For years Republicans were largely ignored in legislative decision-making. Democrats are learning that payback can be swift, ugly and not always well reasoned.

Representative Tom Murry, a freshman Republican from Wake County introduced a bill that would essentially gut the Department of Commerce. In his “NC Jobs and Commerce Corporation” bill he takes aim at three sore spots for Republicans.

By moving the economic development functions of Commerce to the University of North Carolina Republicans take direct aim at the Governor, effectively removing our chief executive as chief recruitment officer. A new economic development board, not headed by the Governor, would presumably oversee that function. This bill would see the loss of jobs as fewer photographers, pilots and press people would be needed when photo-op ribbon cuttings are eliminated.

Republicans have never thought the regional economic partnerships a great idea and funding to them would be cut, essentially gutting them. The bill would set in motion an economic development program similar to that in Indiana.

One would think this was just another freshman introducing a far-fetched piece of legislation were it not for Danny McComas’ fingerprints all over the bill. McComas is one of the leadership team, a veteran legislator who is smart enough to get someone else to send up his trial balloon.

UNC heading up economic development? Patterning ourselves after Indiana? Taking the Governor out of economic development?

We’re not a fan of incentives and we believe the regional partnership concept needs revisiting but one of the big functions of our Governor is selling our state to potential industrial clients. They expect to see the Governor making the case and closing the deal. Sidelining her doesn’t make sense. And gutting Commerce doesn’t, either. This bill deserves careful consideration by the House Rules Committee. 

We hear Governor Bev Perdue is strongly considering a veto of the revisions to the State Health Plan passed by the legislature. Teachers and retired state employees have been keeping phone lines and the Internet busy complaining about having to pay premiums for their own health insurance.

There are threats of a lawsuit claiming a breach in a longstanding compact between the state and its employees, especially retirees. For years the promise was that after five years of state service an employee would have his or her health insurance paid for life upon reaching age 65, a promise that resulted in a projected $30+ billion dollar unfunded liability for the plan. That was changed a few years back but there are many who are still under the old plan. Employees further claim that in exchange for not paying premiums on their own health insurance they were willing to accept lower pay than they might have received in the private sector.

The employees say they are willing to accept higher deductibles and co-pays in lieu of paying personal premiums. But this points to other problems in the plan. Employees now pay no premiums and a large number, we are told as much as 70 percent, opt to purchase insurance for their dependents from other companies because they can do so at cheaper prices, especially if their dependents are healthy. So the State Health Plan gets left with sicker and older members, those who will use more health care and are most costly to insure. Premium costs reflect this experience.

The issue has the Governor nervous for herself and for the Democratic Party since teachers and state employees are big supporters of both. The issue has the makings of a political landmine for Perdue in which she is damned if she vetoes the bill and damned if she doesn’t. Look for the voices of teachers, state employees and retirees to win her support and have her place the big red “No” stamp on the bill.

If she does, she now owns the current and future problems of the State Health Plan. 

The joint legislative redistricting committee is expected to begin rolling out their plans for rearranging North Carolina’s congressional and legislative districts next week and you should expect to see the victors (legislative Republicans) enjoying the spoils when the maps are revealed. Republicans understand this is their best opportunity since Reconstruction to change the political landscape of this state, a way to maintain their control into the next decade. Regardless of the rhetoric about fair and impartial actions you can expect to see Republican footprints all over these maps. Click here to see the current districts.

 Some have boasted this is easy, given the sophistication of computer modeling, but those assigned the tasks are finding some real challenges.

Let’s begin with the 1^st Congressional District held by G.K. Butterfield, meandering through eastern rural counties. In order to maintain roughly equal population in all 13 districts and keep this a “majority minority” district, as required by the Voting Rights Act, this district is in for some sweeping change. This region didn’t grow to the degree other districts have enjoyed so count on it encompassing even more geography than the present range from the northern borders down to the Onslow coast. There are rumors the new map might even increase the percentage of African American voters; some speculate it could even wander into southwest Raleigh.

