Constitution Amendment Modernizes Law of the Land Clause

Summary#

H-1242, Modernize Law of the Land Clause, would amend Article I, Section 19, of the North Carolina Constitution if voters approve the change. Its stated goal is to modernize the clause’s language, but the supplied material does not include the current constitutional text for comparison.

  • The bill would put the proposed amendment to voters at the November 3, 2026, statewide general election.
  • If a majority of votes on the question are for the amendment, it takes effect upon certification of the result and the Secretary of State must record it. If a majority vote against, it has no effect.
  • The proposed text addresses deprivation of life, liberty, or property without “the law of the land,” equal protection, and state discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

What it means for you#

  • Eligible voters: You would decide whether to approve the constitutional amendment. The bill does not make the proposed change effective just because the bill becomes law.
  • People affected by state action: If voters approve it, the proposed wording would become part of the state constitution. The supplied material does not show how that wording differs from the current provision or what practical legal effects the difference would have.
  • Everyone else: The bill does not create a new program, benefit, fee, fine, or enforcement office.

Money#

No publicly available information on the cost is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill requires a statewide vote, but gives no estimate of election or administrative costs.

What is unclear#

  • The current text of Article I, Section 19, was not supplied, so the exact wording changes cannot be verified.
  • The bill does not provide a marked-up comparison showing what words would be added, removed, or replaced.
  • The proposed text still includes terms such as “disseized,” “freehold,” and “outlawed,” and uses “his.” The bill does not explain how these terms are meant to be modernized.
  • The bill does not explain whether the proposed wording would change how courts interpret the provision.
  • The bill is introduced and not yet law; passage and voter approval are uncertain.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to update language in a provision of the state constitution.
  • Putting the amendment to a statewide vote lets voters decide whether to adopt the proposed wording.
  • A possible argument for the bill is that constitutional language should be clear and current. The supplied material does not show whether the proposed text achieves that goal.

Case against#

  • The bill does not show the current wording alongside the proposal, making it hard to assess what would actually change.
  • The proposed text retains several old or technical terms, so it is unclear how much it would improve clarity.
  • The bill gives no explanation of the legal effects of the proposed wording, leaving voters with limited information in the supplied material about what approval would change.