- [Kelly] State House Republicans affirm veto overrides and pull power away from the incoming governor and Attorney General and the State Supreme Court race, the votes are counted, but the battle continues.

This is State Lines.

- [Narrator] Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.

[bright music] ♪ - Hello again, welcome back to State Lines, I'm Kelly McCullen.

A very special episode for us, number 100.

So we sat down and put a list together, who do we want our 100th episode?

How about Brooke Medina of the John Locke Foundation.

And then after us, we're outnumbered by political analyst Travis Fein joins us.

Maggie Barlow debuting on State Lines.

Hi Maggie.

How you doing?

- Doing just fine, thank you for having me.

- Welcome to the show.

You're here with some loud mouths on this show today, so we're gonna have a lot to talk about.

David Capin on the in Political consultant outta the triad, good to have you, sir.

- Thank you for having me.

- Lot to talk about, we can start... We're gonna end up in court, by the way, with this, but- - It is North Carolina.

- Yeah, North Carolina's House convened this week to finish some business that had been addressed by the State Senate last week, so let's talk about constitutional amendments.

Well, one will be presented on a ballot that one amendment will require photo ID for any ballot cast in future elections.

The amendment seeks to elevate an active state law that even mail-in ballots carry the same Id mandate that in-person ballots require.

House leaders did not present for a floor vote, a second referendum option that would've asked you to consider capping the state income tax rate at 5% maximum.

They could do it, but with a massive legislative majority approving it, Travis.

Let's go back to what did happen, ignore what didn't.

There's gonna be no tax cap option, but photo ID for mail-in ballots, state law's there, this puts it right in the constitution if voters approve.

- Well, and it's already in the Constitution in a slightly different form, as is the tax cap, and I think that we voted on that in 2018.

Voters put it into the constitution, both things, and I think when Republican lawmakers come back six years later and say, "We need to do this again."

It makes the question really obvious, did they do the right thing the first time?

When else are they not doing the right thing?

And are they viewing the state constitution with the proper amount of respect when they're opening it up over and over and over again?

The other thing here, Voter ID, the amount of time and talent in this state that has been spent wasted, I would say arguing over Voter ID, I often think, well, what could we accomplish together if some of the best legal minds in the state did not have to keep fighting over Voter ID, which really doesn't make much difference in turnout.

The law right now is fine.

We don't always have to have this incremental fight at the margins that really does...

The biggest thing it does is divide us.

- Maggie, Voter ID is popular with Democrats and Republicans or so the polls seem to suggest yet he's right, they're fighting over it, and they're nibbling on changes at the edges.

What do you make of this idea?

Voters will ultimately decide, it's direct democracy in action, I guess.

- Yeah, that's right, and I think Travis made a good point about this already being on the ballot in 2018, voters decided it, it makes you wonder if the reason they're trying to do it again is just to have better turnout in 2026.

Maybe that'll make a difference on the ballot.

Get some other people to turn out with a concern about what would happen in 2026, so.

- Which is not how the state constitution ought to be used.

It's the state- - Absolutely not.

The founding document, it shouldn't be used as a turnout tool.

- David, let's swing that pendulum a little bit more towards the right, on this Republicans love Voter ID.

It does generate turnout, but there's cynicism now, you know, your side's just doing this to generate turnout and off your elections, your take on an amendment.

- Well, I certainly think it's not just Republicans that this is popular with.

I mean, overwhelmingly when it was on the ballot in 2018, North Carolinians love voter ID.

And this is simply taking what is the current law and current practice for requiring with mail-in votes and enshrining that in our state constitution, because one general assembly cannot bind future actions of future general assemblies.

And so by having it in the Constitution, they're ensuring that the spirit of law is maintained and I think it's just gonna enhance the fairness, accountability, and trust in our election system.

- Brooke, what do you make of taking laws, elevating 'em into amendments or optional amendments based on, you know, state vote?

Because we've done a lot of amendments in the last 10 years, more than I've ever seen in my lifetime.

- Well, I think it's always a good opportunity to give voters the chance to voice their own opinions and concerns.

