Welcome & Ballot Basics

Amanda Benbow Lunn 0:09

Hello friends, welcome to another edition of the NC Deep Dive. I am your host, Amanda Benbow Lunn, and as most of you know, we have the 2026 election coming up. For those voting a North Carolina ballot, there will be three constitutional amendments voters will get to vote for or against, and for those in Wake County, we will have an additional two-bond referenda to vote either yes or no on. In this episode, I'll go over each of them so that you can be as informed as possible as you cast your vote. Without further ado, my friends, let's dive in. First, we will start with the constitutional amendments. These questions aren't simply about whether you like or dislike a particular party. They're questions about where governmental authority should live, what constraints should exist on elected officials, and what consequences might follow from putting something into the state constitution versus leaving it in ordinary law. If a majority of voters vote for a constitutional amendment, it is ratified. It does not go back to the General Assembly for another vote. The State Board of Elections certifies the election results, and once those results are certified, the amendment becomes part of the North Carolina Constitution. With that said, it is also important to recognize that it does not mean all of the policy details will be spelled out in the Constitution. The state's legislature, meaning the North Carolina House of Representatives and the North Carolina Senate, would have to write the laws that put the requirements into practice. So there is a distinction between ratifying the constitutional principle and determining the specific rules for implementing it. So let's take these one at a time, starting with what the ballot actually says, what would change, what would stay the same, and what we don't yet know.

What Amending The Constitution Means

Amanda Benbow Lunn 2:02

But before we get into the details of the specific amendments, let's talk about what it actually means to amend the North Carolina Constitution. The General Assembly can pass ordinary laws. Future legislatures can generally change those laws through another legislative process. A constitutional provision is different. Once voters approve an amendment, that language becomes part of the North Carolina Constitution. The legislature can't simply repeal or rewrite it through an ordinary statute. Changing it generally requires another constitutional amendment that must ultimately go back to voters. That can be a benefit if the goal is to create a durable guardrail that can't easily be changed by a future legislature. But it can also reduce flexibility. And that trade-off matters particularly when we're talking about taxes, because the economic conditions, population, cost, and responsibilities of government can change considerably over time, and emergencies can happen requiring a quick response. The process of adding or amending a constitutional amendment is not quick. It could take months, perhaps closer to a year, depending on when the next election is, and it comes with further administrative costs. So with each amendment, you're really asking two questions. Do I agree with a policy? And do I believe this policy belongs in the Constitution? Or perhaps should it stay as a general statute the legislature can amend as necessary through normal means? Those aren't necessarily the same question.

Constitutional Amendment 1-Photo ID For All Voting Methods

Amanda Benbow Lunn 3:38

The first constitutional amendment you'll see on your ballot says, and I quote, constitutional amendment to require all voters, not just those voting in person, to present photo identification before voting. You'll make a mark by either for or against, depending on how you're voting. It's important to note that North Carolina already has a constitutional requirement for photo identification when voting in person. Voters approved that constitutional amendment back in 2018, so this is not creating a constitutional voter ID requirement from scratch. Under the current constitution, the requirement applies to voters offering to vote in person. The proposed amendment would remove the words in person and make the constitutional requirement apply to all voters. The General Assembly's own legislative analysis describes the current constitutional requirement as applying to in-person voting, while state law separately establishes the photo ID requirements for voting. So North Carolina law already requires photo identification for absentee voters as well. In other words, if you vote by mail today, the statutory system already requires you to provide photo identification or use an applicable exception process. This amendment would move that requirement into the Constitution. So a yes does not suddenly create a brand new photo ID requirement for absentee voters that did not previously exist in state law. It would simply constitutionalize that requirement. A no would leave the existing constitutional language covering in-person voting, while the legislature could continue to regulate absentee voting identification through ordinary state law. That's one of the first examples of why the constitutional question really matters. The current system also includes exceptions. For in-person voting, a voter who doesn't have acceptable photo identification can cast a provisional ballot and use an applicable exception process. State law provides several exceptions, and the election system has procedures for reviewing those ballots. Absentee voters also have an exception process. The amendment itself does not eliminate exceptions. The proposed constitutional language specifically says the General Assembly may enact laws governing the requirements, and those laws may include exceptions. That means some of the practical details voters may be thinking about aren't actually contained in the constitutional amendment itself. They remain matters of state law. Another important thing to understand about the constitutional amendments is that the constitution can establish the broad rule while leaving the legislature to determine many of the details. Supporters of the amendment argue that all voters should be subject to the same identification standard regardless of how they cast their ballot, and that putting the requirement into the Constitution provides an additional safeguard against identity-related voting fraud. Critics raise a different concern that documentation requirements and exception procedures can create additional hurdles for eligible voters, particularly when a voter doesn't have the required identification or has difficulty completing the exception process. Both sides of that discussion need to be separated from the question of whether widespread election fraud is occurring. North Carolina's post-election processes include audits, provisional ballot reviews, and other checks. The State Board of Elections reported no evidence from its 2024 post-election audits of fraud or irregularities that affected certified election outcomes. That doesn't mean improper voting has never occurred. It means that the available evidence does not show widespread fraud affecting certified statewide election results. There is also a practical question about voters whose ballots encounter an ID problem. In the 2024 general election, approximately 6,900 voters came to vote without photo identification, and about 1,670 of those ballots were ultimately rejected specifically because the voter did not satisfy the photo ID requirement or properly complete the exception process. That's a relatively small percentage of the overall electorate, but for the people involved, the consequence is obviously significant. I also want to lift up that we can count ballots that were rejected because of an ID problem. We cannot easily count eligible people who never attempted to vote because they believe they couldn't satisfy the requirement. That's one of the uncertainties that's difficult to measure. For military and overseas voters, special procedures already exist for submitting identification or an exception form, including electronic submission options in some circumstances. The practical question is whether adding another documentation requirement creates an additional hurdle for voters who may have limited access to physical documents while deployed or overseas. Again, the amendment itself doesn't spell out those procedures. The legislature would continue to control them through state

