Table Talk Episode 22: The 14th Amendment | Eastern NC Now

    In this episode of Table Talk, host Stan Deatherage and co-host Dave Hudson explore the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution - its original purpose, its modern applications, and its direct impact on voting practices in Beaufort County, North Carolina. The discussion covers limited voting, gerrymandering, birthright citizenship, and the importance of issue-based elections in a representative republic.

Participants

• Stan Deatherage:
  Host of Table Talk; long-serving Beaufort County Commissioner (26 years); publisher of a local alternative media outlet.
• Dave Hudson:
  Co-host; retired U.S. Army veteran with 17 years of civilian experience in affirmative action and DEI programs; family roots dating to the founding of Washington, NC.

The Original Purpose of the 14th Amendment

    The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, following the Civil War. Its primary purpose was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved African Americans who had been freed but were not recognized as citizens of the United States. The 13th Amendment had abolished slavery; the 14th Amendment extended citizenship rights, due process, and equal protection under the law to the newly emancipated population.

    Over time, the amendment has been applied to a wide range of legal and political issues beyond its original scope, including abortion rights (later overturned), voting procedures, and redistricting. The hosts argue that many of these applications have strayed from the amendment's original intent.

Controversial Ratification

    The hosts note that the ratification of the 14th Amendment itself is historically contested. After the 13th Amendment passed with all states - including the 11 former Confederate states - counted, Congress could not secure enough votes to ratify the 14th Amendment. In response, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, which effectively stripped the Southern states of statehood, required them to rewrite their constitutions, and conditioned readmission to the Union on ratification of the 14th Amendment. Critics argue this process disenfranchised approximately 9 million Southerners, including the very freed Black citizens the amendment was meant to protect.

Limited Voting in Beaufort County

    A central focus of the episode is the limited voting system used in Beaufort County, North Carolina. This system was imposed on the county by the U.S. Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ostensibly to protect minority voting interests.

    Under limited voting with staggered terms, voters can only cast one vote per election cycle for county commissioner, resulting in only two votes over a four-year period - despite there being seven commissioner seats. The hosts argue this violates the principle of "one person, one vote" and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which holds that citizens should have the right to vote for every seat that represents them.

• Beaufort County has 7 commissioners serving four-year staggered terms, but citizens can only vote for one per election.
• This means voters effectively choose only 2 of 7 representatives over a full election cycle.
• Stan Deatherage, who has run approximately eight times under this system, describes how supporters must strategically split votes - sometimes voting for other candidates to help build a like-minded majority rather than voting for their preferred candidate.
• Couples and families must coordinate voting strategies, further complicating the process.
• The hosts contend that limited voting disenfranchises all voters in the county, regardless of race, and no longer serves its original protective purpose.

    Deatherage brought a motion before the county commissioners to abolish limited voting but was defeated 3–4, with the center-left coalition voting unanimously against the measure without substantive objection.

At-Large Voting vs. District-Based Voting

    The hosts express a strong preference for at-large voting over district-based representation, particularly for smaller counties like Beaufort.

"If you strip districting or voting methods because of race, then we are supposedly a racially colorblind society and you vote for whoever you want to."

~ Stan Deatherage

Arguments against districts:

• Districts can be more easily corrupted - wealthy interests can "buy" seats in smaller, defined areas.
• Representatives focus narrowly on their district rather than the good of the entire county.
• Political horse-trading replaces sound governance.
• District lines can be gerrymandered along racial or political lines, which itself can be discriminatory.

Arguments for at-large voting:

• Commissioners represent the entire county, not just a geographic segment.
• Voters can support any candidate regardless of where that candidate lives, based on issues and values.
• Minority voters can still concentrate their votes strategically - for example, choosing to vote for only one candidate out of three to maximize that vote's impact (similar to what all voters do under the current limited system, but by choice rather than compulsion).
• Geography should not be the determining factor - a representative from the opposite side of the county who champions your issues deserves your vote more than a neighbor who won't act in your interest.

Louisiana v. Callais and Redistricting

    The hosts discuss the April 29 Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais, with an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito. The ruling reinforced that districts cannot be drawn on the basis of race and should be compact and logically constructed rather than sprawling across a state to achieve racial or partisan outcomes.

    Virginia is cited as an example of problematic redistricting: Fairfax County, located in northern Virginia adjacent to Washington, D.C., was split into five separate districts, with some extending two to three hundred miles south. Virginia's own state Supreme Court struck down the redrawn maps. The hosts argue such gerrymandering disenfranchises voters and violates equal protection principles.

    The broader concern is that both parties have engaged in gerrymandering - historically Democrats using the Voting Rights Act, and more recently Republicans seeking to protect legislative majorities. The hosts argue that gerrymandering by either party, when it uses race or creates wildly non-compact districts, is constitutionally problematic under the 14th Amendment.

Birthright Citizenship

    The hosts anticipate that birthright citizenship will be the next major 14th Amendment issue addressed by the Supreme Court.

• The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause was originally intended for formerly enslaved people born in or brought to the United States - not as a blanket guarantee for anyone born on American soil.
• Only 33 countries worldwide currently recognize birthright citizenship.
• The key legal question is whether a person born in the U.S. falls "under the jurisdiction" of the United States - which historically implied allegiance, not merely physical presence.
• Examples discussed: A child born to German tourists visiting Disney World should not automatically be an American citizen. A child born overseas to two American parents should be considered American. A child born to even one American parent should likely qualify.
• The hosts argue that granting automatic citizenship based solely on birth location, without considering parental allegiance, creates security risks and can be exploited for political purposes (e.g., "anchor babies" and chain migration).
• They emphasize support for legal immigration and a clear path to citizenship for those who follow proper procedures, while opposing automatic citizenship for those present illegally.

"Allowing birthright citizenship willy-nilly to whomever you wish because they may be helpful to your political party is a bridge too far for we citizens."

~ Stan Deatherage

The Case for Issue-Based Elections

    Both hosts strongly advocate for issue-based elections over personality-driven or identity-driven campaigns. Their arguments apply to voters and candidates alike:

For Candidates:

• Know the issues thoroughly before running - don't say "I'll get back to you" or "I'll have to study it."
• Provide clear answers, not empty promises.
• Once in office, govern according to stated positions - voters should watch what elected officials do, not just what they say.

For Voters:

• Educate yourself on candidates and their positions before going to the polls.
• Don't vote based on geography "he's from my area", personality "he's a nice guy", or superficial interactions "he bought me a beer".
• Voting should be 99% issues, 1% personality.
• Hold elected officials accountable - if they don't follow through, vote for someone who will.
• No candidate will agree with you on everything - look for alignment on core values and sound judgment.

    The hosts point to the recent municipal election in Washington, NC as an example: voters rallied around the issue of high taxes and voted for significant change in city government. However, post-election developments have left many of those same voters dissatisfied, underscoring the importance of vetting candidates on substance and track record, not just campaign rhetoric.