Voter ID is something that is extremely popular, as was the income tax cap.

And so lowering it a little bit, moving it incrementally, I understand your point that you're making, Travis, about, you know, just constantly changing this.

But I also think there's something to be said about the wisdom of being incremental in our approach of things, to see how it plays out.

And the voter ID changes are just to basically pair up what the Constitution says with what the law already says, which is requiring voter ID be presented as well in absentee ballots.

- From a conservative standpoint.

You know, conservatives like to say this is a document written, it should be interpreted as it's written.

But when you change it every so many years, and I thought about this, don't you make it then a living, breathing document?

- Well, I think that there is the federal level constitution and the state level political dynamics are a little bit different.

The state level lawmakers are closer to the people and the public there and here in North Carolina.

And so I think it's okay for those tweaks to be made when it's brought before the people.

But I'm glad that at the federal level, with such a diverse electorate, that there are some more backstops in place.

- Megan.

- Look, you know, there was one other amendment on the ballot in 2018 and it was to change the State Board of Elections and that failed.

You know, that's an example of this taking power away from the governor and other things that we're seeing again.

So I think that's an important point to make that was kind of already put before the ballot.

And voters chose that they didn't want those changes.

And now we're seeing that all the time.

- To be clear, this voter ID, this new amendment is really just enshrining the current law under the Constitution.

And so it's not at all taking power away from the governor, but it is constitutionally ensuring uniform application of the laws.

As it currently sits, The laws in North Carolina per the Constitution could be unevenly applied to mail-in voters versus those who choose to vote in person.

So I think this is a much needed change to ensure that our constitution applies equally to all North Carolina citizens.

- Well then why didn't they do it six years ago?

It's so important.

Why did we just neglect to do it when we did this exact same thing six years ago?

- Well, as I said, it's just ensuring uniform application of the laws.

I think, you know, the constitution is, there's a process for it to be amended for a reason and this is one of those reasons to make sure that we can make these little tweaks as needed to ensure that everybody is having equal status under our state constitution.

- And in four weeks a new governor gavels in, and I've seen Josh Stein in action, a little more spirited outta that bully pulpit, I think.

Roy Cooper's good.

Josh is completely different, Mr. Stein, he is.

Legislation named after Helene Recovery also shifted powers away from the governor and towards the legislature, placing limits as well on the Attorney General's ability to argue against state laws.

Governor Roy Cooper and Governor Elect Josh Stein filed a lawsuit Thursday over this power shift, or at least part of it.

a provision within Senate Bill 382 makes the Highway Patrol an independent agency whose commander would be selected by legislators and no longer the Governor, Brooke.

Stein and Cooper say, it opens the door for the highway patrol leaders to simply ignore orders from the governor, especially during emergencies.

And he is the Chief Executive Officer of the state.

It also comes as the state auditor is gonna take over appointment powers over the Board of Elections, and then there's Attorney General Jeff Jackson.

He'll be banned from, they wanna stop him from showboating and joining lawsuits against the legislature and the Republican Party.

Let's just unpack all of this.

First of all, highway patrol independent agency subject to the legislature, not the chief executive.

- Well, I mean, there was a lawsuit that was just filed on that.

We'll see how that plays out.

It's interesting, and, you know, I'm not going to, you know, hold out any judgment right now because I think that's something that's just gonna be played out later.

- No one's been paying attention to that.

That's really in the weeds of the Senate Bill 382, Travis.

- Well, which is the problem.

It's 132 pages long.

They released it like an hour before they voted for it about two weeks after an election, where a lot of the things in it were driven by, "Well, we didn't like who won particular elections, and we can do this.

We have the power to ram this through.

We're gonna ram this through."

That's brazen, and we shouldn't accept process like that.

It's not the way state legislatures ought to work.

As for the highway patrol thing, let's say the, the head of the highway patrol needs to be fired.

Does the state legislature now have to come into session and hold a vote to change state law to fire a cabinet official in the governor's cabinet?

Is is that what this bill says?