Constitutional Amendment 2 - The 3.5 Percent Income Tax Ceiling

Amanda Benbow Lunn 8:46

law. The second constitutional amendment that will be on your ballot says, quote, constitutional amendment to keep the state income tax from being raised higher than 3.5%, and in parentheses it says 3.5%. This one is important to understand because it does not simply set the income tax rate at 3.5%. It changes the constitutional maximum. Currently, the North Carolina Constitution says that the rate of tax on incomes cannot exceed 7%. This amendment would change that constitutional ceiling to 3.5%. So if approved, the General Assembly, and remember that's the North Carolina House of Representatives and the North Carolina Senate, could not later pass an ordinary law raising the state income tax above 3.5%. It would take another constitutional amendment to do that. And that's where the guardrail versus flexibility question comes in. North Carolina's individual income tax is already scheduled to decline. Under the 2026 budget law, the individual rate is 3.99% in 2026, 3.49% in 2027 through 2029, 3.24% in 2030 through 2032, and 2.99% beginning in 2033. There are potential additional reductions later if specified revenue triggers are met. So the 3.5% constitutional amendment would not itself create the immediate 3.5% tax rate. The rate is already scheduled to be below that. What the amendment does is establish a constitutional ceiling above which the rate could not be raised without another constitutional amendment. So the immediate effects for taxpayers would not be a new tax cut. The bigger effect is on what the future on what future General Assemblies could do. If this passes, they could not raise the income tax rate above 3.5% without an additional constitutional amendment. A tax rate and a tax bill are not the same thing. Your actual state income tax liability depends on taxable income and the deductions, exemptions, credits, and other provisions established by state law. At this moment in North Carolina, we have a flat income tax. Keep in mind that someone earning, let's say, $40,000 and someone earning $400,000 do not pay the same amount, the same dollar amount, simply because North Carolina has a flat income tax rate. They pay the same percentage of their taxable income under the flat rate structure. But the person with 10 times the taxable income pays roughly 10 times as many dollars in state income tax before accounting for differences in deductions, credits, and other provisions. For a simplified illustration, ignoring deductions, exemptions, and credits, at a 3.5% flat rate, $40,000 of taxable income would produce about $1,400 in state income tax. Whereas $100,000 would produce about $3,500, $250,000 would produce about $87,500, $500,000 would produce about $17,500, and a million dollars of income would produce about $35,000. That's what flat means here. The percentage doesn't increase as taxable income increases, but the dollar amount certainly does. In contrast, a progressive income tax system works a bit differently. Under a simplified hypothetical progressive system, you might have something like the first $20,000 of income is taxed at 1%, the next $30,000 is taxed at 3%, the next $50,000 of income is taxed at 5%, and income above $100,000 is taxed at 7%. The important thing to understand is that you do not take 7% of someone's entire $500,000 income, let's say, simply because the taxpayer reaches the highest bracket. Only the dollars that fall within each bracket are taxed at that bracket's rate. For example, under that completely hypothetical structure, a person with a $500,000 of taxable income would pay 1% on the $20,000 on the first $20,000 equaling $200, plus 3% on the next $30,000 equaling another $900, plus 5% on the next $50,000 equaling $2,500, plus $1% on the remaining $400,000 equaling $28,000. That brings the total to a $31,600 income tax. That's a hypothetical example, not a proposal for North Carolina, but it does illustrate why the 3.5% constitutional ceiling matters beyond today's tax rate. A future legislature would still potentially have the option of adopting a progressive tax model, but they could not create a progressive bracket above 3.5% if this amendment is ratified into the constitution. For example, it could not establish a 1%, 2.5%, 3.5%, and 5% structure through ordinary legislation if the 3.5% constitutional ceiling were in place. It would require another constitutional amendment to permit a rate or any bracket above that 3.5%. And that's a very different policy choice from simply saying keep today's tax rate at 3.5%. This is another place where it's useful to separate tax rate from tax burden. A constitutional cap does not necessarily reduce anyone's tax bill immediately. If the law already has the rate below 3.5%, the amendment doesn't automatically put more money in anyone's paycheck. Instead, it limits what future legislatures can do. If a future legislature wanted to raise the income tax rate above that 3.5%, it couldn't do so through ordinary legislation. That can provide predictability to taxpayers and businesses, but it also means future taxpayers and future legislatures would have fewer options if the state needs additional revenue. And who benefits from a tax ceiling can depend on what future tax policy would otherwise have looked like. For instance, if a future legislature would have raised income tax rates broadly, taxpayers who would have paid those higher rates would benefit from the constitutional ceiling. If a future legislature would have created higher brackets for higher income taxpayers, the people who had incomes within those higher brackets would particularly benefit from the inability to exceed that 3.5%. At the same time, if the state needs additional revenue in the future, the money has to come from somewhere or spending has to change. So one question voters can reasonably ask is if the revenue base changes, where does the remaining burden fall? And who might benefit from that shift? Does it fall more heavily on individual income, on consumption through sales taxes, on fees, on property, on business through other taxes, or does the state simply spend less and who benefits from each of those choices? Those aren't questions the constitutional amendment answers. It changes the range of choices available to future policymakers as they navigate the reality in front of them. Another piece of the state tax picture that deserves attention is that North Carolina's corporate income tax is already scheduled to decline to zero. The current schedule puts the corporate rate at 2% in 2026 and 2027, 1% in 2028 and 2029, and 0% beginning in 2030. The 3.5% constitutional amendment doesn't actually accelerate or cause that change, but corporate income rates are already below 3.5%, so the amendment has no direct fiscal impact on the corporate rate under current law. But it does raise a broader question about who ultimately carries the cost of government. A tax burden doesn't necessarily disappear when one particular tax disappears. If the state collects less from corporate income taxes, while the cost of providing government services remains the same or grows, the remaining revenue has to come from somewhere. That could mean individual income taxes, sales, or other consumption taxes, other business taxes, fees, federal funding, reserves, or reductions in spending. It doesn't automatically mean residential taxpayers will make up the difference, but it does mean that a smaller share of state revenue will come from corporate income taxes over time, while the state continues to fund schools, public safety, health care, foster care, courts, prisons, transportation, infrastructure, and other responsibilities. So one question voters can reasonably ask is if the revenue base changes, where does the remaining burden fall, and who might benefit from that change? Because tax policy doesn't just determine how much government collects, it also determines who contributes what share of that revenue, which segues nicely into another part of the conversation.

