House Bill 1155, titled the "People's Right to Amend Act," proposes a constitutional amendment to give North Carolina voters the power to initiate constitutional amendments by petition and statewide vote. Under the proposal, citizens could place a constitutional amendment on the ballot if they gather signatures equal to at least 8% of the votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, with at least 3% of signatures from each congressional district. Petitions would have to be registered with the State Board of Elections before circulation, signatures would expire after one year, and the proposed amendment would go to voters at the next statewide general election at least 180 days after certification.
The bill also builds in several procedural safeguards and limits. An initiative would need approval from 60% of voters to become effective, and a defeated initiative could not be reconsidered for five years. The State Board of Elections would be responsible for verifying petitions and making determinations within 30 working days, with a right of appeal to the Court of Appeals. The proposal would be submitted to voters at the November 3, 2026 general election, and if approved by a majority, the constitutional amendment would become effective upon certification.
If enacted, the measure would significantly change North Carolina constitutional law by creating a direct initiative process where none currently exists for constitutional amendments. It would add a new section to Article XIII of the state constitution and require the General Assembly to pass implementing laws governing petition circulation, verification, presentation, and certification. It would also expand the role of the State Board of Elections and the courts in administering and reviewing initiative petitions.
The available record shows no committee debate or recorded votes, so there is no documented public sentiment in the materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears designed to appeal to supporters of direct democracy and reform-minded voters, while also addressing concerns about abuse through high signature thresholds and a supermajority approval requirement. Likely points of contention include whether the initiative process should exist at all in North Carolina, whether the 8% signature threshold and 60% approval requirement are too restrictive or too permissive, and whether the proposed safeguards are sufficient to prevent misuse while still allowing meaningful citizen lawmaking.
HB1155 would amend the North Carolina Constitution to create a citizen- նախաձեռնated constitutional amendment process, changing current law that limits amendment proposals to the General Assembly. It would require new election administration procedures for petition registration, signature verification, ballot submission, and judicial review, and would obligate the legislature to enact implementing statutes governing the process. If approved by voters, the amendment would directly affect the State Board of Elections, the Secretary of State, and the constitutional amendment process itself.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill’s findings suggest a pro-reform, pro-direct-democracy rationale, but the structure of the proposal also reflects caution by imposing high qualification and approval thresholds. In that sense, the bill appears intended to balance voter empowerment with safeguards against frequent or lightly supported constitutional change.
The main points of contention are likely to be institutional and procedural. Supporters of citizen initiatives may favor the bill as a way to bypass legislative gridlock and let voters propose constitutional reforms directly, while opponents may argue that constitutional change should remain within the legislature’s control. Additional debate may focus on whether the 8% petition threshold, district distribution requirement, 60% approval standard, and five-year waiting period are appropriate, and whether the State Board of Elections and courts would face undue administrative and legal burdens.