Isabella Carter
The North Carolina Constitution has been amended 37 times since its ratification in 1971, with the last amendments approved by voters on November 5, 2024. In 2018, six constitutional amendments were proposed, including the establishment of a bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement, reducing the income tax cap from 10% to 7%, strengthening protections for victims of crime, requiring photo identification for in-person voting, and protecting the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife. The sixth amendment proposed changes to the process of filling judicial vacancies, shifting the power from the governor to the people of the state.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Amendment 1 | To establish a bipartisan board of ethics and elections enforcement |
| Amendment 2 | To change the process for filling judicial vacancies |
| Amendment 3 | To protect the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife |
| Amendment 4 | To strengthen protections for victims of crime |
| Amendment 5 | To reduce the maximum tax rate on incomes to 7% |
| Amendment 6 | To require photo identification to vote in person |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Victims of crime receive better protection and safeguards
The North Carolina Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment, also known as S.J. Res. 3, was a ballot initiative in 2018 that aimed to provide better protection and safeguards for victims of crime. This amendment was part of a broader movement to enhance victims' rights and services in the criminal justice system.
The amendment proposed several measures to strengthen the rights of victims. Firstly, it emphasised that victims of crime should be treated with dignity and respect by the criminal justice system. This includes the right to receive timely and accurate information about court proceedings, to be present at these proceedings, and to be heard during relevant stages of the accused's case, such as plea deals, convictions, and sentencing. Victims would also have the right to receive restitution in a timely manner when ordered by the court.
Additionally, the amendment sought to address the fear of revictimization by the system and retaliation by the offender, which often deterred victims from reporting crimes or engaging with the criminal justice process. To mitigate this, the amendment proposed providing victims with information about how the criminal justice system works, as well as raising awareness of their rights and the availability of support services.
However, it is important to note that the North Carolina Marsy's Law faced some criticism and controversy. There were concerns about the specific wording of the amendment, as a poor choice of words could significantly alter its meaning or lead to unintended legal consequences. Advocacy groups also pointed out that while previous versions of the amendment covered all victims of crime, S.J. Res. 3 limited constitutional protection to victims of violent crimes, potentially excluding millions of victims of non-violent crimes.
Despite these concerns, the broader movement towards strengthening victims' rights has gained significant support. The idea of a federal Constitutional Amendment for Victims' Rights has been discussed since at least 1982, when the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime identified the need for such an amendment to restore balance to the justice system. Legal commentators and organisations like the Office for Victims of Crime have also concluded that a victims' rights amendment is necessary to address inconsistencies in victims' rights laws across different jurisdictions.
Religious Teaching Laws: Constitutional Amendments Explained
You may want to see also
A bipartisan board for ethics and elections enforcement
The North Carolina Constitution was ratified in 1971 and has since been amended multiple times, with the last amendments approved by voters on November 5, 2024. One of these amendments addresses the establishment of a bipartisan board for ethics and elections enforcement.
The amendment proposes the creation of an eight-member Bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement, replacing the current nine-member body composed of four Democrats, four Republicans, and one independent, all appointed by the governor. The new board would have its members appointed by the legislature rather than the governor, and it would be responsible for administering ethics and elections law.
This amendment is significant because it shifts the power to appoint members from the governor to the legislature. It also reduces the number of members, eliminating the independent member of the board. The board is intended to be bipartisan, with equal representation from Democrats and Republicans, to ensure fairness and balance in ethics and elections enforcement.
The establishment of this board is part of a broader effort to strengthen ethics and elections processes in North Carolina. By creating a dedicated body with expertise in these areas, the state aims to improve the administration of ethics laws and ensure fair and secure elections. This amendment demonstrates a commitment to upholding ethical standards and protecting the integrity of the democratic process.