I mean, it'd be nice if we'd had more time to digest it, but we weren't given that courtesy.

I think that's what it says.

Why is that smart?

- Maggie, Republicans will say, "Back in the day, when Democrats could not conceivably lose a legislative majority, they took power away from Lieutenant Governors and other offices in the Council of State that they were not down with or popular with."

So is this turnabout historically or I see precedent here in other years, in other eras, and even Democrats like Rufus Edmisten said, "Yeah, you mess up, they go after you."

- Well I think this is just taking it one too many steps too far.

These sessions, you know, they've had the super majority all year.

If they wanted to make these changes, and these changes were important, they should have done them during the regular legislative process, not rushed it through at the very end.

That's the big difference here.

- David, I've had Senator Berger here last year tell me, he said, "Don't compare our state constitution and the way the North Carolina government is set up going back to the Colonial times.

We're meant to be a strong legislative state."

But Democrats are saying, "Wait a minute.

There is that, but this is overhand.

This is too strong."

They're saying, "We're doing what we are allowed to do under the Constitution, therefore, it is constitutional."

- Well, you're exactly right.

And as a member of the executive branch, the Attorney General's job is not to set or create policy.

It's to enforce the laws that are passed by the General Assembly with a presumption of constitutionality.

And if you look at Article III Section 7 of the State Constitution, it even says that the duties of the Attorney General are prescribed by law.

And so it's absolutely in the purview of the General Assembly to set what those duties are or are not.

- Brooke, if you're an everyday person who just likes politics, but you're not in that rally bubble.

and people have hit me on this, "It's immoral.

It's this.

It's that.

It's power grabbing."

They don't say immoral.

They say power grabbing.

But it is in the Constitution in many places they can do it.

They're testing it right now.

If it holds up, does might make right?

- Well I think that just structurally, this is how the North Carolina government is set up, is to have that strong legislature, and let's just look at what these changes would make to the Attorney General's power in particular.

What it would say is that the AG can no longer intervene in the public interest, especially, I think where that is important and where it would play out is that when the Attorney General tries to sort of use his pulpit as a way to grandstand and position himself for a gubernatorial run, rather than actually doing the job of being the people's attorney.

And so when the Attorney General begins to showboat too much, I think the General Assembly, because of their constitutionally delegated powers, is able to curtail that a little bit.

I'm not sure that's really a big problem.

- Travis, what do you make of Attorney Generals across the state?

Some of them have made themselves outright celebrities.

We must admit, they've done a good job elevating their brand, even sometimes their court cases fall apart.

- Yeah, sure, and I mean, look, there's dozens and dozens of these cases, but I mean, one of 'em that Josh Stein did brought in billions of dollars nationally against opioid producers.

That was really important.

He's got a lawsuit, I believe right now against Facebook and Instagram, because of their impact on mental health for kids, particularly, and I mean, so some of these things are really important and yeah, it might get you the headlines, too, but I feel confident in any Attorney General that we send out there to spend their time, you know, they voted statewide, people chose them to spend their time as makes sense for the people in North Carolina.

- Now with the fentanyl, though, there was no state law that showed that any of the opponents were in support of, they would be supportive of those lawsuits.

- But that was, well, I mean, I guess now we have to go hat-in-hand every time and say, "Hey sir, ma'am, do you think we should file this lawsuit?"

And I'm not sure that that's the way to do it.

- Maybe buy a very nice hat.

The large Senate bill was first opposed by three Republican representatives out of western North Carolina hard hit by Hurricane Helene.

Those three legislators came home and voted for the veto override of Senate Bill 382.

It does move funding, at least they believe, from the rainy day reserve for hurricane relief.

Does not directly instruct the state how it should be spent.

That comes later.

It's reported that not even many Republican House members knew if the veto override would be successful, David.

Representative Mark Pless of Haywood and Madison Counties told Carolina Public Press his problem with how this bill was handled was why he voted no at first and it was presented as take it or leave it and he didn't have time to digest it, so he voted no.

That's some cover to say you voted against a lien funding that Republicans passed.

