As Hackney looks to step down, who will lead the loyal opposition?

Posted on February 2, 2012 by Damon Circosta

In a system of divided government, someone has to be in the minority party. It’s probably one of the toughest jobs in politics.

Without your hand on the levers of power, plum committee assignments to allocate or the campaign cash that invariably flows to the party in charge, being in the minority party can be a challenge.

Your political fortunes live or die with how well you are able to negotiate, how eloquently you can make your case to the public and how effectively you can use parliamentary procedure.  It’s doubly difficult for the person tasked with organizing the minority party.

Rep. Joe Hackney

Last session that task fell to former House speaker Joe Hackney from Orange County. After years of Democrats in charge, in 2011 they found themselves without control of the speakership and in the small offices at the legislature for the first time in a long time.

Today, after just one term as minority leader, Hackney decided not to seek re-election.

That decision could be due in part to the fact that, like so many others in the minority, he was drawn into the same district as one of his fellow officeholders, thus facing a “double-bunked” situation that requires two allies to compete for one seat. Maybe he was tired of the unpredictability of the legislature and the almost non-existent compensation for those who serve. Perhaps the jab-and-parry nature of minority status wore him out.

The question is now this: Who will carry the torch for Democrats in the next session?

Since redistricting this time was controlled by Republicans, they will have an advantage in the 2012 elections. Barring an extremely energized, well-funded and well-executed campaign by Democrats, chances are they will be in the minority again. So many key legislators who would have succeeded Hackney as their party’s leader are either not returning or running for another office.

Make no mistake, legislative service really is a meat grinder. Regardless of who ends up in the shoes of the minority leader, it’s never a comfortable fit.

Posted in N.C. Legislature, Redistricting | Leave a comment

N.C. lawmakers: Amateurs or pros?

Posted on January 31, 2012 by Damon Circosta

The conventional wisdom in college sports is that student athletes should be amateurs and that if they somehow became professionals it would cheapen the experience for competitors and fans alike.

The NCAA has gone to great length over the years to provide some sort of veneer that college sports is not a big business and that student athletes are really students first and athletes second.

As school after school has wrestled with remaining competitive while trying to remain compliant with complicated NCAA “amateurism” rules, we begin to see the folly in forcing what clearly is a professional situation into an amateur regime.

You can see a similar folly in how we treat our elected officials down at the General Assembly. Somewhere along the line it was decided that “professional” politicians are undesirable. Having “career politicians” would be just as tawdry as paying collegiate athletes, the thought goes. So instead of recognizing the demands of governing an intrinsically complex modern state, we pretend that the legislature is still a “part-time” endeavor where citizen legislators reign supreme.

But just like amateurism in college sports, the notion that the General Assembly is run by citizen politicians is a farce. There is nothing part-time about public service in Raleigh.

In addition to the regular sessions that run for months on end, rank-and-file legislators are at the whim of the leadership and can be summoned to Raleigh at any point during the year. Such an open-ended commitment makes it hard to hold down another job. Couple that with the enormous amount of constituent work, policy research, study committees and town hall meetings and what you get is a full-time job.

But since we are wedded to the anachronistic notion of a citizen legislature where part-time amateurs sail the ship of state,  we won’t acknowledge that serving in public office is full-time work. We don’t pay an adequate salary, which is set at about $14,000 annually for most lawmakers, we summon our legislators to session arbitrarily and we essentially keep them from being able to maintain any other employment. The result is that very few of us can actually seek and serve in office and those who do aren’t really part-time public servants at all.

It’s not that different than the life of these so-called student athletes. Sure, we pretend that they are just like the rest of the student body that attends class, enjoys campus life and receives a well-rounded education. But neither the NCAA hoops star nor a state legislator lives like their peers.

The General Assembly is due back in February for yet another round of work managing a state with more than 9 million residents and a $20 billion budget. Heaven forbid we treat them like the professionals that they are.

