Amending the NC Constitution: The Six Proposed 2018 Ballot Initiatives | Eastern North Carolina Now

The Salisbury Street Mall Between the Historic Capitol and the General Assembly: Above.     photo by Stan Deatherage    Click image to expand.
This overview is written for the purpose of educating North Carolina voters on the six proposed amendments to the North Carolina state constitution.

    I. WHAT YOU WILL SEE ON THE BALLOT: The following will likely be the language you will see on November's ballot with respect to the six (6) proposed amendments to the North Carolina constitution. I say "likely" because two of the amendments (#3 and #4 below) were challenged by Governor Roy Cooper and a federal judge granted his injunction - meaning that absent a challenge by the legislature that is successful OR having the legislature re-drafting them, those amendments, as originally written and communicated, cannot appear on November's ballot. Amendments #3 and #4 below contain the re-drafted language, as of August 24, but we don't know yet if Cooper will re-challenge.

    So, as of today (Aug. 26), the language you will likely see on November's ballot regarding the proposed amendments to the NC state Constitution is as follows:

    Amendment 1: [ ] For [ ] Against

    Constitutional amendment protecting the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.

    Amendment 2: [ ] For [ ] Against

    Constitutional amendment to strengthen protections for victims of crime; to establish certain absolute basic rights for victims; and to ensure the enforcement of these rights.

    Amendment 3: [ ] For [ ] Against

    Constitutional amendment to establish an eight-member Bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement in the Constitution to administer ethics and elections law.

    Amendment 4: [ ] For [ ] Against

    Constitutional amendment to change the process for filling judicial vacancies that occur between judicial elections from a process in which the Governor has sole appointment power to a process in which the people of the State nominate individuals to fill vacancies by way of a commission comprised of appointees made by the judicial, executive, and legislative branches charged with making recommendations to the legislature as to which nominees are deemed qualified; then the legislature will recommend nominees to the Governor via legislative action not subject to gubernatorial veto; and the Governor will appoint judges from among these nominees.

    Amendment 5: [ ] For [ ] Against

    Constitutional amendment to reduce the income tax rate in North Carolina to a maximum allowable rate of seven percent.

    Amendment 6: [ ] For [ ] Against

    Constitutional amendment to require voters to provide photo identification before voting in person.

    II. WHAT THE AMENDMENTS MEAN and WHAT THEY SEEK TO ACHIEVE: The NC legislature considered various potential constitutional amendments, in addition to the ones which will appear on November's ballot. Some of the additional amendments considered included removing Article I, Section 4 ("Secession Prohibited"), removing Article I, Section 5 ("Paramount Allegiance to the Federal Government"), removing the provision in Article I, Section 30 ("Militia and the Right to Bear Arms") which can serve to limit the right of conceal carry ("Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice"), and removing the limitation in Article VI, Section 4 ("Qualification for Voter Registration") which is can be characterized as a Jim Crow-era law. Instead of putting all of the proposed amendments on the ballot, the legislature polled all their potential suggestions across the state and decided to use only the top six. The highest-polling amendments were: #1: The Right to Hunt, Fish, & Harvest Wildlife, and #2: Voter ID. These amendments, by the way, polled highest across political lines, racial lines, income differential, education, etc. [NC state constitution - https://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html ]

    The following is an explanation of each proposed six constitutional amendment (Ballot Initiative), as well as the corresponding NC bill that contains its full language. All bills can be accessed from www.ncleg.net

    Amendment 1: [Senate bill 677 - S677]

    This amendment enshrines the public's natural right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife in the state constitution, to be free from any potential attempt to limit or to burden such right. While enshrining this natural right (mentioned in Genesis), it also has the effect of setting up potential challenges to hunting restrictions by saying that any limits on this right can only come from laws intended to promote wildlife conservation and to protect the future of hunting and fishing.

    Amendment 2: [House bill 551 - HB551]

    The rights of people who are victims of crimes are delineated and enshrined in this amendment, and are:

      •  Being notified of criminal proceedings against the accused (the perpetrator)

      •  The right for the victim to speak at all hearings involving plea, sentencing, parole, or the release of the defendant

      •  The right to "full and timely" restitution (the right to be "made whole" by the defendant/perpetrator; the right to be put back into the position as if the crime had not been committed)

      •  The right to be "reasonably protected" from the defendant

      •  A "prompt conclusion" to the case (prompt closure for the victim)

      •  Victims' attorneys can petition the court to enforce any of the above provisions

    Amendment 3: [House bill 913 - HB913]

    This amendment would give more power over appointments to the legislature (the General Assembly), thus taking power away from the Governor who currently has been delegated such authority. The proposed amendment clarifies that the General Assembly has "control over any executive, legislative, or judicial appointment," although the bill (HB913) doesn't say exactly how the legislature would exert that control. [The intent is to vest power to make potentially important appointments - ones who exert power and influence over policy and enforcement in the state - with the legislature, which is the body closest to the people. The legislature, or General Assembly, is "the people's body," where accountability in government is most achievable. Legislators in both chambers serve two-year terms.]

