges could order the source to lower the volume. The rule also bans amplified sound devices such as speakers and megaphones. Republican board members supported the measure as a way to protect voters’ concentration, while Democratic members warned it could over‑regulate and dampen enthusiasm, especially among younger voters who enjoy events like “Party at the Polls.” Democrat Siobhan Millen raised concerns about enforceability and potential First Amendment conflicts.
Absentee ballot handling clarified
The new absentee‑ballot rules aim to reduce confusion over envelope sealing. If the inner (container‑return) envelope is unsealed or appears resealed without a proper outer envelope, officials must spoil the ballot. When more than three days remain before Election Day, a replacement ballot will be mailed; otherwise, the voter must cast a ballot in person. If only the outer envelope is unsealed, the ballot will still count, provided the inner envelope is properly sealed. Voters who claim they sealed the envelopes differently from how they received them may be asked to attest in writing; failure to do so could result in the ballot being spoiled.
Photo‑ID exception form requirements
Under the proposals, voters who cannot present a photo ID must complete an exception form citing a valid reason—lost or stolen ID, religious objection to photography, natural disaster, lack of transportation, disability, or illness. Current rules allow county boards to reject ballots only when a voter lacks a photo ID without a satisfactory exception.
Community response
Several advocacy groups, including the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, have objected to the rules, arguing they add unnecessary burdens on election administrators and voters without serving the public interest. Durham County voter Trey Kennedy warned that a three‑day deadline for replacement absentee ballots places an undue burden, especially given unreliable mail service.
As the 2026 election approaches, North Carolina voters and officials will watch closely to see which, if any, of these proposals move forward before the next statewide contests.
Original reporting: Carolina Public Press — read the source article.