State Responsibilities & County Costs

Amanda Benbow Lunn 17:54

Counties don't operate independently of Raleigh and the state government. North Carolina law determines which level of government is responsible for many services and how the costs are divided. Sometimes those responsibilities are shared. Sometimes the state has the primary responsibility, but the county still has to deal with the consequences when state level capacity is constrained. Consider the criminal justice system. County sheriffs operate county jails. The state operates the state prison system. But what happens when someone is supposed to be transferred into the state prison system and then that transfer can't happen immediately? The 2026 state budget increased the reimbursement for counties housing inmates under the statewide misdemeanant confinement program from $40 to up to $50 per inmate per day. It also authorized the Department of Adult Correction to reimburse counties at up to $50 per day for certain convicted inmates, parolees, and post-release supervisees who are awaiting transfer to the state prison system. That tells us something important. The state recognizes that there are circumstances in which a county facility is carrying the physical responsibility while the inmate is awaiting placement in the state system. For someone who is ultimately destined for the state prison system, while that person is awaiting transfer, the state recognizes that there are circumstances in which a county facility is carrying the physical responsibility for someone who is ultimately destined for the state prison system while that person is awaiting transfer. One reason can be limited bed capacity in the state system, and state law provides reimbursement to counties for certain inmates awaiting those transfers. Does a $50 reimbursement necessarily equal the county's actual cost of housing that person? We don't have sufficient current county level cost data to say that it does. The reimbursement is a statutory amount. It is not a guarantee that every dollar of a county's actual cost will be reimbursed. So the appropriate question isn't, is the state paying nothing? It clearly isn't. The better question is, does the fent does the funding mechanism keep pace with the actual cost of meeting the need? That is a much harder question and one that deserves actual cost data rather than assumptions. The same basic issue shows up in the court system. District attorneys and court clerks are part of the state court system, but the cases don't exist in some abstract statewide vacuum. Wake County is rapidly growing. The 2026 state budget appropriated $30 million in recurring funding for additional assistant district attorneys in Wake and Mecklenburg counties, and another $30 million in recurring funding for additional assistant and deputy clerks of court in those counties. That doesn't prove that the state has failed to fund the court system, but it does demonstrate that the General Assembly identified a need for additional state court capacity in these rapidly growing counties. And if state level staffing or court capacity falls behind demand, the county doesn't necessarily get to say, that's a state problem, so we're done. The county still has a jail, the sheriff still has to operate it, local government still has public safety responsibilities, inmates still need to be housed during any state backlogs, and the people involved still need a functioning system. And all of these come with additional costs when the state relies on counties to fill the gaps. So there can be a funding and responsibility mismatch, even when everyone is technically performing the responsibility assigned to them by law. Foster care is another example of a shared responsibility. North Carolina's foster care system involves county departments of social services with state and county funding participating in the state foster care benefits program. For eligible maintenance costs, the state and county generally share cost 50 50 up to the established state rate. The practical question to keep In mind is when the number of children needing services grows, do the funding formulas and appropriations grow proportionally with the underlying need? That's the broader issue. Counties don't necessarily have the ability to decline a responsibility simply because the cost of fulfilling it has increased. There's a concept in government budgeting called fungibility. If you've never heard of that word, you are not alone as I've just learned it too. The plain English version is simply money is money. If one source of funding goes away, the underlying need for the service doesn't necessarily go away with it. The cost can move somewhere else in the budget. It can move from the federal government to the state, from the state to the county, from one tax source to another, from taxpayers to fees, or if additional money isn't available, the service itself can be reduced, delayed, or eliminated. We've seen examples of changing federal and state funding responsibilities. For example, federal changes to SNAP administration reduced the federal share of certain administrative costs, with North Carolina estimating that counties could face tens of millions of dollars in additional administrative cost. The state subsequently appropriated money to help address the loss of federal funding. That doesn't mean the county suddenly received a bill labeled federal tax cut. It means that the responsibility and the funding formula simply changed, and the county still had work to do. That's the important concept to carry into the property tax amendment.

