- Another veto override helps close out the 2024 state political business agenda, as lawmakers approve two constitutional amendment referenda for state voters.

This is "State Lines."

- [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.

♪ - Hello again, welcome back to "State Lines."

I'm Kelly McCullen.

Joining me today, a great panel.

A VIP in his own right, former North Carolina Attorney General, Rufus Edmisten.

To his right Dawn Vaughan, our good friend from the News & Observer, as is the John Locke Foundation's Mitch Kokai.

And in seat four, political analyst, and part bionic man, Joe Stewart.

[Joe laughing] Joe, guys, welcome.

- What, a brain transplant?

[panelists laughing] - Not quite.

His football career may be revived.

[panelists laughing] Joe, good to have you back.

Ready to talk politics.

You had a little break, but we're gonna- - Let's talk politics, I'm ready.

- Well, I thought we'll be done with the legislative session by December, whatever this is, 2024, but no, this week, the General Assembly convened again, mainly to override a gubernatorial veto, but do a few other things that some folks find very important.

First, the GOP pushed through legislation that tweaked some hurricane relief issues in funding.

In that bill though, is a provision that caught a lot of Democrats' attention, ending gubernatorial appointments over the State Elections Board, like who gets to sit on it.

The North Carolina auditor will soon appoint every elections board member, not the governor, beginning mid-2025.

And all of this done, and we opened the legislative session somewhere around January 10th to January 11th.

Not much of a holiday break, maybe even less than a college kid gets to go home, these legislators.

- I mean, Merry Christmas.

[panelists laughing] - [Kelly] Aha.

- This is, you know, par for the course of what happens.

We knew that there was going to be a post-election legislative session several months ago, depending on what the outcome was.

And so the November session, they passed this bill, which moves some Helene relief money into the fund, but it's mostly about taking power away from incoming Governor, Josh Stein, incoming Attorney General, Jeff Jackson.

And the Senate had their override vote on Monday, there were protests in the gallery.

Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson actually presided over the Senate that day, which is actually the job of Lieutenant Governor, and ended up clearing the gallery.

It was the usual kind of drama that we've seen when the super majority does what they wanna do.

- Dawn, why are protesters in the gallery, why are they lauded as such heroes, when it's been tradition for 200+ years, if you go sit and watch a House or Senate chamber, regardless of who's leading the chamber, you're to remain quiet and not interfere with proceedings?

- Well, I mean, I think the goal of disrupting a proceeding is to get attention for what your cause is, what you're disagreeing on.

So, those that are unhappy with what's going on the floor feel like, you know, there's more attention if something happens in the gallery.

It really wasn't everybody in the gallery, it was one or two people, and Robinson ended up clearing it.

And I asked Senate leader, Berger, after, or another reporter did, when he was talking to reporters on the floor, why did you punish everybody at the same time?

And if you leave it up to the sergeant at arms, that's a lot more for them to do to try to figure out like, who shouted, or who didn't, and that sort of thing.

So, that was the reasoning for everybody, you know, being pulled out.

But it's not great, 'cause then you're not watching.

I mean the Press Corps is in our little corners, but, you know, the Senate is not televised, anything like that.

- Mitch, I've dealt with sergeant at arms, as a journalist in a credential member of the Press Corps, and, you know, leaving them to make the decision, sometimes they can be heavy-handed even with us reporters.

So, they're tough cookies over there running that shop.

However, back to the policy at hand.

We're in session in what's approaching mid-December.

Lawmakers I talk to are fairly exhausted, not just tired of having to come back.

What do you make of this, to wrap up the year, to take every ounce of 2024 to get the agenda across the line for the GOP?

- Not terribly surprising, given that there's an election, and one of the things that was up for grabs was whether Republicans would continue to have the veto-proof super majorities with a Democratic governor.

They lost that by one seat in the house, and so this is their opportunity, if they want to pass things that no Democrats are gonna go along with, to do it.

That's why we saw not only this legislation that changes the powers, and the House still has to vote on, 'cause they're not done, the Senate apparently is.

But the Senate then, we're gonna be talking about a couple of things that they wanted to do that wouldn't even have any sort of impact until 2026.

But they want to do them now, 'cause they figure in 2025 they might not be able to.

- Joe, the Republican senator that was on, I think it was Benton Sawrey, said, prescribed by law we're allowed to change job descriptions of the Council of State.

I presume that's gonna be true or at least tested in court.

You know, what does it say?

I mean, legislators could, going forward, as we become a more perfect union, start changing job descriptions and applying responsibilities to these Council of State races on an every four year basis, depending on who's the governor.