Posted in N.C. Legislature | Tagged | Leave a comment

‘Midnight madness’ in the N.C. legislature

Posted on January 5, 2012 by Jones Street Chronicler

What began as a one-day special session to consider a single veto override vote turned into a late-night partisan fight illustrating deep divisions in the N.C. legislature going into an election year.

State lawmakers returned to Raleigh on Wednesday to take up Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto of a bill that would change key components of the Racial Justice Act, which allows felons on death row to use statistical data to allege racial bias in their sentences.

Under the act, a judge who believes such discrimination played a role in a capital punishment case could change a prisoner’s sentence from death to life without parole. Critics of the act, including many district attorneys across the state, say it could open the door for some convicted murderers to eventually be released from prison. Supporters of the law say such a scenario is not possible.

In December, Perdue vetoed Republican-backed changes to the Racial Justice Act that would have done away with key provisions of the law. That veto required the governor to call lawmakers back to Raleigh to either override or sustain her veto.

The N.C. Senate, where the GOP has a veto-proof majority, did vote to override Perdue’s veto. However, in the N.C. House, where Republicans fall short of such a majority, leaders sent the vetoed bill to a committee for further steady, instead of attempting an override.

It was at this point that many legislators assumed their work was done until February. However, House Republicans amended the special session’s adjournment resolution to allow the chamber to reconvene just after midnight Thursday morning and possibly take up a slew of vetoed bills, including controversial measures on offshore drilling and voter ID.

Democrats lambasted that move, saying it was contrary to the rules of special sessions as outlined in the N.C. Constitution. They also blasted what they said was the GOP breaching an earlier agreement brokered between the parties to leave town after considering the vetoed Racial Justice Act.

In the debate over the “midnight session,” House Majority Leader Skip Stam (R-Wake) accused Gov. Perdue of engaging in political “gamesmanship,” a reference to a dust up earlier Wednesday when the GOP said Perdue was delaying her appointment of Republican Trudi Walend to fill a vacancy in the N.C. House. Although Walend officially joined the House that evening, Republicans may have attempted a sort of political payback by overriding Perdue’s veto of a bill that would prevent the state educators association – a strong ally of the governor – from collecting dues out of its members’ paychecks.

That override occurred at about 1 a.m. Thursday morning with several Democratic House members absent.

While the two parties have hardly been harmonious during last year’s often-contentious legislative sessions, the early morning veto this week may have signaled an even greater level of partisan rancor as the legislature enters a key election year to determine control of that body.

Posted in special session, veto | Leave a comment

Cleaning out the ‘veto garage’?

Posted on January 3, 2012 by Damon Circosta

Will the “veto garage” open up?

On Wednesday, the N.C. General Assembly will meet to consider overriding Gov. Bev Purdue’s veto of a bill that would change the way death penalty convicts can challenge their sentences. Votes to override vetoes are rare in North Carolina, partially because the veto is a relatively new component of the state’s politics.

For most of our state’s history, the governor did not have the authority to reject laws passed by the legislature. It wasn’t until 1996 that the veto came on board, making North Carolina the last state in the union to bestow such authority to its chief executive. A veto wasn’t successfully overridden until 2008 when a bill that would exempt the towing of recreational boats from some regulations was passed despite Gov. Mike Easley’s objection.

A veto doesn’t mean that the proposed legislation is officially dead. The General Assembly can overcome a veto if three-fifths of each chamber of the legislature votes to override and this is what Wednesday’s session is all about.

Republicans hold 31 of the 50 seats in the N.C. Senate. If all members show up and vote on party lines, they would have the numbers to override a veto. In the N.C. House, Republicans control 68 of the 52 seats – not quite three-fifths – so it is the chamber that is being more closely monitored.

The bill being considered for a veto this time was passed along party lines. Assuming Republicans vote to override and Democrats do not, it will all come down to which members make the trip to Raleigh. As the General Assembly is a “citizen’s legislature,” not a full time job, many members may have other commitments.

But there is more at stake here than just appeals for capital felons and thus more incentive to come to Raleigh. Although it might require some legislative maneuvering, it is possible that any bill that has been vetoed at any time this last session could be brought up for a vote. Bills about energy regulation, community colleges, health care and voting have been “parked” in a “veto garage” and could also be considered if the Republican leadership thinks they can pass them.

