MORE FROM THE SERIES
North Carolina constitutional amendments
Coverage from The Charlotte Observer, The News & Observer and The Herald-Sun of the constitutional amendments you’ll vote on in the November 2018 elections.
A North Carolina voter ID constitutional amendment is on the ballot this Election Day. Here are facts about voter fraud, voter ID and NC’s unconstitutional racially discriminatory 2013 law.
The North Carolina ballot for the 2018 midterms includes six constitutional amendments on rights and government power. Find info on what they are, what your vote means and the bills that may be passed into law.
The tax cap is one of six constitutional amendments the legislature put on the ballot in the the North Carolina midterm elections. It could affect education spending, teachers say. How would it work?
Americans for Prosperity, known for its mostly conservative agenda and Koch brothers funding, is running ads against the judicial vacancy constitutional amendment that the GOP put on the ballot in North Carolina.
A North Carolina constitutional amendment in the 2018 election would give crime victims more rights. Will “Marsy’s Law” make sure victims’ rights are enforced, or create a financial burden on the court system?
Voters have the chance to decide whether the governor should have sole discretion filling judicial vacancies, or if the legislature should have a role in the process.
Republicans say photo voter ID is needed for security while opponents say it will keep people from voting. Voters will decide on a North Carolina constitutional amendment to require voter ID.
One of North Carolina’s six proposed constitutional amendments would change the makeup of the state elections board. It also would change how members are appointed. It’s one of the amendments former governors oppose.
A constitutional amendment protecting hunting and fishing rights is on the NC ballot for the November 2018 midterm elections. Supporters say there is an attack on hunting; critics worry it could prevent regulations.
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Wake, Triangle politicians opposing North Carolina constitutional amendments
A new political ad by the Stop Deceptive Amendments group says North Carolina’s former governors, which includes Pat McCrory and Jim Martin, oppose proposed constitutional amendments on the November ballot.
House Speaker Tim Moore says a merit commission would put North Carolina in line with what most other states do.
A poster created by the BlueNC blog and circulated by Wayne Goodwin of the NC Democratic Party claims the crime victims’ rights, aka “Marsy’s Law,” constitutional amendment will criminalize abortion.
North Carolina voters are largely uneducated about six proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot for the November 2018 midterm elections even as Republicans support them and Democrats say ‘nix all six.’
Without a big statewide race, attention is on the six proposed amendments to the North Carolina Constitution that will be on the ballot. Grassroots campaigns are growing. Will money follow?
Ex-NC Gov. Jim Martin said he and the other living former governors will continue to oppose two constitutional amendments on the ballot. He said while the new language is better, it didn’t go far enough.
North Carolina legislative leaders Tim Moore and Phil Berger won challenge from Gov. Roy Cooper and the NC NAACP on Tuesday when the state Supreme Court declined to hear appeals challenging constitutional amendment proposals.
North Carolina General Assembly Republican leaders Phil Berger and Tim Moore lost a lawsuit to Democratic Governor Roy Cooper over constitutional amendments. On Monday the NC legislature passed new language for the amendments.
Some fear one of North Carolina’s proposed constitutional amendments could allow state legislators to bypass the governor’s future vetoes.
The amendment is one of six scheduled to appear on the November ballot. As written, it would transfer much of the power to fill judicial vacancies from the governor’s office (currently held by a Democrat) to the state General Assembly (currently controlled by the GOP).
Under the proposed amendment, judicial nominees wouldn’t be subject to the governor’s vetoes. But Democrats worry the bill is written in a way that, if passed, it would allow the legislature to attach an unrelated bill to a judicial nominee to circumvent the governor’s veto.
Why does it matter? Republicans currently hold so many seats in the state House and state Senate that they can override most of Gov. Roy Cooper’s vetoes. But if Democrats break the supermajority this fall, when every seat in the legislature is up for election, Republicans will have a harder time implementing their agenda.
Since Cooper took office, he has appointed 35 people in the court system -- including district attorneys and district, superior, and appellate judges, according to his office.
State Sen. Jeff Jackson, a Charlotte Democrat and attorney, proposed a bill that would clarify the judicial vacancy amendment to block the attachment of other bills. But Republican leaders didn’t consider it.