- You know, it is kind of an interesting dynamic.

But historically, North Carolina's governor has been a relatively weak chief executive.

We diffuse executive branch responsibilities across 10 statewide elected offices.

And so, quite frankly, governors in the State of North Carolina have never been as strong in terms of what their responsibility and scope of duties are, as is the legislature.

And there's an argument that the constitution of the state intended, in many ways, for the legislative branch to be the preeminent of the three in terms of policy making.

Now, that having been said, in much of the 20th century, Democrats were in the statewide elected offices and the Democrats controlled the General Assembly.

And so people in those positions assume the responsibilities and duties more or less as they would assume a governor would act, particularly in a time of natural disaster or emergency.

But that having been said, the bigger argument may be, do we need 10 statewide elected positions to run our executive branch of government?

Is it time to think about a wholesale reorganization of how we administer the executive branch functions of our state government?

Maybe consolidating or eliminating or putting in place some other mechanisms other than, you know, a labor commissioner is a kind of unusual position for a state to elect.

Not to pick on the labor commissioner, but there have been states within the last couple of decades that have done reorganizations, including consolidating functions under a more central position.

Like in Florida, they have a chief financial officer that now does things that a lot of these other executive branch officers do in North Carolina.

It would be better to sort of wholesale make those reforms than just changing the duties from time to time.

- You're giving him ideas.

[laughing] - That's right.

- Remember, Kelly, that there are two different arguments.

One is, does the General Assembly have the power to make these changes?

And then the second is, should they do it, should they make these changes?

I think in most cases, and the courts will probably settle this, they probably can make these changes.

But was it a good idea to move them?

That's another issue.

If this law goes forward and actually takes effect, I think we would be the only state in the country where elections would be under the state auditor.

And it's no surprise that the reason that the auditor was chosen for this is, that's basically on the Council of State, the highest ranking Republican that they could think of to put it there.

I mean, they're not gonna put it under Ag Commissioner Steve Troxler, - But the bill was written in secret, too.

There's probably a better process than just putting it in a bill and having everyone vote.

You know, you could go through a public process.

- Oh, certainly, a much better public process.

And also not have it be a conference report where they can't amend anything, but it's only up or down vote.

- Rufus, you were in power around some very powerful Democrats back in the day, and all those Republicans sat in that minority position, watched guys like you wield power.

And sometimes it took power away from certain people, like a lieutenant governor in '88.

What was it- - Well, having been, two of those offices where Joe's talking about, it was sort of, I was pretending to be governor since I get to be in '84.

So when I was Attorney General, I pretended to be governor.

And Joe is so correct.

We had Royal Governors were just very, very down on the population.

And we do have a system where it favors the legislature, but when you look at our constitution, it does not in any way favor legislative power.

In fact, we have the only constitution in America that says the powership will be separate and apart forever.

Well, they just ignored that.

I remember one time when I was Attorney General, we had something called the Governor's Advisory Budget Commission.

Remember that, Joe?

- Yeah.

- And I gave a ruling and the Democrats were in power, that that was an executive function.

And they had loaded it up with legislators.

And I remember Liston Ramsey just said, "You are awful.

You're gonna get it in the head."

Well, thank goodness, about a month later, the Supreme Court of North Carolina gave a ruling that I was correct and I was vindicated.

But Joe has got a point there.

Why do we elect so many people that...

I've always thought we should elect, even judges.

I'm thinking more and more now, we don't need to elect all these judges.

We need to have a governor with some power.

I remember when our governor, Joe, did not have the veto power.

We and Virginia, were the only two governors where you could not succeed yourself or you did not have the veto power.

So it's gone up a little bit and now the raid is on.

- That's a whole different topic.

But, Rufus, I wanna ask you, I'm active online with this show, and people reply back to me.

There are people who disagree with what Republicans are doing, and it's not a policy disagreement.

They're hitting me and criticizing this program for who we book on because this is a moral cause now based on how Republicans pass bills.

Is there anything about trying to apply morals to state policy even when those policies may be proven to be constitutional?

- No, I don't think so.

This is raw power.

If you can get by with it, you do it.

When the Democrats were in office, they closed in on power many times, and Jim Hunt was very good at not letting them take away his powers.

So it's not a moral issue.

It is a political issue, and elections have consequences.

- All right, the legislative session this week allowed Republicans also to pass two state constitutional referenda, which means, voters, you get to decide the fate of the two issues.

We'll start with the first one.

If approved by a statewide vote, Mitch, I wanna make sure I get to the right person.

One amendment would require photo identification for mail-in ballots.

State law already requires photo ID for every ballot.