Constitutional Amendment 3 - Property Tax Levy Limits

Amanda Benbow Lunn 23:30

Now that we get into the third constitutional amendment on your ballot, it could have the most direct effect on local government. The ballot says, and I quote, constitutional amendment requiring limits on property tax increases by local governments. But here is where the actual constitutional language becomes particularly important. If approved, the other constitutional amendments do show up in the constitution as they're stated on the ballot. However, this third amendment, the wording changes. If approved, the constitution itself would say the General Assembly shall enact general laws limiting the amount by which the levy of taxes on property may increase, which may include exceptions. Notice what it does not say. It does not say the limit will be 2% or 3%. It doesn't say inflation plus population growth. It doesn't specify which exceptions will apply, and it doesn't spell out exactly how the limitation will operate. The amendment would require the General Assembly to enact those limits later. The General Assembly's own legislative analysis describes the amendment as requiring limits on the amount by which an authorized property tax levy could be increased, with exceptions allowed. That word matters. A levy is not the same as a tax rate. A property tax rate is the amount charged per $100 of assessed value. The assessed value is a taxable value assigned to the property. The levy is the total amount of property tax revenue actually collected. Those are related, but they're not interchangeable. For example, suppose property values rise substantially during a revaluation. A county could potentially collect more total revenue even when lowering its tax rate. Or an individual homeowner's tax bill could increase if the tax rate stays exactly the same because that homeowner's property value increased. Conversely, a countywide levy limit could constrain the total amount of revenue the county is permitted to collect, while individual taxpayers still see different changes in their bills because property values change at different rates. So voters should be cautious about hearing property tax limit and assuming that means my individual property tax bill can only increase by X percent. The amendment itself does not say that. It directs the General Assembly to create limits on the property tax levy. The details come later, and this is another place where the distinction between the amendment and the tax bill itself matters. The amendment does not directly tell any individual homeowner how much their tax bill can increase or decrease. The future state law implementing the constitutional requirement would determine how the levy limit actually works. And it's worth saying that the General Assembly right now has the authority to implement all of this. It does not need to be added to the Constitution because they do already have that authority. Property tax is particularly important to Wake County because it is the county's largest source of revenue, accounting for roughly 70% of the county budget. Wake has also been experiencing substantial growth. The Census Bureau estimates Wake County's population increased 11.3% from the 2020 census base through July 2025. The median value of owner-occupied housing in the 2020-2024 period was $461,300. Growth creates additional taxable property, but it also creates additional needs. More people can mean more demand for schools, public safety, courts, jails, roads and transportation infrastructure, parks, public health, social services, and other county functions. And growth doesn't always translate directly into available revenue. Wake County officials have said that the county had come to expect roughly $40 million to $50 million in new annual revenue from growth in the tax base. But the county is expecting only $8 million in the fiscal year of 2027, after accounting for the factors reducing new property tax revenue growth, including appeals and exemptions. That's important context. The county estimated $18 million less revenue in 2027 because property tax owners appealed assessments, particularly commercial properties. More than 750 appeals were still unresolved when the budget was being developed. And at the same time, Wake County estimates that the Blue Ridge-related property tax exemptions could reduce county revenue by an additional approximately $12.3 million in the fiscal year of 2027. So when you hear that Wake County is growing rapidly, the question isn't simply is the tax base growing? It is also how much additional taxable revenue is that growth actually producing and how much of that revenue remains available to fund the additional services the growth requires.