We hear rumblings that Mike McIntyre’s 7^th District and Larry Kissell’s 8^th, which are adjacent, might be reconfigured in such as way the two might be forced to run against each other. The 7^th goes from southeastern Carolina up past Fayetteville while the 8^th currently includes Cabarrus and parts of Union County east to Scotland. It is easy to see how these two could be made more compact.

The same could be the case with the 4^th and 13^th, currently held by the David Price and Brad Miller, respectively. Price’s current district includes large parts of Wake, Durham, Orange and Chatham Counties, while Miller’s borders parts of Wake, Durham and Orange while also including northern counties like Rockingham, Caswell and Person. One could foresee new maps that might put two incumbents in the same district.

Incumbent Heath Shuler’s 11^th District will become larger and more Republican, prompting some to speculate the conservative former Washington quarterback might call an audible and switch to the Republican Party. We’ve heard those rumors before, however and they have proved false. An interesting turn might see the 11^th take in some of the counties now in Virginia Foxx’s 5th, including Foxx’s home county. Even so Foxx is expected to continue to enjoy a strong Republican base. We haven't heard much discussion about the 10th District of incumbent Patrick McHenry.

Mel Watt’s famous “inkblot” 12^th will remain another “majority minority” seat. The 9^th, held by Sue Myrick, will shrink in geography but will remain Republican and Howard Coble will be protected in his 6^th district. Of real interest will be the reconfigured 2^nd district, now held by freshman congresswoman Renee Ellmers and the 3^rd held by Walter Jones, also contiguous in many counties. We hear mapmakers are trying to redraw the conservative 2^nd so that it will ensure a Republican officeholder while also protecting Jones’ 3^rd. Depending on the layout former Congressman Bob Etheridge, who has made no secret of his desire to recapture his seat, may find himself in even less friendly environs than before. 

 We will soon learn how Republicans plan to take advantage of their new positions of power and the opportunity presented them. 

HAND-DELIVERED

 March 23, 2011

 Speaker Thom Tillis

2304 Legislative Building,

Raleigh, NC 27601-1096

Dear Speaker Tillis,

Congratulations on your election as Speaker. Like many North Carolinians, I am hopeful that your leadership will lead to a stronger economic foundation for our state. I am writing to offer my thoughts on three separate measurers currently being considered by the North Carolina General Assembly.

First, I would like to offer my enthusiastic and unqualified support for legislation that would establish term limits for the positions of Speaker of the House and Senate President Pro Tem. Concentration of power, whether it is in Cairo or on Jones Street, has a pernicious effect on government. Your leadership on this issue has been important, and I hope that the majority of both chambers will see the wisdom of this legislation. During the last five years, I have repeatedly advocated on this issue as I believe it is a critical reform. Simply put, it elevates public service over the raw pursuit of political power. 

Second, I hope you will consider ways to diminish the role of caucus politics on legislative outcomes. Many of the problems that face our state do not yield themselves to simplistic ideological solutions. It makes little sense for the controlling political caucus to write legislation behind closed doors and then try to use their majority status to ram the legislation through the General Assembly. This practice was wrong-headed during Jim Black’s tenure as Speaker, and it is wrong-headed today.

Let me take the current charter school legislation as an example. In just a few short months, the General Assembly has taken a solid idea with bipartisan support—expanding our state’s charter school toolbox—and instead crafted legislation that has hardened the partisan divide in Raleigh. Perhaps more importantly, the legislation does not accomplish its goal of advancing educational opportunities across the state. Most North Carolinians believe that a limited number of charter schools can play a role in expanding educational opportunities for our state’s children and should be part of the state’s policy options. The legislation passed by the Senate was not the by-product of this bipartisan coalition but rather a narrow ideological construct that defies common sense. The legislation fails to acknowledge that the state simply can not oversee 50 new charter schools a year; fails to properly distinguish between non-profit sponsors and for-profit operators (who may not have children’s education as their top priority); and fails to adequately address questions about access, diversity, and accountability for student outcomes. North Carolina’s educational system will suffer if this bill passes in its current form.  