Republicans say the state amendment, if approved, would simply parallel or further lock in what's a current law?

Why an amendment?

- Well, I think the amendment idea is to get you the voters that you want to get to the polls.

This was something that we should remember that the Senate tried to do back in June when there was discussion about the citizens-only voting amendment.

The Senate also passed a bill to have voter ID for everyone and to lower the income tax cap.

Something else we're gonna be chatting about.

Both of those ideas did not find favor in the State House when the final votes were taken.

And, Don, talking to legislators might have heard more about this than I have, but I'm not sure that the House is any more interested in it now than they were in June.

Maybe they are because of the change in the supermajority, but this is still gonna have to pass the House before it gets on the ballot.

If the House doesn't do anything when it comes back next week, that idea and the next one are probably done.

But in terms of why to do the amendment, remember, we do already have voter ID in the state constitution, but it only talks about people who show up in person.

The state law that was passed is not only applicable to people who vote in person but also to people who vote using a mail-in ballot.

And the idea was, let's just make sure the constitution and the law say the same thing.

- Joe, it's not subject to veto.

It has to go through the House next week, but this is halfway there, and then it would go on the ballot.

Your make on photo ID, taking laws, making them amendments.

- Yeah, to some extent.

I mean, part of governance is to determine where it is you wanna assign the significance and importance of whatever it is you're determining.

We consider free speech very important in this country, so we amended our US Constitution to guarantee that right, it felt that strongly if federal law would've been insufficient to guarantee the protection of free speech.

To some extent, legislators use amending their constitution, whether it's the federal constitution or the state constitution, to say this is how we feel.

It's very difficult to amend a constitution.

And so once you have amended it, it's very hard to unamend it.

And so it is really just a matter of saying, this particular issue of public policy is so significant, this is where we wanna place it in the governing document itself.

- It lets the people decide, but they're not the ones that, you know, made the pitch and wrote it.

So there's, you know, there's obviously, you know, politics in play there.

But I think with these different issues that the Senate wanted to pass, there's a little bit of trading, you know, on what's important and to each chamber, which, you know, both run by Republicans, and the tax cap was a Senate priority.

- And we'll get to the tax cap next, but voter ID as an amendment, Rufus, why would House Republicans not go along with something the Senate feels strongly about?

It's all Republicans and supermajorities as of now.

- Well, each person has their own little ideological bent, and this particular amendment, I don't see much use in it.

You know, when you amend the constitution, it ought to mean something, and I just don't see what they're doing, whether one house is for or not for it.

There are a lot more important things than that.

- And, well, let's talk about that other referendum.

It would cap the state's income tax rate at a 5% maximum.

The current tax rate is 4.5%.

State law will gradually reduce the income and corporate tax rate in coming years anyway.

Proponents say the 5% cap would prevent politicians from reversing course on tax policy should they lose power.

Opponents wonder what's gonna happen.

Joe, I'll ask you that.

If economic hard times hit us and we're up against a 5% income tax cap and the state wants more money to give more money to help people out.

That's the Democratic argument.

Republicans say don't trust the state government, that we can make revenue surpluses at 4.5% or lower.

- Yeah.

You know, it's interesting.

If you go back to the original cap, which was 10%, was placed into the state constitution during the Great Depression, at a time when the state really was in a desperate situation.

And the necessity of generating revenue for services and programs was at its peak.

At that point, the policy decision was, as a state, legislators made the decision, we wanna make sure that no subsequent legislature can come in here and raise state income revenues beyond a certain portion.

We're gonna put that in the Constitution so that it's very difficult to change.

The problem is in any issue relative to tax policy, ultimately what is in the best interest is a maximum amount of flexibility 'cause you don't know what the circumstances are you're gonna face.

When I was in the Treasurer's Office, the document that is attached to every bond issue, the official statement, it's the reason why the state's a good debt risk.

And it explains, in large part, and has historically said, one of the challenges North Carolina's faced, even though we are considered a good credit risk, is our governor is relatively weak.

The ability to move money around in an emergency situation.

Of course, you gotta remember, a bond is a debt instrument.

And so people that are buying bonds wanna know you can pay them back, which means they want to know you have enough flexibility to generate the revenue in a worst case scenario to be able to pay the debt service.

But I think to some extent, makes sense if the legislature feels very strongly they wanna cap whatever could be considered in terms of this particular form of revenue collection.

Although, the opposite side of this public policy argument is it takes away some flexibility because who knows what the circumstances are that might necessitate the legislature imposing a tax rate beyond what's limited in the constitution.

Flexibility is always better in public policy.

Flexibility is the most elusive thing in politics.