Of course VoterRadio.com will carry these sessions live.  Stay tuned.

Posted in veto | Leave a comment

N.C. legislature ends its work for the year (maybe)

Posted on November 29, 2011 by Jones Street Chronicler

At the end of this week’s three-day “mini session,” the N.C. General Assembly adjourned for the remainder of 2011 on Tuesday, concluding a legislative year that saw a six-month regular session, followed by a series of more limited shorter sessions.

On Monday, the N.C. Senate took up proposed changes to the Racial Justice Act, which allows death row inmates to use statistical data when contending racial bias in their trial.

Under the law, inmates who successfully prove racial prejudice played a role in their conviction could have their sentences changed from death to life in prison, without the possibility of parole. Some critics, including many district attorneys throughout the state, claim the law could result in a de facto repeal of the death penalty in North Carolina.

Republican supporters of changes to the act said their plan was aimed at reforming the measure, while Democratic opponents of the alterations said the changes would essentially gut and overturn the law.

Following a public hearing that featured often emotional stories from the families of murder victims – some of whom opposed altering the Racial Justice Act – along with the personal account of Darryl Hunt, who attributed his wrongful conviction to racial bias, the Senate Judiciary I Committee approved the proposed changes.

The full Senate debated the proposed alterations for more than an hour Monday night before voting 27-17 along party lines to concur with the House, sending the bill to Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue, who has not yet indicated if she will sign or veto the measure.

Meanwhile, the N.C. House on Monday took up a bill that would temporarily cap the state’s gas tax until the summer of 2012. While several Democratic House members argued that the loss in tax revenue could jeopardize jobs associated with transportation projects, the measure tentatively passed with bipartisan support on its second reading, as 29 Democrats joined a unified Republican caucus in voting for the bill.

House Minority Leader Joe Hackney (D-Chatham) objected to a final vote on the issue, a move that typically delays the vote until the following day. However, Rep. John Blust (R-Guilford) moved that the rules be suspended so as to push ahead with a final vote without waiting until the next day. That motion resulted in a gentle rebuke from Blust’s own party, as Majority Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake) noted he could not recall a time that the previous Democratic majority had attempted such a maneuver when the GOP was in the minority.

Blust in turn withdrew his motion and a final vote was held Tuesday afternoon, resulting in similar bipartisan support for the gas-tax cap. But by then the Senate had already left town, adjourning just after midnight early Tuesday morning.  Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) had indicated Monday that his chamber would prefer to look at cutting the gas tax when they return for their normally scheduled session in May of next year, as reported by Laura Leslie of WRAL.

Before wrapping up its business on Tuesday, the House debated a Republican-backed non-binding resolution calling on organizers of the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte to give contract opportunities to non-unionized North Carolina companies.  The resolution was approved 75-42 after a lengthy partisan debate, with Democrats saying it was unnecessary and noting that convention organizers had already awarded contracts to non-unionized businesses from the Charlotte area.

The House and Senate are now adjourned until Feb. 16, 2012, barring a possible special session called by Gov. Perdue. One issue that could prompt the governor to bring lawmakers back to Raleigh would be to make official Monday’s agreement between Perdue’s office and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians allowing live-dealer gambling at the reservation’s casino.

More news from this week at the N.C. legislature:

Mark Binker from the Greensboro News & Record explains the “beer bill” passed yesterday by both chambers.

Laura Leslie of WRAL reports on Rep. Bill Faison’s call for fellow-Democrat Bev Perdue to not run for re-election in 2012 and his apparent interest in her post.

John Frank from the Raleigh News & Observer offers a look at Rep. Tom Murry’s (R-Wake) car-bumper-affixed illuminated campaign billboard.

And as always, full audio of this week’s legislative session is available at VoterRadio.com.

