In a democracy, the rules that govern political participation must be applied consistently and transparently. That principle is now under threat in North Carolina, where proposed changes to the signature-gathering process for new political parties risk undermining both public trust and electoral fairness. I strongly urge the North Carolina State Board of Elections (NCSBE) to reject any modifications to the petitioning process while emerging parties are actively collecting signatures for ballot access.
Altering the rules in the middle of an ongoing petition drive is not only procedurally unjust—it is fundamentally undemocratic. Political parties across the ideological spectrum have invested time, resources, and volunteer effort based on the current guidelines. To shift those standards midstream is to invalidate months of work and disenfranchise the thousands of voters who have already expressed their support. It would set a dangerous precedent: that the path to political representation can be redrawn at the whim of those in power.
Such actions erode confidence in the NCSBE’s impartiality. At a time when institutional trust is already strained, the appearance of politically motivated interference risks turning a nonpartisan body into a perceived instrument of suppression. North Carolinians deserve better. Voters should not be forced to wonder whether election officials are working to maintain fair competition—or to protect the dominance of the two major parties.
We’ve seen this dynamic play out before. During the Riggs v. Griffin episode, the public overwhelmingly rejected the notion that election rules should be bent to benefit one candidate—in that case, a failed attempt by Griffin’s team to revise long-standing eligibility criteria for their own advantage. The backlash highlighted a broader principle: voters want fair play, not political opportunism disguised as reform. That same principle must apply here. Attempts to shift ballot access requirements in the middle of an election cycle—especially while new parties are working under the current rules—carry the same odor of manipulation.
Moreover, the Board’s partisan divisions have been on full display in recent decisions involving alternative political parties like the Green Party, We the People, and Justice for All. In each case, the NCSBE deadlocked along party lines or delayed recognition in ways that signaled bias against emerging political movements. These patterns reinforce a disturbing narrative—that ballot access is not determined by law or merit, but by which party controls the process.
If the Board is genuinely committed to fairness and transparency, it should allow all current petition efforts to proceed under the rules that were in place when those efforts began. Any proposed regulatory changes must be considered only after the conclusion of the current cycle and with broad public engagement. Changes should be deliberate, clearly justified, and implemented with sufficient lead time to ensure all political movements can plan accordingly.
The role of the NCSBE is not to create barriers, but to safeguard both access and integrity in our elections. Streamlining the ballot access process and welcoming diverse voices onto the political stage strengthens democracy. Making abrupt, mid-cycle changes does the opposite: it fuels cynicism, discourages civic participation, and silences legitimate political alternatives.
Elections are not the private property of established parties. They belong to the people—and the people must be free to organize, advocate, and vote for the representatives and policies they believe in. For the sake of democratic legitimacy, I respectfully call on the NCSBE to delay any rule changes until the current petitioning period concludes. Upholding this standard is not only a matter of fairness; it is a test of whether North Carolina remains committed to a truly representative democracy.