WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 85

Swimming Lesson Voucher Program

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Dan Daley and 8 co-sponsors

Empowers counties to remove ineffective precinct officials on election day and replace them with emergency assistants, at least six per county, with new training rules.

Laid on Table, refer to SB 428
#subjectindex
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 85

HB 85 — “Removal of Precinct Officials” (Committee Substitute Favorable)

Summary
This bill (Edition 2) amends North Carolina election law to clarify removal procedures for precinct officials, tighten eligibility rules, establish minimum emergency staffing, and require specified training for election officials. Its stated aim is to ensure precinct officials competently perform duties on election day and to provide clearer mechanisms for filling vacancies and training replacements.

Key purposes
- Authorize and clarify the county board of elections’ authority to remove precinct officials (including on election day) for incompetence or failure to perform duties.
- Allow county boards to bar removed officials from serving in subsequent elections.
- Define who is ineligible to serve as a precinct official.
- Set a statewide minimum number of emergency election‑day assistants per county and clarify appointment, assignment, and training rules.
- Require and standardize training for county election personnel and precinct officials.

Major provisions (by topic)
- Removal and vacancies
- Adds G.S. 163‑41.3: any precinct official may be removed by the county board for incompetency or failure to discharge duties; removal may occur on the day of the election/primary.
- County boards may prohibit removed officials from serving as precinct officials in future elections.
- G.S. 163‑33(2) is revised to reference the new removal authority and retains notice/hearing requirements; board action requires a majority present.

  • Eligibility and definitions

    • Expands or clarifies the definition of “precinct official” (chief judges, judges, assistants).
    • Bars persons from serving as precinct officials if they: hold elective office; are candidates; hold party offices (state, congressional district, county, precinct) or are campaign managers/treasurers; or previously were prohibited from serving under G.S. 163‑41.3.

  • Emergency election‑day assistants

    • County boards (by unanimous vote) may appoint registered voters as emergency election‑day assistants.
    • The State Board of Elections shall determine the number of emergency assistants per county based on population, expected turnout, and election complexity; every county must have at least six emergency assistants.
    • Emergency assistants may be assigned on election day where appointed officials cannot serve (e.g., emergency within 48 hours, removal); they receive the same training and pay as other precinct assistants.
    • Appointments must be apportioned among party registrants to avoid all officials in a precinct belonging to the same party.

  • Training requirements

    • Amends G.S. 163‑82.24: requires training schedules for county elections directors and for county board members (initial training within 6 months after appointment and again within first two years).
    • Directs the State Board of Elections to adopt rules for precinct official training; minimum topics listed include duties, voter registration verification, ballot issuance, providing voter assistance (including curbside voting), opening/closing procedures, and buffer‑zone/election‑related activity prohibitions.

Who would be affected
- Precinct officials (chief judges, judges, assistants) in every county — current and prospective volunteers.
- County boards of elections (more clearly empowered and responsible for removals, emergency staffing decisions, and ensuring training).
- Emergency assistant pools and election administration budgets (training, recruitment, and payment of additional assistants).
- Political parties (appointment apportionment and ineligibility rules may affect party-affiliated volunteers).

Potential impacts and considerations
- Administrative: counties may need to increase recruitment, maintain a pool of trained emergency assistants (minimum six), and document training and removal hearings.
- Operational: clearer removal authority may allow quicker resolution of malfunctioning precinct staff but could increase same‑day vacancies requiring emergency assignments.
- Volunteer pool: new ineligibility rules (e.g., party officers, candidate managers/treasurers) could reduce the available pool of experienced volunteers in some counties.
- Fiscal: potential modest local costs for recruiting, training, and compensating additional emergency assistants; fiscal impacts are not specified in the bill text.

Procedural status
- Status shown: Reported Favorably as Committee Substitute (Reptd Fav Com Substitute). (The draft provided is “Edition 2” / Committee Substitute Favorable.)
- Next steps: subject to further floor action in the House and/or Senate per legislative calendar (no effective date is specified in the provided text).

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

Sign in to ask a question.