- Well, remember.

He talked about undoing a legislative amendment.

You can't undo one very easily, and where do you go when you don't have enough taxes?

You keep putting add-on taxes on grocery bills and things like that.

So this is a big policy decision.

And there again, when you're elected to the legislature, you should be able to say whether or not I'm going to vote for a tax increase and not have to put it in the Constitution.

- And remember back in 2018, voters already saw this.

So if people are reading about the voter ID and tax cap, they may be thinking, "Didn't we vote on this just six years ago?

[panelist laughing] So, in 2018, the voters voted to put the cap at 7% down from 10%.

And at that time, there was debate and there was a lot of interest on the Senate side in making the cap just like a quarter point higher than the current tax rate.

And the house said, "No, we're willing to go from 10 to seven, but we want to have a little bit more flexibility.

It'll be interesting to see whether the house still has that position or if they've come around to where the Senate wants to go and will be willing to go to five.

- I think, I mean, it's definitely what the Senate wants and I, you know, what I was saying before about the mix of trading, of what the priorities are, but I asked Senate Leader Berger about the tax cap and I was like, "Are you worried about all this recurring money that the state is already like on the hook for, especially with the private school vouchers," that's half a billion dollars they just passed this year.

So if you're gonna have a certain limit of taxes, maybe don't spend also.

I mean, there's like a balance there, you know.

- And just for clarity, the audience doesn't necessarily watch the legislature.

This still needs house approval.

But it can't be vetoed by the governor.

So if they approve it, voters gonna decide, right?

- Well, it's hard to imagine that a constitutional amendment to lower the amount of revenue that can be generated through income tax would not be overwhelmingly popular.

- Everybody likes that.

No one wants taxes.

Yeah.

- Does it make it bad policy if state voters decide on a cap that politicians disagree with.

Do the people speak and that make it good policy?

- Well, part-- - [Mitch] To them.

[laughs] - Part of what we hire legislators to do is to make hard public policy decisions.

It is impossible to imagine you could get consensus among all the people what makes the most sense, and we gotta remember, tax collection is borrowing money from the private economy and using it in functions of government that return a dividend back to the private economy.

Tax policy should really be about what is essential to making sure North Carolina can prosper economically.

Those are the decisions.

The relative tax rates should be driven by what the needs of the state are.

But taxes have become a separate and apart public policy debate among voters because people hate taxes and they don't see the necessary nexus between revenue generation and the products and services and things that they want out of their government.

- And we have a great economy.

You know, if we didn't, if business wasn't booming here, then that would be a different question.

But you still want everybody to still love North Carolina and wanna move here and work here, too.

- Don't think Republicans were the only ones that were busy this week.

Senate Democrats used the week to elect a new caucus leader.

Wake County, Senator Sydney Batch, who's been on this show plenty of times, will be replacing longtime legislator, former House Speaker, current Senate minority leader, Dan Blue, beginning in 2025, reports are [indistinct] Senator Blue read the tea leaves, stepped aside before an official vote is taken.

Senator Batch will assume leadership where Senate Republicans have a super majority.

I don't know how much you weigh in on or follow democratic policy, but, you know, party politics anymore, but that's a change of generation, and Dan Blue probably makes this his last term now.

- Well, I don't know about whether Blue got out on his own or not, but I can't think of a better choice than Sydney Batch.

I've worked with her on children's issues, Super Kids, another organization we served on together and you couldn't find a better person.

She knows that they have an overwhelming majority there, veto-approved Senate, but she's the right person, in my opinion, to carry the Democratic banner forward.

And yet, know at the same time, you're going to have to work with those who have the power.

And I just can't think of a better person than Sydney Batch.

- Dawn, you've covered Sydney Batch.

Tell us about Sydney Batch, the Senator.

- Well, she's been in a leadership role in the caucus.

I feel like this past session, she hasn't given a significant number of floor speeches, 'cause usually, you know, the caucus leader speaks before the end.

I mean, before debate finishes on whatever bill, so that's always Blue.

So, as soon as Blue starts talking, we know like, "Okay, you know, this is gonna wrap up or they're gonna vote soon."

So it'll be interesting to see how Batch does that, 'cause I don't see her speaking on every bill.

So, it's a big shift there.

But, you know, Blue has been in office for a long time.

He has a lot of respect from both sides of the aisle.

So this is almost like a bigger shift, really, than Destin Hall becoming Speaker after Moore, just because it kind of changes, I don't know?

The overall, I feel like it's been Berger and Blue for so long in their relationships, I'll be interested to watch how that changes now with Batch and Berger.