The Blue Ridge Exemption Ripple

Amanda Benbow Lunn 28:47

And that brings us to the Blue Ridge property tax exemption. North Carolina law provides property tax exemptions for qualifying nonprofit organizations, providing housing for low and moderate income residents. The original statutory purpose was to encourage nonprofit affordable housing. But the ownership structure became an important part of the legal history. In the 1993 legislation that expanded the exemption, the law was aimed at property owned by qualifying nonprofit organizations and used for charitable purposes. Over time, the law and its interpretation allowed nonprofit organizations to participate in ownership structures with other entities. In the 2013 Blue Ridge Housing Case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered a 24-unit low-income housing development. A nonprofit organization, Northwestern Housing Enterprises, owned 0.1% of the LLC that owned that property. The remaining 99.9% was owned by another for-profit entity. The court nevertheless upheld the property's exemption under the statutory language. That 0.1% figure is important because it demonstrates just how small the nonprofit ownership interest was in the case that became the foundation of what critics now call the Blue Ridge loophole. But it is important not to overstate what the court actually held. The court did not create a statute saying any nonprofit can own 0.1% of a property and make the entire property tax exempt. It simply interpreted the statute that existed at the time and concluded that the nonprofit's ownership interest was sufficient under that law. Critics argue that the interpretation allowed ownership structures that went beyond what lawmakers originally contemplated. Supporters of the exemption point to underlying policy goal of encouraging affordable housing, and the legislature has continued to modify and revisit the statutory framework. So this is an example of a tax policy question being handled through ordinary state law rather than the constitution. The Blue Ridge example matters because of a very basic property tax principle. If property is taxable, it contributes to the tax base. If property becomes exempt, it doesn't. If enough property is removed from the taxable base, the government still has a budget to balance. That can mean less spending, more revenue from other sources, higher taxes on property that remains taxable, or some combination. Wake County officials have reported substantial growth in the value of property receiving these exemptions, and they have been advocating for the state legislature to step in and address this loophole to stay true to the law's original intent and mitigate the unintentional consequences they are navigating in real time. The county does estimate that the value of the exempt property under this category grew from roughly $290 million in 2021 to approximately $2.2 billion in 2025. This is worth thinking about with both the property tax amendment and the income tax amendment. If the tax base changes, the remaining burden doesn't necessarily disappear. It can move, and when it moves, somebody benefits and somebody else may carry more of the remaining burden. For example, if a property tax exemption reduces the amount of taxable commercial or residential property, the remaining taxable property owners may represent a larger share of the tax base. If corporate income taxes decline, individuals and consumers may represent a larger share of the state's remaining tax revenue. If the state takes over a county responsibility and funds it through state taxes, county taxpayers may pay less locally, but state taxpayers collectively pay more. If a service is reduced instead, taxpayers may indeed pay less, but they may also receive less in government services and amenities like road and water infrastructure improvements, public school funding, public safety funding, and our green spaces. When we ask if the revenue base changes, where does the remaining burden fall? There's a second question right behind it. Who benefits from that shift? That doesn't mean every tax reduction is a zero-sum game, but lower taxes can affect economic activity, investment, business decisions, and household finances in ways that may generate other economic effects. But it does mean that voters should understand the difference between reducing the amount government collects and changing who is responsible for providing the revenue government still needs for the ever conflicting priorities we all as taxpayers tend to expect. Supporters of the amendment argue that local governments need stronger limits on how quickly property tax burdens can grow. A constitutional limit could provide taxpayers with greater predictability and force local governments to justify spending increases within a more constrained revenue environment. Critics argue that local governments need flexibility because their costs don't necessarily rise at the same rate as a predetermined tax limit. Population can grow, construction costs can increase, public safety staffing can become more expensive, healthcare and social service costs can change, a new state or federal funding change can alter the county's expenses, and sometimes circumstances that nobody predicted can happen. The amendment itself allows for exceptions, but it doesn't establish what those exceptions will be. That would be determined by the General Assembly later, but would still potentially come at the cost of decreased local government control. So one of the questions for voters is how much predictability do we want to give taxpayers and how much flexibility do we want to preserve for local governments when circumstances change? Does the state have other alternatives to positively affect property tax rates to alleviate strain on local governments and taxpayers? Potentially yes. The General Assembly could increase state funding for things currently supported locally. It could change state-county cost-sharing formulas. It could assume more responsibility for public safety, education, foster care, public health, or other services, it could alter property tax exemptions or property revaluations. It could authorize other local revenue sources. It could change the responsibilities and mandates assigned to counties. But none of these options are automatic. They all come with their pros and cons, and the state government has its own revenue constraints. That's why the income tax amendment and the property tax amendment are worth considering together, even though they're separate questions. One would put a constitutional ceiling on the state's income tax rate. Another would require constitutional limits on the growth of local property tax levies. At the same time as corporate income taxes are scheduled to reach zero in 2030. Voters are not simply deciding individual tax rates in isolation. They're making decisions about how much flexibility different levels of governments will have to raise revenue in the

