HB788, titled “Fix Our Democracy,” is a broad elections and ethics reform package that would make major changes to North Carolina’s constitutional and statutory election framework. The bill proposes a constitutional amendment to create a nonpartisan redistricting process for legislative and congressional districts, with the General Assembly barred from directly drawing those maps. It also reenacts nonpartisan judicial elections for appellate, superior, and district court judges, replacing partisan nomination structures with a nonpartisan primary-and-general-election system and revising filing, petition, vacancy, and ballot rules for those judicial races.
The bill also expands voter access and election administration by authorizing online voter registration, automatic voter registration at DMV offices and other public agencies, and additional outreach and security requirements for those systems. It would require more public notice and live audiovisual streaming for legislative committee and session activity in the Legislative Complex, ensure voting places on certain college campuses, and change absentee voting procedures by reducing the witness requirement from two witnesses to one witness or notary. In addition, it tightens voter list maintenance rules, restores voting rights more quickly for certain people with felony convictions, and repeals certain prior election-law provisions.
On the campaign finance side, HB788 would substantially expand disclosure and transparency requirements. It adds “true source” reporting for larger donations, requires top-donor identification in certain political ads, extends disclosure rules to digital communications, creates a public online repository for digital political ads, and adds foreign-national disclosure language for political advertising. The bill also limits super PAC-style independent expenditure committees through rapid reporting requirements and establishes a new North Carolina Public Campaign Fund for appellate and Supreme Court candidates, funded through tax designations, bar fee surcharges, and other sources, with matching funds and spending limits for participating candidates.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly reform-oriented and pro-democracy, emphasizing fair elections, transparency, and public trust. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided context, there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge support or opposition beyond the bill’s own stated purpose. The bill’s structure and scope suggest it is intended as a comprehensive reform measure rather than a narrow technical fix.
Likely points of contention include the constitutional redistricting amendment, the elimination of the General Assembly’s role in map drawing, the revival of public financing for judicial campaigns, the new campaign-finance disclosure and donor-tracing rules, and the automatic voter registration provisions. Opponents may also object to the absentee voting changes, the restrictions on voter list maintenance, and the expanded administrative obligations and appropriations required to implement the bill. Supporters are likely to emphasize nonpartisan elections, easier voter registration, stronger transparency, and reduced partisan influence in redistricting and judicial elections.
If enacted, HB788 would amend the North Carolina Constitution and numerous chapters of the General Statutes, especially Chapters 13, 120C, 143, and 163. It would remove the legislature from direct redistricting of state and congressional districts through a constitutionally mandated nonpartisan process, restore nonpartisan judicial election procedures, create online and automatic voter registration systems, alter absentee ballot witnessing rules, change voter-roll maintenance standards, and impose new disclosure and reporting obligations on political spending. It would also establish a new public financing system for appellate and Supreme Court races and appropriate state funds to implement online voter registration.
The bill is framed in strongly affirmative terms, with findings that North Carolinians want “free and fair elections” and a “true democracy,” indicating clear support for reform among its sponsors. No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded evidence of bipartisan agreement or formal opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill’s content, the measure appears designed to appeal to voters and reform advocates who favor expanded access, transparency, and reduced partisan control over elections.
The most likely areas of contention are the constitutional redistricting overhaul, the removal of legislative involvement in map drawing, and the reestablishment of public financing for judicial campaigns, all of which would materially shift power and election incentives. Campaign-finance provisions—especially donor tracing, digital-ad disclosure, super PAC reporting, and foreign-national disclosure—could draw objections from political committees and free-speech advocates. Election-administration changes such as automatic voter registration, online registration, absentee witness reductions, and limits on voter-roll purging may also be disputed by those concerned about implementation, security, or fraud prevention, while supporters would likely argue these changes improve access and integrity.