- Just from what I know about Sydney Batch, Mitch, she comes in, we talk backstage, like Destin Hall, she's actively working, helping with the law office.

She brings, she has to be at work.

I mean, I don't know how to say it.

She's not retired.

What does that do to leadership when you have a new House Speaker, he's a young man, 37 years old?

They say he wants to work, keep going where he's from and now Sydney Batch, doing the same with her family law practice.

- Well, it'll be tough.

I mean, I would guess they would have to make some sort of sacrifices to their other professional careers for these leadership roles, the Speaker especially, because that job has so many different things that have to be taken care of.

The Senate Minority leader, not as much, but, still, you have to keep track of what's happening with all of the members of your caucus.

To me, the most interesting part of this will be does the way the Senate operates change?

We've seen for many years, with Democrats and Republicans in charge, basically the minority party has had its say, but then sits back and lets him vote and doesn't let things go on and on.

Unlike in the House, where sometimes things can get kind of unruly, and they'll go for hours and hours on a bill.

The Senate basically says, "Okay, you've got the votes, we're gonna tell you why we don't like it, and then we'll let you vote and we'll go home."

- Joe, this was a power shift, it was a caucus vote.

Jay Chaudhuri, the state senator from Wake County, was right there as the number two, and Senator Batch comes in and Dan Blue's out.

What does that do to the person who you would think might would've been heir-apparent?

Much like Destin Hall went from rules to House Speaker?

- Yeah, I think to some extent this was a bit of a surprise.

I think the characterization of it is that Blue was maybe not as diligent as he might have been, making sure he had the votes within the caucus to maintain the leadership position.

And once he discovered that, said, in a gracious way, "That I simply will withdraw my candidacy to allow this to go forward."

- Which would be very interesting, if you remember the history of Dan Blue, almost waging a successful coup, to become House Speaker again, and coming just one vote short when the Democrats took back over.

- See, you live by that sword, you'll die by that sword.

- But I think being minority leader is tough.

The Republicans have been in control of the general assembly a long time now.

Keeping discipline within a caucus that's in a perpetual minority is very difficult because the members feel like they're never in part of the substantive discussion, the debate of public policy matters.

They're not getting to advance things that they feel strongly about.

However, 2026 midterm elections have a tendency to go against the party in control of the White House.

There should be some expectation Democrats have a potential to do well in the midterm elections in state legislative races.

And so these minority leaders, Robert Reeves, on the house side returning to that position, but Batch coming into this position new on the Senate side, their strategy's gotta be, what can we do as the minority party to try to bring up together the resources necessary to put a credible fight in place for 2026?

I don't know how you thread that needle, but Senator Batch clearly wants to take on the task.

- And fundraising is a big part of it too.

- What's her standing in the ecosystem of Raleigh, because lobbyists are out there and advocates, nonprofit representatives.

Sydney Batch comes in 2025, everyone knows her, but in a different power structure.

How does that change, or how does her relationship benefit the Senate Democrats now that she's got a power position with lobbyists and other people who want her attention?

- The interactions I've had with Senator Batch, very thoughtful legislator, she wants to understand the issue.

She's willing to sit and talk through, understand things technically that perhaps she doesn't have proficiency in to better understand what the right course of legislation might be on a thing.

The problem with being a minority leader to some extent is you've gotta be a bomb thrower a lot because of that role of being the loyal opposition to the Republican majorities.

I don't know that that's quite Senator Batch's disposition, although she will undoubtedly find a way to serve that purpose as well.

- And it'll be very interesting to see if she does that or if some others take that role.

We saw during this week that one of the main people speaking out against what Republicans were doing was Graig Meyer of Orange County.

Does he kind of take on the bomb thrower role?

- I think it's worth noting now of the big four, that there's a woman, because it's been all men at the table for a long time.

- Alright, Rufus, I got 45 seconds maybe, but what do the Democrats lose by dropping Dan Blue as their leader in the Senate?

- I don't think they lose.

They lose a very likable person.

A person who has a great reputation.

And you gotta remember too, Sydney Batch they tried to gerrymander her out three times each time she won in a different district.

So I think that says a lot for her.

And I'm sure that Dan Blue is glad that he has someone who's exceeding him, who is a great person.

- And that's the last word.

Thank you panel for a great show.

Fast moving.

Almost got to everything I'd written script for, but didn't talk about that constitutional amendment or the convention of states for term limits.

We'll save that one for later.

Thank you for watching folks.

Email your thoughts to statelines@pbsnc.org.

I'm Kelly McCullen.

Thank you so much for watching.

Stay warm.

We'll see you next time.

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