Last, I want to express my dismay that important campaign finance reforms have been included in a nakedly partisan voter identification bill.  The fact that these provisions have been included in a bill that in all likelihood will be vetoed and/or challenged in the courts does not advance these campaign finance reforms or make their passage likely this session. I strongly support measures designed to lessen the influence of the pay-to-play culture in state politics, but the inclusion of these items in the “Restore Confidence in Government” legislation (H351, S352) is a death knell for reform. I encourage you to separate these pay-to-play provisions from the voter identification legislation in the hopes of achieving a successful outcome for pay-to-play reform.

I am happy to discuss these or other issues with you, your staff, and your caucus at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Joe Sinsheimer

Legislation now being considered by the General Assembly would put a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot guaranteeing citizens open government meetings and access to public documents. While we agree strongly with both concepts we wonder whether this is more a political ploy than a serious move for more sunshine in government.

Our legislators have long been willing to pass legislation that provides for others in government opening their meetings and documents to the public. The trouble is that our lawmakers have never understood they fall under these same laws and have consistently conducted meetings behind closed doors and refused to furnish information.

I, for one, am weary of the “do as I say, not as I do” approach to open government. Instead of passing more laws to be ignored by lawmakers themselves, why not have them set the example for all other agencies of government to follow? People would notice!

Political observers were a bit surprised when Governor Perdue announced that her new legislative lobbyist will be Representative Pryor Gibson. The Anson County Democrat has been one of the legislature’s top leaders, previously serving as co-chair of the House Finance Committee. In Gibson, Perdue is getting an experienced negotiator who has demonstrated experience in building coalitions. He is also widely recognized as a highly effective fundraiser for House Democrats.

What does this signal? Most observers believe it indicates Perdue will be looking to find solutions rather than picking fights on Jones Street. He has demonstrated that he can be independent and his maturity will add gravitas to the likes of Britt Cobb and other senior advisers to Perdue, if she will listen to them.

There has been more speculation as to why Gibson might accept the new role. Some think it an acknowledgment that Republicans might be in charge of the legislature for some time to come and Gibson’s leadership role might therefore be limited. None doubt this was a very positive move by Governor Perdue.

This posting is a follow up to discussion from NC SPIN show #644, written by NC SPIN panelist and political observer Jeanne Miliken Bonds.

This past Sunday, NC Spin  aired and we discussed Laura's Law, HB 49, named for a young woman who was killed last July when a drunk driver slammed into the car carrying the 17-year-old. The driver had three DWI convictions already.

The accident has led to discussions about North Carolina's continuous alcohol monitoring system, or "ankle bracelet," law. Under current law, a court cannot order an offender to wear an ankle bracelet for more than 60 days. Proposed legislation would change that limit as well as other penalties for repeat offenders.

An absolute tragedy and unfortunately one that occurs far too often. This bill also adds a level of punishment, "aggravated level one punishment, " which would be imposed on offenders when three or more "aggravating factors" are present:

• A conviction for impaired driving within the last 7 years or following the current offense
• Driving with a license revoked for another impaired driving offense
• Serious injury to another person caused by the impaired driving in the current instance
• Driving with a passenger under the age of 16

Unfortunately, NC Spin is a 30-minute program (I wish it was an hour!) with four panelists so there just is not time to thoroughly discuss a topic that warrants a more in-depth discussion.

When I worked at the Courts, we researched the North Carolina Alcohol/Drug Council statistics showing a wide variation in DWI conviction rates among North Carolina's judicial districts. Then, and now, these incidents cause some to wonder whether the courts are functioning properly. In fact, almost always, the question is "Are Judges doing their job?"

 Usually, the number of defendants tried in District Coiurt who are found not guilty is low. And, it is true that there is variance in DWI conviction rates across the State. There are differences in attitudes of the members of the public who form the juries in the various districts of the State. Historically, juries in eastern North Carolina acquit a larger percentage of DWI defendants than juries elsewhere in the state.

 And, those who try these cases will provide anecdotal evidence that jurors sometimes take a more lenient view when they actually sit on a jury and must make a decision that will affect the freedom or livelihood of an individual defendant.