 

Posted in 2011 legislative session | Leave a comment

N.C. Legislature approves fixes to new voting maps

Posted on November 8, 2011 by Jones Street Chronicler

On the 100th legislative day this year, North Carolina lawmakers returned to Raleigh Monday to take up corrections to new voting maps that erroneously left out thousands of citizens when drawing legislative and congressional districts.

Holding the reins of power in both chambers of legislature for the first time in more than a century, the Republican majority overseeing this round of redistricting said the error was due to a software glitch that could be remedied with the “curative” bills considered yesterday.

“All that has occurred here is a coding problem in a program developed by the ISD [Information Systems Division] section of the General Assembly staff,” said Rep. Nelson Dollar (R-Wake). “[The Democratic] plan missed people as well when it was run through this program. It was a technical problem and it’s being corrected with a technical bill.”

Democrats countered that the state constitution allows for redistricting to occur just once per decade and any further changes to the voting maps passed by the legislature in July would require the maps to first be declared unconstitutional by a state court.

“I would suggest that 480,000 people are not units of geography and they are not glitches,” said Rep. Rick Glazier (D-Cumberland). “They are people who were, inadvertently or otherwise – and I have no reason to believe it wasn’t inadvertent – in the wrong place or simply not counted at all in the language of the bill.”

Glazier added, “That is not a glitch. That is an unconstitutional series of errors.”

The corrected maps were approved largely along party lines Monday evening and will be submitted for review by the U.S. Justice Department, which last week gave approval to the flawed maps.

Following the daylong redistricting efforts, lawmakers voted to adjourn until Nov. 27. Several Democrats voiced their opposition to returning for yet another special session in 2011, when the next regularly scheduled session begins in May. In addition to the regular session that ran from January through June this year, the legislature convened for special sessions in July and September.

“This wreaks absolute havoc on anyone who is trying to hold a job,” said Rep. Paul Luebke (D-Durham). “This plan totally undermines the idea of a ‘citizens legislature.’”

Republicans responded by saying the special sessions are simply an extension of the regular gamut of committee meetings held throughout the year.

“It’s just an addition to what we’re doing, coming down here and doing the people’s business, which for the 10th largest state in the union is something we should understand we have to do,” said Dollar.

Most members of the N.C. General Assembly are paid about $14,000 per year, along with per diems for their time in Raleigh and reimbursement for travel.

Full audio of Monday’s legislative session is available on VoterRadio.com.

 

 

Posted in 2011 legislative session, Redistricting | Leave a comment

New poll: Voters want U.S. representative to live in their district

Posted on July 29, 2011 by Brent Laurenz

The recently enacted redistricting plan for North Carolina’s 13 congressional districts draws two sitting members of Congress outside of the districts they currently represent.  Rep. Brad Miller (D-13) has been drawn into the new District 4 with Rep. David Price (D). Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-7) has been drawn into the new District 8 with Rep. Larry Kissell (D).

To run for Congress in North Carolina, candidates are not required to live in the district they aim to represent. But where they live could greatly impact their election chances.

A new poll commissioned by the N.C. Center for Voter Education finds that Miller and McIntyre might have a hard time being reelected to their current districts if they live outside the district lines.  An overwhelming majority—70 percent—of North Carolina voters want their representative in Congress to live in the same district as them.  Just 22 percent say that living outside the district would be fine, but only as long as their representative still lives in the same city or county as them.  A scant seven percent respond that it doesn’t matter where their representative lived as long as it is in North Carolina.

McIntyre lives less than 10 miles from the boundary of the new District 7, but unfortunately for him his home county of Robeson has been almost completely drawn out of District 7 and is now almost entirely within District 8.

Miller lives even closer to the new District 13, which he has represented since the district was created during the last round of redistricting.  Miller lives only 0.13 miles from the District 13 boundary—just a little bit longer than two football fields—under the new congressional plan adopted this week.  Much of Wake County and Raleigh still remain in District 13 as well.

On paper it would seem that Miller would have an easier shot of running for and retaining his current district since he lives so close to the boundary and much of his home city and county will still be in his district.  McIntyre might have more of an uphill battle though since most of his home county now belongs to the 8th district.

