Election Safety Bill Tightens Poll Rules

Summary#

H-1246, the Safeguarding Elections Act, is an introduced North Carolina bill that would amend Chapter 163 of the General Statutes and add new election-law sections and articles. It is not law. The bill’s stated goals include protecting elections, preventing voter intimidation, and protecting voters who rely on the rules in place when they vote.

• It would bar officials from ordering or authorizing state or federal troops or armed persons at voting places, including parking areas, from 17 days before an election through election day, with exceptions for repelling armed enemies and specified law-enforcement or election-officer requests.
• It would create new crimes for specified threats, intimidation, coercion, fraudulent voter challenges or eligibility advice, and employer pressure tied to employees’ votes. It would also create a restitution fund for voter-education campaigns, subject to legislative appropriation.
• It would set uniform early-voting hours across a county, including 8 a.m.–7:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m.–5 p.m. on the last Saturday before an election. These changes would start January 1, 2027.
• It would require risk-limiting audits after general elections in every county, set standards for audits, and bar officials from funding or taking part in audits that do not meet those standards.
• It would change rules for observers, voter challenges, election-related lawsuits, ballot counting, and disclosure of certain voter information to federal agencies.
• It would make a public official’s refusal—or stated intention to refuse—to certify actual election results without clear and convincing evidence an automatic resignation and make the official act void.

What it means for you#

• Voters: The bill would protect voting and election work from specified threats, intimidation, and coercion. It would cover in-person voting, early voting, absentee voting, and ballot-return activities. A person aggrieved by a violation could seek a court order to prevent it.
• Voters facing challenges: A voter-registration challenge would generally have to be made at least 90 days before an election, rather than by the 25th day before it. A voter whose absentee ballot is challenged would have to receive written notice of the challenge and how and when to respond. Some technical or clerical registration errors could not invalidate a ballot if the voter relied on the accepted registration, unless the voter was ineligible.
• Election workers and officials: Intimidating, threatening, coercing, or attempting to do so to an election worker to interfere with official duties could lead to civil damages and a fine of up to $100,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both. Election officials and poll workers would also have to take required scenario-based training.
• Employers: It would be a Class H felony to use employees’ pay envelopes to influence their political choices with threats, or to communicate that pay or continued employment depends on how they vote.
• Election administrators and observers: The State Board and county boards would have new duties involving training, public notices, anonymous incident reporting, and equitable compensation for administrators. Observers would have to complete training and sign an oath not to photograph marked ballots, obstruct voters, interfere with officials, electioneer, or make or receive calls inside a voting place.
• Public officials: The certification rule covers a broad group, including elected and appointed officials, government employees, and some people acting for government, such as election judges and poll workers.
• Taxpayers: The bill would require work by state and county election offices, but does not set a total budget.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s total public cost.

• Money from restitution fines would go into a state fund. It could be used for voter-education campaigns and fund administration only after the General Assembly appropriates it.
• The bill requires election offices to carry out new duties, including audits, training, reporting, and compensation measures, but gives no staffing levels or cost estimates.
• Courts could set civil penalties and restitution fines, and could award attorney fees in some cases. The bill does not estimate those amounts or the revenue they might produce.

What is unclear#

• The full current versions of the amended statutes were not supplied, so it is not possible to verify which existing rules would change in practice and which are already in force.
• The bill does not explain who decides whether a public official lacked clear and convincing evidence, how that decision would be reviewed, or how an automatic resignation would be carried out.
• The bill leaves terms such as “mass” challenges and “adequately compensated equitably” unclear. It also does not set detailed procedures or timelines for the new voter-intimidation complaint system or training.
• The State Board would set risk-limiting audit requirements, but the bill does not specify the sample size or how officials should respond if an audit raises concerns. It also says an audit cannot change election results.
• The observer-badge wording in the supplied bill text is unclear about whether the State Board may or must require badges.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to protect voters and election workers from pressure or threats, including threats made through employers or around ballot return.
• Uniform early-voting hours could make access more consistent across sites in a county.
• Required audit standards could support public observation while protecting ballot secrecy, voter privacy, and election equipment.
• Rules protecting voters’ reliance on procedures in place when they cast a ballot could reduce the chance that later changes invalidate votes already cast.

Case against#

• Some new duties and penalties could be hard to apply consistently because the bill does not define all key terms or set out how complaints and evidence would be handled.
• The automatic-resignation rule could have major consequences for a wide range of public officials, but the bill does not provide a process for deciding whether its evidence standard was met.
• The audit rules could limit officials’ choices about how to investigate election problems, and the bill does not explain what happens if an audit suggests an incorrect result.
• New audit, training, reporting, compensation, and voting-hour duties could cost state and county governments money, but no cost estimate or funding plan is provided.