Haywood County Commissioner Tommy Long is grateful to control his county’s most significant funding source — property tax, which the board increased by seven cents this past budget cycle. Still, that decision didn’t come lightly, he said while tending to his cattle.

“We had jail debt, ambulances to buy, and we had employees who need to be compensated, and we had school system needs, and we raised our taxes to meet those needs,” explained Long, a Republican who also serves as District 17 director for the N.C. Association of County Commissioners (NCACC).

If residents aren’t satisfied, he said, then they can express that at the ballot box.

“If you don’t like what your commissioners do, send them home,” he said.

The bottom line? “Counties get caught,” he said, “like Haywood County did.”

Long is worried that approval of a property tax cap — one of three constitutional measures on this year’s General Election ballot — will deny Haywood the chance to meet future challenges.

“We might fall where we couldn’t [raise taxes] if they pass that (restriction) to where you can only go up so much per year,” he said.

Of the three referenda on this year’s ballot, two deal with taxes: the first, referenced by Long, codifies a property tax levy limit; the second caps state income tax at 3.5%. A third concerns voter identification. Based on an October Carolina Journal poll , all three enjoy support from at least 60% of voters, meaning passage is expected.

“In general, when voters have a chance to vote against taxes, they do so,” said UNC Professor of Public Law and Government Chris McLaughlin.

While supporters argue the referenda spur economic growth and safeguard election integrity, opponents warn passage will institutionalize policies that harm both the state and its residents.  

The amendments do not enact legislation on their own. In practice, proposed property tax levy limits require additional policy; the most recent state budget scheduled future income tax cuts. Voter ID requirements already exist at the state level. But once a provision is tacked onto the state’s constitution, reversing course — which requires 60% legislative approval and a voter majority — is nearly impossible.

“This is a perfect illustration as far as, ‘Why [propose each amendment] now, and why do it this way?’ Because they think it’s likely to pass. And it is likely to pass. And that if they [the GOP] do lose their majority in four years or six years or eight years, then it’s going to be much harder to change it,” said Chris Cooper, a political science professor at Western Carolina University.

Guardrails or barriers?

The first constitutional measure asks voters whether they support or oppose “requiring limits on property tax increases by local governments.”

McLaughlin said the amendment likely refers to a percentage increase, based on population growth or inflation, which will limit how much revenue governments can collect, though the value of that proportion isn’t stated.

Sen. Kevin Corbin (R-Macon) corroborated this theory.

“The only things I’ve heard that legislators are interested in doing is things like putting a limit on how much you can raise profit and taxes in one year,” he told The Smoky Mountain News, throwing out hypothetical limit of 10%.

The amendment, however, doesn’t mandate the actual dollar amount of the tax, which is already regulated.

“Both cities and counties are subject to a $1.50 cap on their rates under current law. There are lots of exceptions to that limit. You can fund things outside of that limit, but also most importantly, no local government is anywhere near the $1.50 (per $100) cap,” said McLaughlin.

Haywood, Jackson, Macon, and Swain counties have lower property tax rates than most jurisdictions, at 55, 31, 27, and 41 cents, respectively, in 2025. If living in an incorporated area, property owners must also pay municipal taxes.

Corbin said that because tax rates in his district are lower than other areas and seldom increase, no government would be affected by the state’s proposed levy limit.

“I don’t think anything we do moving forward will affect any of my counties in a negative way,” he said, framing the limit as akin to “guardrails.”

NC Housing Coalition (NCHC) data shows that’s a tough sell  — especially without knowing the levy limit. A retroactive analysis of a 2% limit applied to the last property tax revaluation shows Corbin’s constituent counties among the most affected. Swain County would lose 9% of its revenue; Jackson would lose 12%; Haywood would lose 3%, and Graham would lose 21%. While Clay, Macon, and Cherokee counties were unaffected, the housing coalition notes that doesn’t mean they’d fare the same under a future levy cap.

NCHC also noted that while savings for most homeowners would be negligible, corporations like Duke Energy would reap disproportionate benefits.

Corbin acknowledged that both Cherokee and Haywood counties have had recent tax increases. Still, he wrote the former off as paying for lawsuits and the latter as essential after Hurricane Helene and the Canton paper mill closure.  

Jennifer Nguyen, public policy analyst for the left-leaning NC Budget and Tax Center, said a catastrophe like Helene is exactly what makes these limits so dangerous. A state attempt to regulate property tax revenue would essentially strip counties of any way to “prepare for or even recover from these disasters,” she said, adding that because costs don’t disappear when primary revenue streams are lowered, policymakers turn to other sources that often disproportionately affect low-income residents. As an example, Nguyen cited the most recent state budget.

“The state raised UNC tuition for the first time in nine years (in this budget cycle). They raised mandatory fees for UNC. They raised new ferry and highway tolls, raised premiums under the state health plan. They raised Medicaid copays ninefold. And I can go on and on,” she said.

Cooper said at the local level, this looks like increasing user fees for a public facility such as a county-owned pool, which hurts low-income people most.

“A flat fee is, by definition, regressive,” he said.