Texas Constitution Amendments: When to Vote
You may want to see also
The right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife
The North Carolina Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Wildlife Amendment was on the ballot in North Carolina as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. It was approved by voters. This amendment establishes a state constitutional right for the people of North Carolina to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, including the use of traditional methods. This right, however, is subject to laws enacted by the General Assembly that promote wildlife conservation and management, and preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing are also declared as the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife in the state.
Prior to the amendment, there were concerns that hunting and fishing rights were in jeopardy. However, Rep. Marcia Morey (D-30) stated that this amendment was unnecessary and could have unintended consequences, potentially harming the state's wildlife by overruling restrictions on trapping, poisoning, and other cruel practices. Despite this opposition, the amendment was approved by voters.
In 2020, Tim Oates filed a lawsuit alleging that state law prohibiting hunting during a three-hour window on Sunday mornings and within 500 feet of a church violated the newly established right to hunt and fish. However, a superior court panel ruled against Oates, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld this decision, stating that the state's laws on hunting did not violate the constitutional right. This showcases the ongoing legal interpretation and application of the amendment.
As of 2018, 21 states had constitutional provisions protecting the right to hunt and fish, with Vermont being the first state to constitutionalize this right in 1777. The passage of this amendment in North Carolina reflects a broader trend of states seeking to establish in perpetuity the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, which has long been considered an American heritage.
The Balanced Budget Amendment: Who Proposed It?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
In-person voting requires photo identification
The North Carolina Constitution has been amended 37 times, with the last four amendments approved by voters on November 5, 2024. One of these amendments, Session Law 2018-128, requires voters to present photo identification when voting in person.
The introduction of this photo ID requirement has been controversial. While supporters of the amendment argue that it helps to secure elections, critics claim that it disproportionately affects minority and low-income voters, who are less likely to possess the necessary forms of identification. Indeed, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the amendment was passed with racially discriminatory intent and had a racially discriminatory impact.
Despite these concerns, the North Carolina State Supreme Court upheld the photo ID requirement on April 28, 2023, reversing its previous decision in Holmes v. Moore. As a result, voters in North Carolina are now required to present an acceptable form of photo ID when voting in person. This can include a North Carolina driver's license, a state-issued non-driver ID, a U.S. passport, a student ID, or a military ID, among other forms of identification. Voters who are unable to present an acceptable form of photo ID can fill out an ID Exception Form to cast their ballot.
The implementation of this amendment highlights the ongoing debate surrounding voter ID laws in the United States. While some argue that photo ID requirements are necessary to prevent voter fraud, others contend that they create unnecessary barriers to voting and disproportionately impact marginalized communities.
The Amendment that Completed the Constitution
You may want to see also
Judicial vacancies are filled by a commission
In 2018, voters in North Carolina decided on six constitutional amendments, two of which were the Judicial Selection for Midterm Vacancies Amendment and the Legislative Appointments to Elections Board and Commissions Amendment. These amendments represented a conflict between the executive and legislative branches over the power to appoint judges and state commission members.
Prior to the 2018 amendments, the North Carolina Constitution stated that the governor fills vacant seats, and the appointee serves until the next judicial election. North Carolina was one of seven states that allowed the governor sole discretion to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. The 2018 Judicial Selection for Midterm Vacancies Amendment aimed to change this by creating a nine-member commission, called the Nonpartisan Judicial Merit Commission, to select potential appointees.
The commission would be comprised of appointees made by the judicial, executive, and legislative branches, and would make recommendations to the legislature regarding qualified nominees. The legislature would then recommend at least two nominees to the governor, who would appoint the final judge from among these nominees. This process would be free from gubernatorial veto.
Supporters of the amendment argued that it would help reduce partisanship on the court and increase diversity on the bench. They also believed that it would be a more transparent process that would allow anyone to put their name forward for a judicial vacancy. Opponents, however, saw it as an example of legislative overreach, with all five living former governors and six retired chief justices of the state Supreme Court opposing it.
Steps to Ratify a Constitutional Amendment
You may want to see also