What do you make of this and the politics of slowing down a bill, even if it's passed quickly, it still benefits your constituency?

- Well, I think it's important to note that this bill is the third round of funding.

In the General Assembly, it's really encouraging to see how quickly they acted to come together, mostly on a bipartisan basis, to send massive resources out to the recovery efforts in western North Carolina and many of those funds are still unspent and so with the override of Senate Bill 382, the General Assembly has secured an historic total of $1.1 billion towards this recovery effort and so incoming House Speaker, Destin Hall, has even said that more will be coming.

- Maggie, why aren't we hearing more out there in the public about the bipartisanship nature of getting Helene recovered?

Yeah, they're picking and sniping at each other, but Joe Biden has been there.

Roy Cooper's been out there and the Republican leadership has been there as well, doing things in their own way, but money is flowing and being allocated.

- Right, well, this natural disaster hit all of North Carolina, Democrats and Republicans and everybody wants to make sure that there is the recovery effort that's needed.

It's just how this has been politicized and used in a vote that made all of these other massive changes.

It's really, you know, it's discouraging and it gives people a bad sense of how government works.

- They'll say it was efficient.

You have one or two days to come back.

People are busy.

It's the holidays.

Roll it all into one bill.

You say?

- No, that is not how we do legislation.

You should not have those kind of policy changes put in with disaster relief.

- Travis, Helene will be there, we'll hear her name probably for the next four years of the first Stein administration and Destin Hall's administration, I guess, if he goes a couple of terms.

You make of this?

I thought some people believe the state's doing a great job and others are out there on social media finding all kinds of reasons why it's not going so well.

- It incredibly hard and I have no doubt there are cracks in it but, I don't think there's anyone who wants to leave western North Carolina behind.

I absolutely believe Republicans in the legislature, Attorney General, soon to be Governor Stein, Governor Cooper, I absolutely believe this is and will continue to be priority number one, probably for all four years and probably beyond that too.

This is just a massive, massive problem.

I will say, yeah, congratulations to the representatives who voted against it.

Representative Pless, Clampitt and Gillespie, not so much because of this bill.

I'm sure they've secured promises that what they need for their constituents will come later and like I said, I think everybody's absolutely genuine when they say they will do things later, but I like it when rank and file lawmakers stand up to leadership because I think that's an important check on the highly concentrated power in our General Assembly that is in the Speaker of the House's office, in the Senate Pro Tem's office.

So I'm always, will kind of tip my cap to people who stand up against leadership.

Thank you.

- Brooke, tell us about this Office of Resilience and Recovery, and how is it working?

I know there's been some people looking into that, telling stories, or writing reports.

Not telling stories, writing reports and getting it out there.

Is it working well?

Would a pause be appropriate in funding to see how cash does get unlocked?

- Well, you know, Travis spoke about the good intentions, and I genuinely do believe there are good intentions all around to make sure that North Carolina recovers.

But that doesn't hold a candle to competence and it does not seem like the Office of Resiliency and Recovery is competent in this.

We still have people from Hurricanes Matthew and Florence that are not in homes.

That's unconscionable.

It's unacceptable.

And so, I think at the end of the day, there really does need to be some hard conversations and some real accountability on this.

And so, yes, funds should make sure that they're following the programs and the processes that actually work.

- Why did it take till now for the state Democrats and Republicans to look back.

Those folks are eight and seven years removed from a disaster needing help and now all of a sudden, it's important when monies could be hard to come by if this economy turns.

So why did it take so long you think?

- Yeah, that's a fair question to ask, and I think voters should be asking that of those that are in these positions.

To me, I think that what happened with Helene was so shocking and so shaking to so many people, it's almost as if, and it's tragic and not acceptable, but it's almost as if it became white noise on the coast whenever hurricanes would happen.

I mean, people would give their attention for a little while, but I think Helene really shook people up in a different way.

- Yeah, insurance leaders have been around us and they're just blown away.

Nobody saw the flooding coming 'cause it's the mountains.