If Miller or McIntyre do choose to run for reelection without moving, they will have to overcome 70 percent of voters who want their representative to live inside their district.

Posted in Redistricting | Tagged | Leave a comment

N.C. legislature gives final approval to new voting maps

Posted on July 28, 2011 by Jones Street Chronicler

The N.C. General Assembly gave final approval to new congressional and legislative districts Wednesday. The redistricting plan now awaits federal approval before being implemented for the 2012 elections.

The legislature voted largely along party lines to pass the Republican-drawn voting districts. Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue has no veto authority over redistricting bills.

With Republicans in full control of the N.C. General Assembly for the first time in more than a century, the GOP holds the reins of the redistricting process this year. While they were effectively powerless to prevent the Republican majority from passing the proposed district maps, Democrats spoke at length to heavily criticize the redistricting plan for being what they perceived as overly partisan.

Democrats also attacked the Republican-generated maps for what they said was grouping black voters into majority-minority districts so as to make surrounding areas more hospitable for the GOP.

“This plan follows principles that result in a map that is unfair, not legal, has too many split and too few whole counties,” said House Minority Leader Joe Hackney (D-Chatham, Moore, Orange).

Republican legislative leaders have indicated they will take a dual track in pursuing federal approval, sending the maps to both the U.S. Justice Department and U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

Critics of the new redistricting plan, including the N.C. Democratic Party and N.C. NAACP, have suggested that they may file suit against the Republican-produced maps.

Passage of the congressional and legislative voting maps came on the same day that the nonpartisan N.C. Center for Voter Education released a poll showing a majority of state voters concerned about gerrymandering and distrustful of either party to draw fair districts. The survey also finds that 65 percent of voters believe redistricting authority should be removed from the legislature and given to a nonpartisan body.

Posted in 2011 legislative session, Redistricting | Leave a comment

A better way to get one person, one vote?

Posted on July 27, 2011 by Brent Laurenz

North Carolina is about to pass redistricting plans for the state House and Senate as well as its 13 congressional districts.  The first criteria that must be met in drawing new districts is to fulfill the “one person, one vote” requirement, which means that each district must have roughly the same population.  But does the current redistricting process truly conform to the “one person, one vote” standards required by the federal government?

To find the ideal population for a district after the census, the state takes North Carolina’s current population (9,535,483 after the 2010 census) and divides it by the number of districts—13 congressional, 50 state Senate and 120 state House—to arrive at the ideal population.

This counts everyone who lives in those districts, but should it?

Clearly, this is all speculation and theoretical, but what if the state used Voting Age Population (VAP) to determine the ideal population instead of Total Population?  Wouldn’t this give us a better interpretation of one person, one vote?  Total Population counts every living person, including those under the age of 18 who can’t vote.  Voting Age Population counts only those 18 and over.  So if the goal is to create districts where each person’s vote is equal in every district, perhaps it makes sense to only count those who are eligible to vote.

Why is this a problem?  Well, if you live in a hypothetical District 33 with 50,000 voting age people and neighboring District 27, again hypothetical, has 100,000 voting age people, as a voter in District 33 you essentially have double the voting power than a voter in 27.  On paper this would appear to violate the spirit of “one person, one vote.”

Taking a look at the proposed new districts* for North Carolina we do find a pretty substantial discrepancy in Voting Age Population among the districts.  Under the congressional plan there is a difference of 43,421 voters between the most populous Voting Age district (District 11 with 581,361 VAP) and the least populous (District 2 with 537,940 VAP).  The difference of 43,421 voters equals 5.92% of the ideal population of 733,499.

The N.C. Senate has an even bigger disparity, proportionally, than the congressional plan.  The Senate map has a difference of 29,127 voters between the highest VAP district (District 16 with 161,063) and the lowest VAP district (District 21 with 131,936).  The ideal population of a Senate district is 190,710, which means the 29,127 VAP difference is equal to 15.27% of ideal population.

