1. Photo identification for all voters

Official ballot wording:
“Constitutional amendment to require all voters, not just those presenting to vote in person, to present photo identification before voting.” 

What a FOR vote means:
A FOR vote would amend the North Carolina Constitution so the photo-ID requirement applies to all voters regardless of voting method, not only voters appearing in person. State law already requires absentee-by-mail voters to submit a copy of photo ID or qualify for an exception; this amendment would place the broader requirement into the Constitution. 

What an AGAINST vote means:
An AGAINST vote would leave the current constitutional language unchanged. The Constitution would continue to expressly require photo ID for in-person voting, while absentee-ballot ID requirements would continue to be governed by state law rather than this constitutional amendment. 

Supporters may argue:
The same identification principle should apply regardless of how a ballot is cast, and putting that requirement in the Constitution provides consistency.

Opponents may argue:
Putting the broader requirement into the Constitution makes it harder to change in the future and may create additional burdens for some absentee voters.

Important context:
The amendment still allows the General Assembly to provide exceptions to the photo-ID requirement. 

2. Maximum state income-tax rate of 3.5%

Official ballot wording:
“Constitutional amendment to keep the State income tax rate from being raised higher than three and one-half percent (3.5%).” 

What a FOR vote means:
A FOR vote would lower the constitutional ceiling on North Carolina income-tax rates from 7% to 3.5%. The General Assembly’s legislative summary says the cap would apply to both personal and corporate income taxes beginning with taxable years starting January 1, 2027. 

What an AGAINST vote means:
An AGAINST vote would keep the existing constitutional maximum of 7%. That would not automatically raise anyone’s tax rate; it would preserve the legislature’s ability to set income-tax rates above 3.5% in the future, up to the existing constitutional ceiling. 

Supporters may argue:
A lower constitutional ceiling gives taxpayers greater certainty and limits the ability of future legislatures to raise income-tax rates.

Opponents may argue:
A constitutional cap of 3.5% could reduce the state’s flexibility to respond to future recessions, emergencies, infrastructure needs, education costs, or other revenue pressures.

Important context:
This amendment is about the maximum permitted rate, not necessarily the rate taxpayers will actually pay. 

3. Limits on local-government property-tax increases

Official ballot wording:
“Constitutional amendment requiring limits on property tax increases by local governments.” 

What a FOR vote means:
A FOR vote would amend the North Carolina Constitution to require the General Assembly to enact statewide laws limiting how much the levy of property taxes by counties, cities, towns, special districts, and other local governments may increase. The Constitution would also permit the legislature to create exceptions to those limits. 

What an AGAINST vote means:
An AGAINST vote would leave the Constitution unchanged. The General Assembly would not be constitutionally required to create such a statewide levy limit, although lawmakers could still change property-tax laws through ordinary legislation. 

Supporters may argue:
Statewide limits could protect property owners from rapid increases in local property-tax collections and give taxpayers greater predictability.

Opponents may argue:
Counties and municipalities have different needs and expenses, and a statewide restriction could reduce local governments’ flexibility to pay for schools, emergency services, employee compensation, infrastructure, and other services.

The most important detail:
The amendment does not set the actual numerical limit. It does not say 2%, 5%, inflation, population growth, or another formula. The General Assembly would determine the limit later and could also create exceptions. 

A useful question for voters:
Do you want the Constitution to require the General Assembly to set limits on increases in local property-tax levies, even though the actual limits and exceptions would be determined later?