The mountains don't flood, do they?

And you bet they do.

Maggie coming to you, we're gonna talk about this Supreme Court issue in North Carolina.

The Board of Elections has denied Republican State Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin's request to review and disqualify up to 60,000 ballots for not meeting different levels of meet of compliance.

It was a 3-2 vote, which was along party lines, where Democrats do have the majority.

Incumbent Justice Allison Riggs led by 732 votes when ballots were fully counted.

A partial recount did not change the outcome enough to trigger a full recount of every state ballot.

The state Republican party, Maggie, is weighing more appeals and, in fairness, the Griffin campaign is entitled to request more appeals.

Your take on this issue?

Allison Riggs is trying to declare victory for about three weeks now and the lawyers are saying, just enough in the public sphere, to say, "Wait, wait, wait, hold up.

We're gonna see what we're gonna do next."

- Sure.

Well, Justice Riggs has won this race.

The two recounts have confirmed it.

But as you mentioned, you know, Judge Griffin has challenged 60,000 votes, votes of active duty military.

Even Justice Riggs' own parents' votes were challenged.

And I just, you know, the state Board of Elections, on Wednesday, heard those challenges and voted against them and it is time now for Judge Griffin to do the honorable thing and to concede this race.

You know, this was a very close race and they should be proud of that work, but at the same time, you know, I was a part of the Beasley race in 2020 and those 400 votes still to this day haunt me.

But that's how elections work in America.

- Maggie, if you're on that campaign, how do you know when to quit when someone has paid you and put their trust in you to deliver a victory for them?

- Well, it became clear that the votes just weren't going to change.

I mean, what he's trying to do is to engineer a new election by trying to challenge these voters, many of whom have been voting for decades.

There was a story this week that said that some of them are current elected officials that thought their votes were counted.

So it just, it's time for Judge Griffin to do the right thing and to concede this election.

- Well, to be clear on something that Maggie said earlier, justice Riggs has not won this race.

Nobody's won the race until a certificate of election is issued by the State Board of Elections.

And so there's a legal process to ensure, I think both parties agree, we want every legal vote to count.

And if there's votes that are not legal, there are lawful avenues to pursue those challenges in a court of law.

And it's my understanding that both parties are awaiting the actual written order from the state board's proceeding this week before they can actually proceed with filing anything in court.

But I think what we can anticipate to see is a lawsuit filed in Wake County Superior Court, presumably making its way up to the Supreme Court.

And it will be interesting to see whether Justice Riggs ends up having to recuse herself in those final proceedings.

- What are Republicans saying in the consultant ranks in that world?

He's putting up a dire fight now, over a month into this, over those 700 votes.

And when you start talking about disqualifying ballots, 60,000 is a good sized town in North Carolina.

How do you, what are the politics of this?

How does it look even if it's the right, if it's right by law?

- Well, I think the problem is there's some that are not right by law.

And those are what the challenges are.

So at the county level, Republicans are challenging felons, deceased, removed, or denied voters.

And then those are working their way through the county board systems, ultimately going on appeal, many of them to the state Board of Elections.

And at the state level, they're challenging incomplete registrations, which are unverified voters, and that's the 60,000 that we're talking about here.

But the hearing this week at the State Board of Election did not give the Republicans the opportunity to really explain who those voters are and make their case.

It was really shut down before it began.

And so I think that's where both candidates have the right to pursue this in a court of law.

- Brooke, our good colleague there, John Locke, Mitch Kokai loves a good courtroom battle.

And the more obscure, the better.

If you start recounting ballots, do they only look at Riggs, the Riggs race, or does it look towards other close races across the state as well?

- Yeah, whenever these sort of stories happen and these challenges occur, it's always going to set in some way a precedent, whether that is just a colloquial defacto one that people are just assuming we need to start looking at these other races, or there's actual legal precedent that it sets.

And so to your point, Mitch does like a really niche case, and so I encourage people to go check out his work, 'cause he's following this really closely.

But yeah, it'll be interesting.

I don't think it will just be limited to Riggs.