 Because of increasing caseloads, an increasing population, and not enough judges per capita,  prosecutors are forced to give great weight to the track record of juries in their districts when deciding which DWI cases to prosecute and which defendants they should allow to plead guilty to lesser offenses.

 Laura's Law will be a deterrent if the Courts are given enough resources to try more cases. Passing new laws, without the resources will not achieve the desired results. Remember, the same judges are trying murder, rape, armed robbery cases.

 When penalties are increased, more defendants plead not guilty and exercise their right to a jury trial. More of those convicted appeal and exhaust all of the time and court resources possible. Juries want more proof at trial. Judges focuses on many different cases, all of which are critical to a segment of society so to assume Judges are not doing their job is wrong. 

 Only the General Assembly can provide resources to the Courts. Some assume fines and fees go to the Courts, but they do not, those monies go to the General Fund in most cases, and specified county funds in other cases.

 Since 1995, NC has had Drug Treatment Courts with very successful results, both pre-plea and post-sentence, but these special Courts are not funded statewide but have been increasing in number since 1995.  North Carolina Drug Treatment Courts are a relatively new part of the U.S. judicial system, and NC was one of the first States to have these Courts. These Courts have been shown to reduce the rate of recidivism and the overall cost to taxpayers in comparison to conventional courts. Unlike many States, North Carolina Courts can require individuals to participate in drug court whether they want to or not and completion of a drug court program will not typically result in reduced or dismissed charges.

 Again, resources are needed but the benefits to NC are a lower risk of recidivism as more participants remain drug free. To hear the stories of those who have successfully completed these Courts, is emotional and rewarding as they return to society as productive citizens.

 The answer. Resources.

NBC News, on Wednesday's Today show, reported that federal investigators are about to wrap up their case against former Senator John Edwards and their sources report that he will be indicted, in a matter of days or weeks, for campaign fund fraud in attempts to cover up his affair with Rielle Hunter.

NBC reports that a final review is being conducted before the federal prosecutor seeks Justice Department approval to indict. Wade Smith, Edwards’ attorney, has repeatedly said he doesn’t think his client has done anything wrong…unless, of course, you call having an extra-marital affair and spending huge sums of money, some of which was campaign money, wrong.

Joe Sinsheimer, North Carolina’s go-to political watchdog, was quoted in the NBC story as saying, “We already know that John Edwards acted badly.  We already know that he lied to his supporters.  We know he lied to his family and wife. The only remaining question: Were John Edwards’ activities criminal or not?”

More than a dozen witnesses have been called to testify before the Grand Jury in Raleigh, including, in the past few days, Edwards himself. We are told that investigators wish to visit Bunny Mellon, the 100 year old heiress, to record her testimony for possible use in a trial. Read the full NBC story.

I felt sorry for Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger Tuesday night. The lighting in the Senate Chamber wasn’t good; the audio was worse. It sounded as if he was speaking into a barrel and you could hear crowd noise in the background, presumably those exiting the House chamber.  And he didn’t have the advantage of a teleprompter, as Governor Perdue enjoyed, so he was looking down at his speech during his whole address.

But I was most disappointed in his remarks. If Governor Perdue’s assessment of North Carolina at this moment was too rosy, viewers probably felt Berger’s response of the “grim” picture of current reality probably didn’t ring true either. I have heard Berger speak before and know him to be a very effective speaker, but that wasn’t the case Tuesday night. After about five minutes it just felt like blah, blah, blah….same ole, same ole. Democrats got us into this mess and we have to fix it. Cut, cut, cut. O.K, we got it.

Here was a marvelous chance for the Republicans to tell us on statewide TV their vision for North Carolina. Now that they have control of the state what do they want to do? How are they going to improve education, mental health, transportation, and create jobs? Berger didn’t make it sound like Republicans are in charge but were still the minority party criticizing those who were making the real decisions. I’ve heard Phil do much better. Sorry to say, but this looked like a “not ready for prime time” presentation.