How Wake County Bond Votes Work

Amanda Benbow Lunn 35:57

future. The last two questions on the Wake County ballot are different. These are not constitutional amendments, they're bond referenda. A general obligation bond allows the government to borrow money for capital projects and repay that debt over time, with property taxes generally serving as the repayment source. Wake County currently maintains a AAA general obligation bond rating from the major rating agencies. That rating reflects factors including the county's strong and growing tax base, financial management, debt policies, and capital planning. A AAA rating generally allows a government to borrow at lower increased costs than it otherwise would. It is the best rating. That doesn't mean every future borrowing decision will automatically receive that same rating. And it doesn't mean that property tax limitation would automatically damage the county's credit rating. But rating agencies do consider a government's revenue flexibility and ability to meet its long-term obligations. So if a future constitutional levy limit materially reduced a county's flexibility while the county continued to have substantial debt and capital obligations, that could become one factor in future credit analysis. It's important to note that this is a possibility, not necessarily a prediction of a downgrade.

Wake County Public Schools Bond

Amanda Benbow Lunn 37:20

The first local bond is the Wake County Public Schools Bond. The proposal is for $680 million in general obligation bonds combined with approximately $152.3 million in cash resources for about $832.3 million in planned capital investment. The projects are part of the school system's capital improvement plan, also known as CIP. A capital improvement plan is essentially the long-range plan for major physical investments such as new schools, renovations, replacements, major building systems, and other capital and infrastructure needs. This bond is not simply $680 million for new schools. The current plan includes new construction as well as work involving existing schools and system-wide needs. The 2027 CIP identifies 17 renovation or replacement projects within the county's 204 existing schools. Approximately $49 million is identified for HVAC replacement work at 21 different schools. And that's an important part of the capital discussion because HVAC systems, roofs, electrical systems, plumbing, elevators, and other infrastructure don't stop aging simply because a school district has previously received a one-time federal pandemic funding. One-time funds can certainly address eligible needs, but they don't eliminate the normal life cycle of each school's infrastructure pieces, nor the buildings themselves. They don't eliminate the normal life cycle of each school's infrastructure pieces, the buildings themselves, nor the funds needed for the personnel to maintain these pieces. I know how much my HVAC unit costs in my home, and I can only imagine what those costs look like scaled to 204 schools and counting, and them having much larger square footage. The county estimates the school bond would have a property tax impact of approximately $4.10 per year for every $100,000 of assessed property value. The U.S. Census Bureau's most recent five-year estimate puts Wake County's median value of a owner-occupied housing at $461,300. Using that number simply as an illustration, $461,300 divided by the $100,000 is $4.613. Multiply that by the $4.10, and the estimated annual impact would be about $18.91 per year. Of course, this is simply an illustration, not a prediction of anyone's specific bill. Your actual assessed value may be very different from the census median, and the Wake County's revaluation next year will affect assessed values as well. The estimated total repayment of the school bonds, including interest, is approximately $1, is approximately $1.04 billion over the life of the debt. So the voter is not only deciding whether these projects are worthwhile, they're also deciding whether borrowing now and repaying that debt over time is the appropriate way to fund them. Some prefer current taxpayers funding the cost and having the funds to pay at the time of service. A bond structure allows current and future taxpayers to pay towards said services over

Wake Tech Workforce Forward Bond

Amanda Benbow Lunn 40:35

time. The second local referendum is the Wake Tech Workforce Forward Bond. The proposal is for $149.1 million. Wake Tech says that the bond would expand workforce training in areas including public safety, skilled trades, healthcare, and other high demand fields, while also renewing classrooms, technology, and infrastructure. About $41 million is identified for workforce program expansion. That includes approximately $20 million for public safety training, $12 million for skilled trades expansion, including welding, electrical, and HVAC. The remainder includes college-wide renewal and infrastructure needs like HVAC, elevators, electrical systems, security, parking and roads, building automation, roofing, life safety improvements, accessibility, technology, cybersecurity, and equipment. The college describes these projects in the context of Wake County's continued growth and the demand for skilled workers. Wake Tech also estimates a substantial economic impact from its graduates and workforce programs. Those are institutional economic impact estimates, though, and they should not be understood as estimates of broader economic activity rather than a guarantee, and they should be understood as estimates of broader economic activity rather than a guaranteed financial return on the bond. Using that same $461,300 median Wake County home value as an illustration, meaning if your home costs $461,300, you divide that by the $100,000, you get $4.613, multiply that by 90 cents, and the estimated annual impact to someone with a home at that value would be $4.15 per year. So the census median solely as an example. So using the census median home solely as an example, the school bond would cost approximately $18.91 per year, and the Wake Tech bond would cost approximately $4.15 per year, with a potential combined cost of approximately $23.06 per year for both of the bonds if approved. Again, that is not a promise about any particular homeowner's tax bill. It's simply a way to translate the bond estimates into a number using our county's census median home value to give you an idea. The actual impact depends on the assessed value of your property, the timing of the borrowing, interest rates, future tax rates, and other factors. If the bonds pass, Wake County receives authorization to issue the debt described in the referenda. The county doesn't necessarily borrow every dollar on day one. Bonds can be issued in stages as projects move forward. The county then repays principal and interest over time. The practical benefit is that major capital projects can be built or renovated now and paid for over a period of years by the taxpayers who are then using those facilities. The trade off is that taxpayers are committing future revenue to debt service. That reduces some future budget flexibility because money committed to debt repayment can't simultaneously be spent on something else. That's the basic trade off with borrowing. That's the basic trade off with borrowing. You get the infrastructure sooner. But you commit future revenue to paying for it. If a bond referendum doesn't pass, the county cannot simply issue those voter-authorized general obligation bonds under that referendum. That doesn't necessarily mean every project disappears. The county or school system could potentially use other funding sources, cash, future appropriations, other financing mechanisms, or future bond proposals. But those alternatives can have different costs, timelines, and limitations. So no doesn't necessarily mean nothing gets done. And a yes vote does not necessarily mean everything listed will happen immediately. The important question is what financing authority voters are giving the county and what projects that authority is intended to