- Travis, what do you think of this?

I mean, going after dead people and people that shouldn't have voted and felons, that seems legitimate to me.

- I find it hard to believe that this campaign has found 60,000 actually questionable votes.

You pick at this, it always goes, it just falls apart.

I didn't know the thing about Rigg's parents, I think that's a good little anecdote to say, hey, maybe they don't have it all together here.

The Carolina Public Press had some good reporting where they called 75 people.

Most of them didn't know that their vote was being challenged.

It seemed like everyone that I saw quoted in that story, they were a legitimate voter who had voted legitimately.

The McCrory campaign tried something like this back in, what year was it?

- 16?

- Something like that.

But I mean, it basically, it dragged on for years.

They ended up getting countersuit, I believe, for defamation by some of these voters, because the lawyers had just, look, we all know they're throwing things up against the wall, hoping something sticks.

So yeah, 60,000 questionable votes?

Please.

- I'm gonna give you the lead off on this final topic.

It's being reported that former North Carolina NAACP leader, Dr. William Barber, is hoping to revive Moral Monday protests in Raleigh in 2025.

Talk of tipping the hat in hat in hand.

A nod to news and observers, Ned Barnett, he reported this week that appetite to renew such protests may be small for the reverend.

That December legislative sessions saw protestors come in and cheer and boo and chant from the gallery.

They got kicked out and let out and recorded Travis, and every piece of legislation they were protesting ultimately was approved.

Now, I will say what caught me with Mr. Barnett's articles, the first time someone has looked at a more progressive protest movement and said it might be outta gas.

I haven't seen that in 10 years.

- Oh, I think it's outta gas.

I mean, I think this last election just, it stabbed woke right in the heart.

And I think that handwriting is pretty clear on the wall.

That said, Reverend Barber knows more about protest movements than I do, so I hesitate to second guess him, even though I just did.

And I'm about to do it again because I don't think that this will generate large crowds, and even if it did, I don't think it would work.

Republicans just have the numbers in the legislature.

- We've got about two minutes left.

Maggie, when is a protest effective?

I know there are a lot of both of these.

These are democratic protesters, but they're not affecting legislature.

I've been asked this off camera.

They're just not affecting anything.

It just makes people upset and galvanizes the red vote.

So what's the proper approach to protesting Republican policies if you think that should be done?

- Well, I don't think it does make a difference with the votes because the gerrymandered legislative districts that these folks are serving under is not gonna make a difference.

But what it does help with is it helps get voters and donors engaged and people wanting to come out and volunteer and do stuff.

So that is the benefit of them.

- David Cape?

- Our state is a representative republic.

And so communities are already sending their elected officials, their legislators to rally, to serve as their voice on that floor.

And so that's why it's a very important duty for legislative leaders to continue upholding this decorum on the floor to make sure that all representatives can have their voice heard on behalf of their communities.

- I've been down there a long time, Brooke, a year, 10 years, I've spent in, even if you didn't like the legislature you didn't interrupt the quorum of the chamber and that's all, it's a kind of a new thing right now where a lot of people are shouting "Shame."

They've analyzed this.

But where does protests fit in an environment where it is a heavy majority?

It will be a heavy majority in four weeks, but not a super majority under that.

- I think the public in general is just tired.

They're tired of the politics of pearl clutching.

And there is just so much that everybody just gets amped up about perpetually, or at least the political class tries to amp up the public.

And I feel like most people just, they wanna take care of their families.

They wanna take care of their communities.

Is there a place for protest?

Yes, but there's also a place for order and decorum.

And I think most people and most voters, they care about their lawmakers being effective and actually doing what they were sent to Raleigh to do, and the protests just take away from that a little bit.

- And that concludes the conversation.

Maggie, welcome to the show.

You held your own, hope you'll come back.

- Great.

Thank you for having me.

- Happy holidays to all of you.

And thank you for taking time outta your December day.

It's cold out there.

Thank you for watching.

Email me StateLines@PBSNC.org.

I'll see you next time.

[exciting music] - [Announcer] Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.