But while Cooper said he couldn’t speculate on the levy’s exact effects without knowing what it says, he does know the motive behind it.

“I think it’s part of a larger battle that’s been happening lately, which is the General Assembly trying to exert more power over local governments,” he explained.

In an NCACC video, Executive Director Kevin Leonard spoke directly to how the amendment would impact the limited resources available to counties.

“You elect your county commissioners to reflect your county, and that’s local control. That’s democracy in action. If the state were to adopt a levy limit that treats every single county the same, well, we fear that could remove your voice out of local decision-making,” he said.

Nguyen said local governance is particularly important in non-urban areas.

“Their local elected leaders know best what these rural communities want, what they need, and how much funding is required to meet those needs,” she said.

According to Nguyen, if property tax levy limits make it harder for counties to find a way out of a budget shortfall, then the 3.5% income tax cap heightens how often — and how drastically — they’re caught up in one. She told SMN the latter measure also hurts rural counties more because fewer residents and businesses mean less property tax revenue, hence heavier reliance on state funding.

“It’s honestly unfathomable how a rural community could withstand either of these amendments passing,” she said.

Threats to survival

The second referendum reads as, “Constitutional amendment to keep the state income tax rate from being raised higher than three and one-half percent (3.5%).”

While the income tax is already scheduled to decrease to 3.49% in 2027 and 2.99% in 2028, this measure would prevent future lawmakers from raising the limit above 3.5%. Outgoing Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) championed both this referendum and the state’s current 7% limit,  passed as a 2018 amendment.

The N.C. Office of State and Budget Management (OSBM), the General Assembly’s nonpartisan fiscal research division, predicts year-over-year revenue  collections would be $9.7 billion lower under the planned individual and corporate income tax cuts than if the state maintained its current rate of 3.99%.  

Corbin noted an upside to tax rate reduction.  

“North Carolina has shown a surplus every time we’ve lowered the income tax rate. Every single time. And so that’s been a good thing,” he said.

Surplus in this instance refers to overcollections, the difference between actual and predicted revenue, and Nguyen said there’s a common-sense reason why it happens.

“When we are estimating how much revenue we bring in a year, it’s just forecast. So, we can’t always pin that down,” she said, adding that overcollections don’t indicate whether a budget meets funding needs.

Corbin, however, disputed that latter statement.

“Every single time that we’ve lowered the income tax, the predictions have been that it will cause a loss of income for the state, and that’s not happened yet, not once. So I don’t see a loss of income to worry about,” he said. “You got to go on facts, not what somebody thinks or predicts.”

In 2019, state individual income tax rates dropped from 5.49% to 5.25%. In Fiscal Year 2019-2020, North Carolina’s general fund ran a net revenue loss of 3.6%.  In 2022, rates were again lowered to 4.99%. The general fund collected $33.21 billion in 2021-2022 and $34.56 billion in 2024-2025 — an inflation-adjusted loss  of $2.97 billion.  

However, Cooper’s explanation for why growth will stall and services will run deficits didn’t cite these numbers. It was far simpler.

“If there’s less money coming in, there’s got to be less money coming out,” he said.

When SMN asked the senator how he’d reserve enough funding for public services like education if the general fund lost revenue, he wouldn’t entertain that possibility.

“I mean, you’re asking about — I mean, if a frog doesn’t have legs, what’s it going to do?” He said. He noted that the General Assembly has a capital reserve fund that they save for rainy-day emergencies.

“What we’ve done in the last 10 years is that we have built a savings reserve, and that savings reserve is 5 billion with a ‘B.’ Not million. Billion with a ‘B.’ And since we have a savings reserve, if we hit hard times, we’ve got money to fall back on. That’s what that’s for,” he said.

That number is closer to $4.2 billion, according to the North Carolina Free Enterprise Foundation , which is about 13.2% of the NCGA’s 2025-2026 general fund appropriations . While that’s well above the recommended OSBM balance of 11.9%,  it’s thanks to a $450 million reserve infusion during the most recent budget cycle. Annual statewide appropriations increased by only $350 million in comparison.

But the rainy-day fund isn’t the only — nor the largest — reserve to receive appropriations. The conservative-leaning John Locke Foundation  has raised significant concerns about how much money is directed to these funds and the lack of transparency over how it is spent. This past year, the legislature allocated about $3 billion to total discretionary reservations of revenue, meaning $2.55 billion and change went to non-savings accounts, including $1.33 billion to “stabilization and inflation.” Meanwhile, $1 billion remained unappropriated, with no publicly available explanation.  

Nguyen said reserves like these detract from necessary continuous appropriations.

“They have increasingly [put money in these funds] so they just don’t have to commit recurring funds to Medicaid, SNAP, like things that require year-over-year investment.  The gas tax pause that they just did — that was $360 million straight out of reserve when it could have just been committed to any program that we’ve been underfunding,” she explained.

What’s more, income tax cuts mainly benefit the top 1%, who will save, on average, $8,064, according to the OSBM. Three-fifths of North Carolinians  will save between $1 and $173. Corbin argued that while those figures are correct, they’re technically misleading.