“Given the opportunity to fix this — and the decision not to — it’s pretty clear they like the idea of passing a constitutional amendment that will let them circumvent a governor’s veto whenever they want,” Jackson tweeted recently.
Josh Stein, the Democratic state attorney general, has made the same argument. To support Jackson’s claim, his office provided an interpretation from the General Assembly’s nonpartisan Legislative Analysis Division.
“Because there is no restriction on adding other matters to these judicial vacancy bills, a court could reasonably interpret that a judicial vacancy bill and legislation on other matters is not subject to the Governor’s veto. Because this would be new language in the Constitution if adopted this fall, a decision on how to interpret and apply that language would ultimately be made by the courts,” Kara A. McCraw, staff attorney and legislative analyst, told his office in a July 31 email.
How the amendment looks
Gerry Cohen, a longtime former head of bill-drafting at the legislature, notes how the proposed amendment is noticeably different from other parts of the Constitution about issues the governor can’t veto.
The N.C. Constitution says the governor is powerless when the legislature adopts bills revising election districts and “no other matter.” Or when it adopts a bill that solely makes an appointment to public office and contains “no other matter.” The “no other matter” language is missing in this case, Cohen said, which could be interpreted as intent.
“The other veto exemptions do say (and no other matter),” Cohen said. “It’s either a lack of understanding of history, a mistake or deliberate.”
It’s unclear how the law would be interpreted. In ruling, judges look at the intent of the N.C. Constitution’s framers as well as the intent of amendment authors.
In a press conference Saturday, Republican leaders said the words “no other matter” aren’t necessary given the proposed amendment’s location in state law.
State Sen. Ralph Hise said state law already “requires the legislation to be narrowly tailored to be in accordance with those sections,” adding, “We have never seen any case where the governor’s veto — the exemption of the governor’s veto — applied broadly to any bill that contained any of these parts. We don’t believe it does it.”
Phil Berger, Republican Senate leader and an attorney, argued that his comments in public could be examined by a judge reviewing the bill’s intent.
“You said that leaving (the words ‘no other matter’) out indicates intent. I would contend to you that our statements at this time — and statements you will hear on the floor that that’s not our intent — is more persuasive, or will be more persuasive as far as a judge is concerned, if this issue ever comes up,” Berger said.
He continued: “We are telling you that our intent is that this constitutional provision would not be appropriate to be used as the attorney general has argued..”
Bob Orr, a former state Supreme Court justice and Republican, said a judge would likely consider Berger’s public comments.
“If the Republicans who voted for this said ‘it wasn’t our intent,’ the only thing that would be considered would be judicial nominations,” Orr said. However, the comments alone may not be the deciding factor.
“I’d give it weight, but smart lawyers would make the case that that’s one person’s opinion,” Orr said. The amendment language “doesn’t make it clear that it’s not some vehicle to circumvent the governor’s veto authority.”
Despite the lack of the “no other matter” language, experts at Duke and Wake Forest universities said they doubted any judge would allow the legislature to exploit such a small loophole.
“I don’t have any explanation for why the usual qualifying language wasn’t inserted. But I have no doubt whatsoever about what a court would do in the event that a legislature might try to exploit the lack of qualifying language by attaching matters unrelated to judicial vacancies to a judicial-vacancy bill,” John Dinan, an expert on the N.C. Constitution at Wake Forest University, said in an email.
“I can’t imagine any situation where a court would do anything other than uphold a gubernatorial veto in such a case and at the very least declare the unrelated material void,” Dinan said.
Jeff Powell, at Duke, agreed with Dinan. He understands why Jackson filed the bill seeking clarification and supports it. But he said it would be “absurd” for a judge to allow the legislature to circumvent a governor’s veto based on the omission of language.
“If you just look at the section of the constitution in isolation, it seems plausible. But we’re not talking about a tweak that’s limited to that section. We’re talking about undoing the changes North Carolina made when we decided to give him veto power,” Powell said.
“The idea that a piddling word choice in the section somehow undoes it is nonsensical,” he continued. “They don’t take a piddling word decision to undo a major structural feature of the constitution of North Carolina.”