Column: Don’t falter at the referenda

When N.C. voters cast their ballots on Nov. 5, they will be presented with a range of familiar choices: candidates for local, state and national office. 

The part of the ballot that might not look so familiar? The referenda: a series of legislative measures requesting citizens' approval. What follows is an explanation and endorsement of the referenda measures.

First, voters will be asked to state “For” or “Against” regarding the following:

Constitutional amendment to provide that only a citizen of the United States who is 18 years of age and otherwise possessing the qualifications for voting shall be entitled to vote at any election in this State.

The current language in the N.C. Constitution reads as follows: “Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided.” 

We are concerned with two additional implications of this referendum. Firstly, the removal of the word “naturalized” from the current Constitution can only set a precedent against non-U.S. natives in the voting process. 

Secondly, the wording “otherwise possessing the qualifications for voting” implies a continuation of stringent state requirements for voter ID. Such standards will unjustly target young, lower-income and unhoused voters, each of whom are more likely than other demographics to lack formal identification. 

Finally, requiring voters to be 18 years of age eliminates future possibilities of youth voting in local, school board or primary elections in North Carolina, as practiced in other states. Allowing youth to vote in relevant elections helps build a habit of engaged citizenship. 

At best, this proposal will prove fruitless, but at worst, it lays the groundwork for a xenophobic and exclusionary agenda, driving unnecessary mistrust into our electoral systems and communities.

Our endorsement for Referendum 1: Against

Orange County voters will then be asked to select “Yes” or “No” for Referenda 2-6, a series of referenda that resemble each other in wording and purpose. 

Each referendum requests permission from voters to carry out a project — housing for lower and middle-income citizens; public buildings; streets and sidewalks; parks and recreation facilities and open space and greenways. To cover the costs of these measures, they are providing the following plan:

Chapel Hill will issue bonds ranging from $2 to $15 million for each project, which will be purchased by investors on a loan-interest system. In the unlikely event that the Town finds themselves unable to repay their long-term debt and interest to these investors, they are requesting authorization to raise property taxes for Chapel Hill residents. They indicate their belief that they will be able to carry out these projects without raising tax liability for anyone; the estimated increase is listed as zero. Thus, this approval comes at little to no risk for citizens.

Endorsement for Referenda 2-6: Yes 

The final referendum, addressing funds for school facilities, is phrased similarly. The notable difference concerns estimated taxpayer cost, which the Town estimates would equate to approximately $35 per $100,000 of property value per year. 

We understand the implications of a tax increase, hence warranting our distinction between this referendum and those prior. Despite the increased taxpayer cost, we remain in favor of the final referendum. Investing in school facilities and school boards should be a salient priority for citizens. If approved, our community will reap benefits that vastly outweigh the cost per year. 

Endorsement for Referendum 7: Yes 

@dthopinion | opinion@dailytarheel.com