Election law bill pulled from committee agenda, drawing cheers and questions over its future
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) -- A House committee's unexpected decision to pull House Bill 958 from its Monday afternoon agenda prompted audible gasps, cheers, and renewed debate about the sweeping elections bill.
Moments after the House Committee on Rules, Calendar and Operations gaveled in, the chair announced the measure would not be heard. The move drew applause from opponents who have spent more than a year urging lawmakers to slow or stop the proposal.
Karen Ziegler of Durham, who attended the meeting, said the decision energized those fighting the bill.
"Everybody needs to know that the leadership of the North Carolina General Assembly is not in favor of democracy," she said.
Ziegler said the delay offered a brief sense of relief.
"I think it's good if it's slowing down. I think it's good if they're working with the Democrats to try to make it a little better. But it's a terrible, terrible bill."
HB 958 proposes several changes to state election law, including banning election officials from encouraging voters to go to the polls, adding more political appointees to the State Board of Elections, and expanding the state auditor's authority in election fraud investigations, among other changes.
The proposal would also eliminate ranked-choice voting in North Carolina and remove certain campaign finance reporting requirements.
Republicans have argued the proposed changes would preserve election integrity in North Carolina and help ensure that only state residents who are legally eligible to vote are able to cast ballots.
Jay DeLancy of the Lee County Board of Elections said the bill highlights partisan tensions around election oversight.
"There's two ways to fix it. One is to expose the problems and the other is to pretend like they're not," he said. "These are partisan positions. When that next auditor comes in, they can change it. They can put Democrats in those positions."
Dozens of protesters gathered at the North Carolina Legislative Building on Tuesday as lawmakers discussed the bill.
Opponents argue the bill -- first filed in April 2025 -- was flawed from the beginning.
Giselle Torres of Democracy North Carolina said the timing of recent changes raised concerns. "It's a way for lawmakers, typically, to, unfortunately, bait and switch," she said. "It was sitting dormant for over a year. Then all of a sudden the pieces came out on a Friday evening when folks had already left for the week."
What happens next for HB 958 remains unclear. DeLancy said he hopes lawmakers revisit the public's concerns.
"I hear their concern, and it is valid," he said. "It does disappoint me that we weren't allowed to have more public comment today."
During a committee meeting Tuesday morning, co-chair Hugh Blackwell said changes to the proposal could still be forthcoming.
Opponents of the proposal argued that North Carolina's current election system already contains safeguards designed to ensure accurate and transparent elections.
"We have really vigorous administrative processes, checks and balances to make sure that, again, the county is fair, accurate, transparent," said Joselle Torres of Democracy NC. "The post-election audits happen in a way that, builds confidence in voters. And so to say that our voting needs to be more secure or the election integrity of the of our elections here in North Carolina is like a dog whistle."
State Board of Elections Executive Director Sam Hayes said his office would continue to prioritize protecting voters' rights while following state and federal law.
"We already provide every due process to these folks. No one gets removed based on what we automatically find on these databases," Hayes said. "There is a whole process for notice and opportunity to be heard. As I've said many times, the Constitutional right to vote is the most fundamental right in this country, and we're going to be as protective as possible and we're going to follow the state and federal government in that regard."
Both supporters and opponents now wait for lawmakers to determine the bill's next steps.