The Big Questions Behind It All

Amanda Benbow Lunn 44:45

support. So let's step back. The first amendment asks whether the constitutional voto ID requirement should apply to all voters rather than constitutionally applying only to voters voting in person. The second asks whether the state income tax rate should have a constitutional ceiling of 3.5%. The third asks whether the constitution should require the General Assembly to establish limits on how much local property tax levies can increase. And the last two asks whether Wake County should be authorized to borrow money for specific capital investments in public schools and Wake Tech. Those are five different questions, but there is a common thread. Who should have the authority to make these decisions? How much flexibility should various levels of government have when circumstances change? How much predictability should taxpayers have? Who is responsible for paying for the services we still expect? And most importantly, does this belong in the Constitution or is ordinary state law sufficient? This may be the most important distinction to understand before voting on the three amendments. A law can generally be changed by a future General Assembly. A constitutional provision requires another constitutional amendment approved by voters. That means putting something into the Constitution can provide a stronger guardrail, but that same guardrail can also make it harder to respond when circumstances change. A state income tax ceiling might provide taxpayers with predictability while limiting the legislature's ability to raise that revenue during a future fiscal crisis. A property tax levy limit might provide local taxpayers with greater predictability while limiting a county's ability to respond to rapid population growth, rising cost, or changes in state and federal funding. A constitutional photo ID requirement might provide a durable identification standard across voting methods, while making that standard harder for a future legislature to change. Those aren't conclusions about whether the amendments are good or bad. They're the structural consequences of putting policy into the Constitution. And this is where I think it's worth looking beyond the tax rate itself. The question isn't only how much government collects, it's also who has the authority to collect it. Who is responsible for providing the service? Who pays when the funding formula changes? Does the funding provided by another level of government actually keep pace with the responsibility assigned to the county? And how much flexibility remains when circumstances change? A county can't necessarily pass a need along to somebody else simply because the money to meet that need has become harder to find. If the state changes the funding formula, the county may still have to provide the service. If federal funding declines, the underlying need may still exist. If the population grows, the demand for services may grow with it. If property is removed from tax rules, the county still has a budget to balance. And if the state income tax base changes, the state still has obligations to fund. There isn't necessarily a single right answer to how those responsibilities should be divided, but there is a very important question about whether the revenue tools available to each level of government are sufficient and flexible enough to meet the responsibilities that level of government is expected to carry. So as you look at these five questions on your ballot, it may help to think about them this way. For the photo ID amendment, am I comfortable making the photo ID requirement for all voting methods a constitutional requirement rather than leaving that particular issue primarily to state law? For the income tax amendment, am I comfortable putting a 3.5% ceiling on the state's income tax rate in the constitution, knowing that future legislatures couldn't raise it above that amount without another constitutional amendment? For the property tax amendment, am I comfortable requiring the General Assembly to establish constitutional property tax levy limits, even though the constitution itself does not tell us what those limits or exceptions will ultimately be? For the school bond, do I believe the capital projects identified by Wake County Public Schools justify borrowing money now and committing future property tax revenue to repay that debt? And for the Wake Tech bond, do I believe the workforce training and infrastructure investments justify borrowing money now and committing future property tax revenue to repay the debt? Those are the questions, not simply whether you like taxes, not simply whether you like government spending, not simply whether you like the projects, and not simply whether you agree with the people who propose the amendments. The deeper question is what the deeper question is what structure you want for the future. And that brings us back to the bigger question behind all three constitutional amendments. A constitutional amendment is different from passing an ordinary law. When the General Assembly passes a statute, a future General Assembly can generally change it. Circumstances can change, technology can change, the economy can change, population can change, government responsibilities can change. What seemed like the right policy in 2026 might need to look different in 2036 or 2046. The Constitution is intentionally harder to change. That is part of its purpose. Constitutional protections can keep a future legislature from easily taking away a right, exceeding a limit, or changing a fundamental rule, but that same durability can become rigidity when circumstances change in ways we cannot predict today. Think about technological advances alone. We don't know what artificial intelligence, automation, energy technology, transportation, medicine, or entirely new industries will mean for North Carolina's economy and tax space 20 or 30 years from now. We don't know what future emergencies, demographic changes, federal funding changes, or infrastructure needs might look like either. A future legislature may someday face circumstances that today's voters cannot anticipate. If a policy is in ordinary law, lawmakers can respond to those circumstances through the legislative process. If we've put that policy into the constitution, changing it may require going back to the voters for another constitutional amendment. And that can take extra time and money in perhaps a situation where we don't have a lot of time. That doesn't make constitutional limits inherently good or bad, simply means there's a trade-off. The stronger the constitutional guardrail, the less flexibility future lawmakers have to respond to circumstances we cannot see today. And that's why I think it's worth giving constitutional amendments a little more weight than a typical policy question. The question isn't simply, do I like this policy? It is also, is this important enough that I want to put it in the Constitution? Do I want this rule to be protected from ordinary legislative change? Am I comfortable limiting the options available to future lawmakers if circumstances change? And on the other side, is the predictability and protection created by putting this in the Constitution worth giving up some of that future flexibility? For the income tax amendment, that means looking beyond whether you like today's tax rate and asking whether you want future legislatures constitutionally prevented from ever going above 3.5% without taking the time to go back to voters. For the property tax amendment, it means looking beyond whether you want limits on property tax growth and asking what level of limitation, what exceptions, and what consequences future legislation might eventually establish. And for the photo identification amendment, it means understanding that North Carolina already has a constitutional requirement for in-person photo identification. The proposed change would extend that constitutional language to all voters while leaving the General Assembly to establish the detailed requirements and exceptions. None of these questions is simply about what happens next year. They're also about what authority we want future lawmakers to have, what protections we want future voters to have, and how much flexibility we want to preserve for circumstances that none of us can fully anticipate. That's the gravity of amending a constitution. We aren't just making a decision about the government we have today. We're also writing a rule that future North Carolinians will inherit. This is your ballot. Take the time to understand not just what you're being asked to vote for or against, but what authority you're creating, what authority you're limiting, what responsibilities remain, and who ultimately has to pay when those things stop lining up. You hold so much power. Make sure you know the entirety of what you are voting for when you go to cast your vote.