“If you make more money if there’s an income tax cut, then that saves you more money than someone who makes less,” he said, though he didn’t have an answer for why someone with a $78,000 salary would save about 300% more than someone making $45,000 annually. Nguyen explained what makes those numbers disproportionate.

“For families living paycheck to paycheck, paying the same (tax) rate eats away at more of their limited income, while a millionaire can still afford to set money aside, invest, get further ahead,” she said.

She added that while amendment proponents tout the economic growth low corporate and personal income taxes will bring, it’s important to ask who that growth benefits. Over the past decade, for example, the state has incrementally lowered its tax rates. Meanwhile, the Education Law Center  ranked North Carolina last in public education funding effort in 2026, and Oxfam America placed it last for workers  for the seventh consecutive year.

Corbin rejected the claim that the state inadequately funds public education.

“Public school funding was $13 billion and change back in 2020. It’s now $19 billion. That’s a 40% increase in seven years,” he said.

Nguyen said the feeling of poor services and harder times goes beyond the numbers. It’s a constant reality for millions of individuals.

“Many North Carolinian families are reporting that they can’t afford childcare and groceries. Food bank visits are surging. And given that the two revenue options that are the strongest in the state are potentially going to be limited through these amendments, that’s my greatest concern: how we are going to maintain these services,’” she explained.

Impacts of Voter ID

The third amendment to appear on this year’s General Election ballot is one “to require all voters, not just those presenting to vote in person, to present photo identification before voting.”

Voter ID was approved as a referendum  in 2018 and declared unconstitutional in 2021 in a State Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the measure intended to marginalize Black voters. But the same body reversed its own decision in 2023, and the amendment has endured since then.

The 2026 amendment would extend the constitutional requirement to provide ID for absentee-by-mail ballots. It is unclear if the policy would continue current ID exceptions.

Typically, voter identification is cited as a way to secure elections by preventing noncitizen votes. The 2026 amendment is widely popular; a Carolina Journal poll reported that roughly two out of three  North Carolina voters back it.  

“I can’t think of a single downside to having voter ID. Not a single one,” said Corbin.

The amendment’s opponents, however, say it’s ineffective, likely suppresses the vote, and costs governments millions to implement. Voter fraud is very rare, and Cooper noted that when it does happen it typically doesn’t involve identification issues.

The American Immigration Council, analyzing 24 years of voter rolls, found noncitizen voting occurred at a rate of 0.0001%, with just 68 cases . That’s less than three per year across the entire nation. But widespread voter fraud is such a pervasive myth that in 2020, then-former President Donald Trump commissioned a study to confirm it had influenced that election. When the report confirmed no such fraud  had occurred, the Trump campaign buried it.

On the other hand, in March 2026, a North Carolina judge, while ruling that voting rights plaintiffs had not proven lawmakers formulated voter ID laws with discriminatory intent, did affirm the law’s discriminatory impact on voters of color.

Cooper said some research supports that conclusion, and other research supports negligible suppression.

“There’s been some studies who have found that strict voter ID can reduce access among certain groups in particular. People who are less educated, minority groups. There’s other studies that don’t show much effect at all. So, I think it’s kind of up to the eye of the beholder,” he explained.

Corbin alleged the state’s identification requirement hadn’t suppressed the vote while admitting that it likely had.

“Since we put voter ID in, voter participation has gone up, so clearly voter ID has not suppressed the vote,” he said. “Has it kept people from voting? Probably, but it’s kept people from voting that didn’t have a proper ID, which is the whole point.”

Those who might have more trouble obtaining photo identification include married women, students, individuals in rural areas, voters of color, the elderly, and people with disabilities. A Southern Coalition for Social Justice study of North Carolina  voters found that state voter ID laws most depress turnout for people of color and women.

Nguyen discussed a real limitation for many mail-in voters if the 2026 amendment passes. “I think something that people don’t consider is many of us don’t have a printer at home for us to just make a copy of our ID to send in with our ballots,” she said.

While those who qualify for an exception can fill out a form according to current law, the amendment doesn’t guarantee exceptions  will be granted.

Cooper noted another potential downside of the amendment, which comes with implementation.

“Obviously, it is more trouble; Is that trouble worth it?” He asked.

The cost hasn’t been insignificant. In an analysis of the 2018 amendment, the NC Budget and Tax Center found that those without identification could “incur costs ranging from $100 to $134 to secure even a free photo ID” because of transportation,  waiting times, time out of work, and missing documents.

In 2023, the Board of Elections requested about $12 million from the state  for mandatory voter identification.

Some have claimed the amendments — especially voter identification — are an attempt to boost conservative turnout during a midterm season that isn’t looking great for Republicans. Cooper, however, denied that as a core motivation.

“I just don’t see that effect coming, but it helps sort of associate the party brand with popular policies, and low taxes and voter ID are popular policies,” he said.

But Nguyen predicted most people would dispute the claim that popular policies like these have had any materially beneficial effects.

“If you ask the average North Carolinian if they’re better off than they were a decade ago, I doubt they would agree,” she said.