The N.C. House has the biggest disparity though.  Using the proposed House redistricting plan, the highest VAP district is District 34 with 67,925 VAP and the lowest is District 68 with 50,112 VAP, a difference of 17,813.  Since the ideal population of a House district is 79,643 the VAP difference would equal 22.42% of ideal population—or more than one-quarter of a House district total population.

Put another way, House District 34’s VAP would be equal to 85% of the ideal population for that district while District 68 would equal only 63% of ideal population.  Similarly, Senate District 16’s VAP is equal to 84% of ideal population and District 21 VAP would be 69% of ideal population.

Again, why does this matter?  There would be 22% fewer eligible voters in House District 68 than District 34.  Since the rule is “one person, one vote” the current populations would seem to be out of compliance.

Using VAP for redistricting has plenty of flaws—what to do with prisoners who can’t vote for instance—but it’s an interesting idea when we are talking about equal representation.  Nobody is suggesting we overhaul the whole system, but it’s something to think about.

—————————

*The VAP numbers used in this blog post refer to proposed maps under consideration prior to updated maps released today. Return to reading blog post

Posted in Redistricting | 1 Comment

Legislative committees take up redistricting debate

Posted on July 22, 2011 by Jones Street Chronicler

What was ostensibly an informational meeting of the N.C. House and Senate Redistricting Committees Thursday often times seemed an opening salvo in a possible court battle over new voting maps for North Carolina.

The committees met jointly for a two-hour morning session focused on congressional maps before separating for staggered meetings to take up proposed changes to their respective chamber’s districts.

With Republicans in control of the legislature for the first time in more than a century, the GOP also wields the map-drawing pen for the first time in the modern redistricting era. As such, legislative Democrats now find themselves in the equally novel position of watching from the sidelines as congressional and legislative districts are redrawn, sometimes in dramatic fashion.

Sen. Bob Rucho (R-Mecklenburg) and Rep. David Lewis (R-Harnett),  who serve as redistricting committee chairs, were grilled by Democrats on the proposed maps Thursday. The line of criticism during the committee meetings was largely an extension of comments heard during public hearings held throughout the state earlier this month.

Questions focused on the reshuffling of voting districts that sometimes divide neighboring communities, while grouping seemingly disparate geographic regions. Democrats also zeroed in on the issues of “double-bunking” — when two incumbents are drawn into the same district — and the creation of majority-minority districts.

House Minority Leader Joe Hackney (D-Chatham, Moore, Orange) questioned Lewis about the justification for changes to the congressional map like that seen with the 4th District, currently held by Congressman David Price, a Democrat.

“I’ve heard [the 4th District] described in this map as Italy,” Hackney said.

“I’d be happy to review any map you submit, Rep. Hackney, which you have not submitted,” replied Lewis. The refrain was heard frequently throughout the day, with Republicans countering criticism by noting that Democrats had yet to submit alternative redistricting plans.

Perhaps the most prominent line of questioning surrounded the composition of majority-minority districts. Several Democrats accused Republican mapmakers of “packing” black voters into districts in order to make surrounding regions more GOP-friendly.

Republicans responded with the claim that they are simply complying with the letter of the law as laid out by the Voting Rights Act, which calls for the creation of districts that give minorities a realistic chance of electing candidates of their choice.

As he did on several occasions at recent redistricting public hearings, Rucho asked Democrats to provide a legal definition of “packing.”

Sen. Dan Blue (D-Wake) responded that, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said of obscenity, you know packing “when you see it.”

“So I assume you have no legal background or basis on that analysis that you made,” Rucho said.

“Only 38 years of practicing law,” Blue replied.

The Senate Redistricting Committee may vote upon the proposed congressional and senatorial maps Friday. The House Redistricting Committee may vote upon changes to its districts Friday or Saturday. A final floor vote could come next week.

Republicans need a simple majority to pass the new maps, a threshold they hold in both chambers. Democratic Gov. Perdue has no veto power when it comes to redistricting, but the plan would need final approval from the U.S. Justice Department or federal court.

Full audio of Thursday’s redistricting committee meetings can be heard with the player below, provided by VoterRadio.com.



Posted in legislative audio, Redistricting | Leave a comment