Closing Reflections & Voting Info

Amanda Benbow Lunn 53:36

Democracy is built on participation. Politics can sometimes feel distant or abstract, but the decisions made by our elected officials at the county, state, and federal levels have a profound effect on the communities we call home and the way we live our lives. From the roads we drive on and the schools our children attend to public safety, parks and recreation, housing, health care, taxes, the economy, and the many other services and amenities that make up our communities, government plays a role in shaping both our everyday experience and our future. That makes taking the time to understand the choices on your ballot and the people asking for your vote an important part of being an engaged member of your community. Early voting for the 2026 midterm election begins October 15th and runs through October 31st. In southern Wake County, there will be early voting locations at the Hunt Center in Holly Springs, the Hilltop Needmore Town Park Clubhouse in Fuquay Varina, Beech Bluff County Park, and Southern Wake Tech Campus close by. Election Day is November 3rd. A general reminder that you will need a valid photo ID to vote, the regular voter registration deadline is October 9th, although you may still register when you vote during the early voting period. Please note that you cannot register to vote on Election Day itself, and that that day you will absolutely have to vote at your designated precinct location to have access to your full ballot. And because there are so many races and ballot measures this year, your ballot will likely be double-sided. It can be helpful to start on the back so that you don't accidentally overlook anything. You'll vote for the races that apply to your jurisdiction along with statewide amendments, and for Southern Wake County voters, local Wake County bond referenda. Voting is one of the ways we take part in the communities we share. You don't have to agree with your neighbors or even with the candidates you've heard here to recognize that our communities are shaped by the people who show up, ask questions, learn about the choices before them, and cast their ballots. So please take the time to get informed, make your voice heard, and encourage the people around you to do the same. Your vote matters, your voice matters, and you absolutely matter,

Final Reminders And Where To Connect

Amanda Benbow Lunn 55:56

my friend. And with that, this episode of the NC Deep Dive has come to an end. Please feel free to check out this episode's show notes at ncdeepdive.com for further information and relevant links for this candidate along with general election information. As always, if you have any topics or thoughts you'd like to share, you can find us on social media or email us at ncdeepdive at gmail.com. If you found value in this episode, I'd love for you to subscribe, rate, and share it so that others may more easily be informed. Please make sure to stay tuned for all the relevant candidate, amendment, and referenda episodes for the 2026 midterm election by visiting ncdeepdive.com, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Audible, or wherever you currently listen to your podcast. Until next time, my friends, Namaste. The Love and Light in Me sees and honors the love and light in you.