North Carolina made history again Monday, the not-so-bad kind.
If you were in earshot of Raleigh Monday, you might have heard: The state’s five living former governors—two Republicans, three Democrats: Jim Martin, Jim Hunt, Mike Easley, Bev Perdue and, strangest of all, Pat McCrory—gathered to denounce a pair of blatant legislative power grabs masquerading as constitutional amendments.
The legislature, in its depressingly partisan march to the ballot box, has finally evoked a moment of bipartisanship from our former governors.
It was a remarkable scene, one appropriately assembled to combat remarkable affronts from the General Assembly. I can’t imagine these five sharing lunch, much less a brawl with the state legislature over two constitutional amendments that both deserve a swift defeat.[Read more…]
The highest profile public policy debate in North Carolina in the summer of 2018 revolves around the controversial decision of state legislative leaders to place a package of six constitutional amendments on the November ballot. Just yesterday, all five living former governors of the state held an extraordinary press conference in which they decried two of the amendments as egregious and deceptively labeled power grabs that would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the state for the worse.
Two other amendments in the package have been rightfully blasted for the destructive impact they would have on the fairness and adequacy of funding for core state services (the proposed income tax cap) and the right of hundreds of thousands of residents to vote (the voter ID amendment).
One of the six amendments to receive comparatively less attention in recent weeks, however, is the proposal to establish a constitutional right “to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.” While many critics have derided the proposal as a blatant attempt to spur voter turnout this fall amongst conservative rural voters, substantive criticism of the amendment has been largely muted, with many critics simply arguing that the amendment is silly and unnecessary because it wouldn’t really change anything.[Read more…] Read more