House Bill 1039 proposes a constitutional amendment to tie legislative pay to the timely passage of a state budget. Under the bill, if the North Carolina General Assembly does not ratify a comprehensive budget by June 30, members’ compensation and allowances would be forfeited beginning July 1 and would remain withheld until a budget is enacted or the next regular session begins, whichever comes first. The measure would amend Article II, Section 16 of the North Carolina Constitution to add this penalty for failing to pass a budget on time.
The bill also sets out the process for placing the amendment before voters at the November 3, 2026 statewide general election. If approved by a majority of voters, the amendment would become effective upon certification by the State Board of Elections and enrollment by the Secretary of State; if rejected, it would have no effect. Because it is a constitutional amendment, the proposal would change the state’s foundational rules governing legislative compensation rather than ordinary statutory law.
If enacted by voters, HB1039 would alter the North Carolina Constitution to create a direct financial consequence for legislators when the General Assembly misses the budget deadline. It would affect the compensation and allowances of members of the General Assembly, potentially suspending pay and related allowances during any period after July 1 in which no budget has been ratified. The bill does not change appropriations law itself, but it would add a constitutional enforcement mechanism tied to the budget process and legislative pay.
The bill’s text suggests a reform-minded, accountability-focused approach, aimed at pressuring lawmakers to complete the budget on time. However, the available legislative history shows no committee discussion or recorded votes, so there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. Based on the proposal itself, the likely general sentiment is that it is intended to appeal to voters who want stronger incentives for budget discipline and legislative responsibility.
The main point of contention is likely to be whether withholding legislative pay is an appropriate or effective way to force budget passage. Supporters would likely view it as a common-sense accountability measure, while opponents may argue it could create political pressure that distorts negotiations or unfairly penalizes legislators for broader budget impasses. Another possible issue is the constitutional nature of the change, since it would require voter approval and would permanently embed a pay penalty into the state constitution rather than leaving the matter to statute.