WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1234

Overview

HB 1234 proposes a constitutional amendment in North Carolina to address Supreme Court ethics. The core goals are to establish when a Supreme Court justice must recuse themselves and to require public disclosure of certain financial interests, travel sources, and other affiliations. The measure would place these rules directly in the state constitution and would be decided by voters in November 2026.

Purpose and intent

  • Enhance transparency and impartiality of the North Carolina Supreme Court by:
    • Specifying recusal triggers for justices.
    • Mandating disclosure of certain financial transactions and travel sponsorships.
  • Ensure that decisions of the Supreme Court are not influenced by financial or personal interests of justices, or by relationships with parties or witnesses.

Key provisions

Recusal requirements (Section 6, Article IV, rewritten)

  • A Justice must disqualify themselves in any proceeding if:

    • They have a financial interest (or a fiduciary interest) in the subject matter or a party, or any interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome, including stock or securities valued at $10,000 or more in a party to the case.
    • The Justice, their spouse, or a close relative (within the third degree) or their spouse:
    • Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party.
    • Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding.
    • Is known to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome.
    • Is known to be a likely material witness in the proceeding.
    • Note: The percentage honors the civil-law degree of relationship for determining the third-degree relationship.
    • A disqualification is not required if it would cause the Supreme Court to lack a quorum (i.e., the court could still proceed with fewer members).

  • A prior service as a General Assembly member that is implicated by the constitutionality or propriety of a law previously sponsored by the Justice could trigger disqualification under this provision.

Financial disclosures (Section 6, Article IV)

  • In addition to existing requirements, Justices must disclose to the State Ethics Commission:
    • Any sale or purchase of stock, property, or other financial interests valued at $10,000 or more within 45 days of the transaction.
    • Any income received beyond the Justice’s state salary.
    • The name of any individual or entity that sponsored or funded any travel taken by the Justice.

Affected parties

  • Justices of the North Carolina Supreme Court (and their spouses and certain relatives) would be subject to:
    • Mandatory recusal under specified conditions.
    • Expanded financial and travel disclosures.
  • The State Ethics Commission would receive broadened disclosure information.
  • The general public would gain greater visibility into the potential conflicts and backing behind judicial travel and financial interests.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Constitutional amendment process:

    • The proposed amendment would be placed on the ballot for the November 3, 2026 general election.
    • The referendum would follow the state’s election laws, including use of ballots or voting systems per Chapter 163 of the General Statutes.
    • If a majority of voters vote in favor, the amendment becomes effective upon certification by the Secretary of State, following certification by the State Board of Elections.
    • If not approved, the amendment has no effect.

  • Effective date:

    • The act provides that, if approved, the amendment takes effect upon certification.

Potential impact and considerations

  • Strengthens ethics standards for the highest court in the state by clarifying when recusals are required.
  • Increases transparency through timely disclosure of significant financial transactions and travel sponsorships.
  • Could influence appellate decision-making by clarifying potential conflicts of interest.
  • Practical considerations include the administration of new disclosure timelines (within 45 days) and ensuring accessible public records, as well as addressing potential ambiguities in "substantially affected" language and third-degree relationships.

If you’d like, I can distill this into a quick briefing for policymakers or a one-page explainer for the public.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.