    Amendment 4: [Senate bill 814 - S814]

    This amendment changes the rules for who appoints judges when vacancies occur between elections. Appointments to fill judicial vacanices that occur between elections can account for up to 40% of judges who sit on the courts in the state of North Carolina. Currently, the Governor appoints them. Under the proposed amendment, a system would be set up where anybody in the state could submit nominations to a non-partisan "Judicial Merit Commission" which would then evaluate the fitness of those nominations and then send that information to the General Assembly. The legislature would then pick two names to send to the Governor. In cases where the vacancy occurs right before an election, the Chief Justice of the NC Supreme Court would make the selection instead of the Governor. [Judicial appointments are extremely important. We've all witnessed over the years how liberals and progressives (ie, the Democratic Party) have sought to get around established law or policy, or to advance their agenda faster than the general public would allow thru the ordinary democratic process, by going to the courts where there are too many liberal and otherwise unprincipled, inexperienced, and untested judges, and judges appointed merely in exchange for political favors and donations, who are happy and without conscience to do so. The intent of this amendment is to vest power to make judicial appointments with the legislature, which is the body closest to the people. The legislature, or General Assembly, is "the people's body," where accountability in government is most achievable. Legislators in both chambers serve two-year terms and therefore can quickly be removed for abusing their power or for using the judicial appointments power recklessly.]

    Amendment 5: [Senate bill 75 - S75]

    This amendment caps the state income tax at 7 percent (7%), which means that the General Assembly would be prevented from instituting an income tax in excess of that. Currently, the NC constitution caps the income tax rate at 10 percent (10%). The initial bill from the Senate would have set the cap at 5.5% which is essentially the current tax rate.

    Governor Cooper and left-leaning interest groups are opposed to this amendment because they want the General Assembly to have the flexibility to increase the tax rate should the state need it in an emergency situation. The Republicans, however, have provided for such an emergency, through the state's "Rainy Day Fund," which currently contains $2 billion. The legislature further requries each county to have 8% of surplus funds in reserve. Cooper hates the fact that the state has this fund just sitting there. He thinks it should be plundered and used for whatever the state government thinks is more pressing at the time. Cooper believes the proper way to raise emergency funds is by raising the state taxation rate. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that is a bad way to raise such funds. The reason it believes such is that it takes too long to raise the money; sales tax, they believe, is the fastest way.

    Amendment 6: [House bill 1092 - HB1092]

    This amendment is intended to provide the photo identification requirement for voters that the 2013 NC omnibus Voter ID law required but which was struck down by the 4th Circuit of Appeals in 2016. (It is termed an "omnibus" bill because it made several changes to NC;s election laws, in addition to adding the photo ID requirement). Currently 34 states have some form of a Voter ID law. And all of the southern states have one except North Carolina.

    III. CURRENT STATUS OF THE BALLOT INITIATIVES (the lawsuits)

    Four of the six ballot initiatives (proposed constitutional amendments) are currently being challenged; opponents want them kept off November's ballot. The only initiatives not being challenged are the ones protecting the Right to Hunt & Fish and Victims' Rights (which are the first two listed above).

    On August 15, Governor Roy Cooper sued to challenge the initiatives that deal with his appointments power (amendments #3 and #4 above). The language of the amendments above represents the "revised" or re-drafted" language in response to Cooper's legal challenge.

    And the NAACP, along with Clean Air Carolina, sued to challenge those amendments, plus the ones limiting the general assembly on its taxing power and requiring a photo identification to vote. The parties asked for injunctive relief. Governor Cooper challenged the language of the amendments, alleging they are misleading and do not adequately inform voters as to what provisions in the state constitution they seek to amend and what they seek to achieve. Furthermore, he claimed the amendments would "take a wrecking ball to the separation of powers" in Raleigh. The NAACP and Clean Air Carolina challenged the Voter ID amendment on the grounds that it is will disparately impact African-Americans and is therefore an attempt to target them and disenfranchise their voting rights and challenged the Income Tax cap on the grounds that the legislature shouldn't be precluded from increasing the tax rate (above 7%) if it needs to.

    The original language of the amendments, before the revision, and which was the language challenged by Cooper, was as follows:

    Amendment 3: Constitutional amendment to establish a bipartisan Board of Ethics and Elections to administer ethics and election laws, to clarify the appointment authority of the Legislative and the Judicial branches, and to prohibit legislators from serving on boards and commissioners exercising executive or judicial authority.

    Amendment 4: Constitutional amendment to change the process for filling judicial vacancies that occur between judicial elections from a process in which the Governor has sole appointment power to a process in which the people of the State nominate individuals to fill vacancies by way of a commission comprised of appointees made by the judicial, executive, and legislative branches charged with making recommendations to the legislature as to which nominees are deemed qualified; then the legislature will recommend nominees to the Governor via legislative action not subject to gubernatorial veto; and the Governor will appoint judges from among these nominees.

    On August 21, a 3-judge panel agreed with Governor Cooper and granted the injunction. The panel, however, disagreed with the NAACP and Clean Air Carolina on their separate challenges (Voter ID and Income Tax). The panel held that there is no proof to show that Voter ID is discriminatory or that the requirement to present one to vote actually poses a meaningful burden or prevents a person from voting. If a person is truly intent on voting, the requirement of a photo ID poses no reasonable hardship.

    [Injunctive Order, issued on August 21 - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779492-18-CVS-9805-Order-on-Injunctive-Relief.html ]

    The 3-judge panel found fault with the language of the amendments (#3 and #4), claiming that initiative #3 doesn't adequately explain what the amendment seeks to achieve and initiative #4 is simply misleading. Consequently, the NC Board of Elections is enjoined (prevented) from printing ballots containing initiatives #3 and #4.

    Does this court ruling mean that the amendments will not be on November's ballot?? No. There are two options open to the legislature: (1) They can appeal the ruling; or (2) The General Assembly can convene a special session to re-write the ballot text to overcome the defects as identified by the court. The General Assembly has already has convened a special session. The House met on Friday, August 24, to re-draft the amendments, and the Senate will approve them tomorrow (Monday, August 27).

    IV. VOTER FRAUD - Does it Exist? Is there a Potential for Voter Fraud Here in NC?

    Regarding Voter Fraud, the Heritage Foundation explains: