What a new N.C. constitution could look like
Elect fewer statewide officials, move elections under the Secretary of State, and make redistricting sane — it’s time to rethink everything.
North Carolina’s most underrated political problem is an outdated, dysfunctional state constitution. I just made that case in the N&O/Charlotte Observer. Read it here: North Carolina’s real constitutional crisis is the constitution itself
Today, I want to take the next step: What should a new constitution actually include?
Below are a few of the principles and proposals I believe would create a stronger, clearer, and more functional government for North Carolina — not just for today’s fights, but for decades to come.
Streamline the executive branch
Right now, North Carolina doesn’t have a functional executive branch. It has a loose federation of independently elected officials, each pulling in their own direction.
The constitution says that “the executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor” — but then gives the office only a tiny fraction of it. It’s no wonder every new administration ends up in a turf war with the General Assembly.
The first order of business is fixing that. Under a new constitution, the Council of State should shrink to just the essential roles. Key changes:
The governor and lieutenant governor run as a ticket, to ensure unity of purpose from day one.
The attorney general, secretary of state, and state auditor remain independently elected, with their core responsibilities spelled out in the constitution — not left to shifting statutes as they are today.
The remaining offices — agriculture, insurance, labor, treasurer, superintendent of public instruction — become cabinet positions chosen by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate.
The core duties of the AG, secretary of state and state auditor would still need to be hashed out, but this is at least the building blocks of a functional executive branch.
Move elections administration to the Secretary of State
If there’s one area where trust has collapsed most visibly, it’s elections. No matter your politics, it’s clear the current setup isn’t working. In particular, there is a constant battle over the State Board of Elections — who’s on it, who appoints them, etc.
Let’s end that fight once and for all.
In a new constitution, the Secretary of State would take over as North Carolina’s chief elections officer, a formal position required by federal law. This role replaces the executive director currently appointed by the State Board of Elections. Most of the core work of the state board moves into the Secretary of State office.
However, we don’t do away with the board altogether. The State Board of Elections would become a bipartisan body with eight members:
Four appointed by the governor — with no more than two coming from a single political party
One appointed by the House Speaker
One appointed by House minority leader
One appointed by the Senate President Pro Tem
One appointed by Senate minority leader
Is this perfect? No, but at least we get some real accountability to make sure elections run smoothly and transparently.
More guardrails for the General Assembly - with a few term limits
The legislature remains the most representative branch of state government, and the core structure should stay largely intact. But a few important reforms would make it function more effectively and more fairly.
Lengthened, staggered Senate terms
House members should continue to face the voters every two years. But the Senate is designed to be a more deliberative body. That’s hard to do when every election turns into a sprint.
Let’s shift to four-year staggered terms in the Senate, with half the chamber elected each cycle. This change would create more continuity and space for serious policy work — instead of nonstop campaigning.
More redistricting guardrails
Redistricting shouldn’t be a years-long legal saga. And frankly, we’ve had some court rulings in recent years that are pretty disturbing. Judges shouldn’t be proscribing the results.
Independent redistricting commissions are a fools’ errand, and the General Assembly should keep drawing the districts. But the constitution can set up some more guardrails to make the process smoother.
Basically, the goal here is to make districts better reflect actual geographic constituencies.
Maintain the county cluster system currently in place.
Keep municipalities intact as much as possible.
Use neighborhoods, major highways and rivers as natural boundaries.
Ban the splitting of voting precincts.
Create an advisory commission appointed by the governor.
Require public hearings and map release deadlines for transparency
This isn’t about making redistricting apolitical. That’s a fantasy. It’s about making it predictable — and above all, fair.
Create a high bar for tax increases
I don’t think we need an actual tax rate enshrined in the constitution, but we can include a simple rule: Any bill that raises taxes must pass with a supermajority in both chambers.
That doesn’t eliminate the ability to govern. It just forces lawmakers to build real coalitions before asking citizens for more of their money.
Term limits for leadership
I get that term limits for representatives are extremely popular, especially among conservatives. But I don’t love them. If a district wants to keep sending a particular person to Raleigh, let them.
However, I do see value in term limits for House Speaker and Senate President Pro Tem — two positions with constitutional duties. Limit them to four or eight years in leadership total. They’re welcome to stay in the General Assembly, just not with the gavel.
This helps prevent the amassing of too much power, a la Marc Basnight or Phil Berger.
Create a (difficult) ballot initiative process
Our current amendment process is solely top-down: Only the legislature can propose constitutional changes. A new constitution should allow citizens to propose amendments through initiative petitions — but with strong safeguards.
10% of registered voters statewide must sign a verified petition to put an amendment on the ballot
Two-thirds of voters statewide must approve it for it to take effect
This isn’t California-style chaos. It’s a way to give voters a direct say while ensuring that permanent changes to the constitution reflect broad, bipartisan consensus, not fleeting political moods.
How this happens
None of these ideas are radical. Many are already in practice in other states. Others are logical extensions of what we’ve tried to do piecemeal here in North Carolina.
And there’s a clear path forward: A new constitution can be drafted by the General Assembly, passed with a three-fifths vote, and approved by a majority of voters statewide.
We don’t need a constitutional convention. We need political will.
North Carolina deserves a government that works — and a constitution that makes it possible.
Let’s build one.
Quick hits
After saying they wanted to hire a change agent to shake up the DMV, Gov. Josh Stein’s administration is bringing in former N.C. Rep. Paul Tine to run the agency. I think it’s a sign that Stein is fine with Republicans running the show on fixing the DMV’s problems. I wrote about it for the N&O: Gov. Stein just handed off the DMV problem to Republicans
I also did a column about how Sen. Phil Berger has ramped up his campaigning incredibly fast now that he’s got a serious primary challenger. Read it here: North Carolina’s most powerful politician now has something to prove
At a premium
Top spenders on social media
Question of the week
Last week, I asked who you thought should be making appointments to the State Board of Elections. This is particularly relevant as State Auditor Dave Boliek just took over the reins here last week, making a few new (Republican) appointments to the board.
The plurality of you think it should stay with the governor, though. And in fact, having the auditor do it was the least popular option in the poll.
Governor: 39%
Independently elected: 22%
General Assembly: 20%
Secretary of State: 12%
State Auditor: 7%
For an amendment initiated by citizens, you said 2/3 of voters. Is that 2/3 of the total eligible voters or 2/3 of the votes cast?