The 1998 session of the North Carolina General Assembly was a very quiet one for elections legislation. The only significant activity was the redrawing (for the fourth time in the 1990s) of the state's congressional districts. Counting that redistricting legislation, only four significant bills with provisions relating to elections were enacted in 1998.

In 1991, the General Assembly divided the state into twelve districts for the election of members of the United States House of Representatives. Eleven of those districts had white majorities, and one had an African-American majority. That plan was submitted to the United States Department of Justice for review, as required under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Department of Justice disapproved the plan, finding that it violated the act. The General Assembly could have drawn two districts with African-American majorities, the department said, and the failure to do so was unlawful.

In response to the Justice Department's ruling, the General Assembly, in 1992, adopted a redistricting plan that included two congressional districts with African-American majorities. The Department of Justice approved this plan, but the plan was challenged in federal court by a group of private citizens. Following a 1993 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the use of race in drawing district lines may violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a panel of federal district court judges held in 1996 that the 1992 plan was, in fact, unconstitutional.

The General Assembly's third attempt at congressional redistricting followed in 1997. The 1997 plan created one congressional district with an African-American majority and one district that was very nearly evenly split between whites and African Americans. The Department of Justice and the federal district court both approved the 1997 redistricting plan, and it appeared that the plan would remain in place until the state was required to draw new congressional districts after the 2000 census. In a new lawsuit, however, a group of citizens challenged the 1997 plan, and a new panel of federal district court judges held that the plan was probably unconstitutional, postponed the elections that were to be held under it, and ordered the General Assembly to draw a new plan.

The General Assembly's fourth effort to redraw the state's congressional districts followed the federal court's ruling in 1998. S.L. 1998-2 (H 1394), enacted May 21, 1998, contains the state's 1998 congressional redistricting plan, which, like the 1997 plan, provides for one district with an African-American majority but redraws the lines of several districts to make the districts more compact. In the process, the district that was about evenly split between whites and African Americans became clearly majority white.

The 1998 congressional elections were held under the 1998 plan, with an unusual September primary election (in which only congressional races were on the ballot) followed by the regular November general election. S.L. 1998-2 provides that the plan is effective for the 2000 elections as well, "unless the United State Supreme Court reverses the decision holding unconstitutional [the 1997 plan]."

In 1996, the General Assembly enacted legislation changing the elections for superior court judge from partisan to nonpartisan and providing for elections on a district, rather than statewide, basis. It did so by removing the provisions relating to the election of superior court judges from the general elections provisions in Chapter 163 of the General Statutes (where they were previously included along with the elections of candidates to other statewide and district elections) and creating a separate subchapter dealing solely with elections for superior court judge. An odd consequence emerged. The general law provision prohibiting a candidate from filing for election for more than one office no longer applied to candidates for superior court judge. In the 1998 elections (the first ones held under the 1996 legislation), several candidates did, in fact, file for election as superior court judge and, at the same time, for another office (usually district court judge).

S.L. 1998-217 (S 1279) amends G.S. 163-323(e) to eliminate the possibility of filing for election at the same time for superior court judge and another office.

For a number of years, it has been possible for a North Carolina resident to fill out a voter registration application (or to fill out a form giving information regarding a change of address or otherwise update voter registration information) at an office of the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) at the same time that he or she is applying for a driver's license or license renewal. It is lawful for a resident who is not a citizen of the United States to get a driver's license, but it is not lawful for such a person to apply to register to vote. S.L. 1998-149 (H 1474) amends G.S. 163-82.19 to add a requirement that the DMV official taking an application for voter registration must ask whether the person is a citizen. If the person answers in the negative or refuses to answer, the DMV official must inform him or her that it is a felony for a noncitizen to apply to register to vote.

In 1997 the General Assembly directed the State Board of Elections to establish a statewide elections data management system, to include voter registration information, campaign reporting, and election night returns. Counties were directed to adhere to the system by August 31, 1998. Section 24 of the 1998 Appropriations Act, S.L. 1998-212 (S 1366), extends that deadline to July 1, 1999.

With the adjournment of the 1997 session of the General Assembly, six elections-related bills had passed the Senate and were eligible for consideration in the House in the 1998 session. The House, however, did not enact any of these bills during the 1998 session.

• Senate Bill 2, as it passed the Senate, would have moved the state and county primary elections in even-numbered years from May to September, abolished the second primary (which occurs when the leading vote-getter in a primary election does not receive 40 percent of the vote), and moved the state's presidential primary from May to March.

• Senate Bill 573, as it passed the Senate, would have created a North Carolina Campaign Standards Commission to enforce a Code of Campaign Standards, simplified the procedures for forming a new political party, and required that voters show identification when they vote.

• Senate Bill 663, as it passed the Senate, would have made it possible for a voter to vote by absentee ballot without giving a reason and would have permitted "one-stop" absentee voting at sites in the county other than the elections board office.

• Senate Bills 708 and 825, as they passed the Senate, would have set out new disclosure requirements regarding political advertisements.

• Senate Bill 1049, as it passed the Senate, would have allowed county boards of elections to set up satellite voting places for residents of college dormitories.

One other bill, House Bill 579, passed the House in 1997 as a bill dealing only with the elections of the Alamance-Burlington Board of Education. In 1998, the Senate passed a committee substitute for House Bill 579, making broad changes in the campaign finance laws, but the House failed to act on the bill.