Republicans have continued their systematic tirade against the governor in the waning days of this legislative session, but they now have unlikely opponents: two former Republican governors.
The Charlotte Observer wrote yesterday that a “Far-reaching ballot measure could make NC governor even weaker,” but buried in that headline was an impressive show of solidarity from former governors. Governor McCrory, a Republican, said that “It’s a blatant power grab from the executive branch,” and he’s right. McCrory sparred with the Republican legislature over appointments to the Coal Ash management a few years ago, ultimately winning in the state Supreme Court.
Governor Jim Martin is a Republican who served during the 1980’s, and he also opposes the proposal. “The legislature should be making laws, not running the government,” he told the Observer. The legislature is stripping away the ability of the governor to faithfully execute the laws when they remove his appointment powers.
It should be reiterated that this is not about partisanship: it’s about power. The legislature has consistently undermined the executive and judicial branches in a naked attempt to consolidate all levers of power into their hands. Changing demographics in the state are pointing toward a more moderate — and potentially liberal — electorate, as young professionals migrate from west and north into the Tar Heel state. Because these new voters will tend toward Democrats, especially the more moderate strain in the south, the GOP is hoping to calcify their power by undercutting every other branch of government and enshrining their power grabs into the state constitution.
The striking aspect of everything this legislature has done in the past eight years is its sheer arrogance. These moves by the NCGA seem to be predicated on never losing their majorities. Indeed, the current set of legislators will return after the November election — but before the new representatives take office in January— to force through draconian measures in case their supermajorities are lost.
The gall of these Republican legislators is stunning. Voters elected Roy Cooper with the expectation that he would exercise all the powers enumerated to the chief executive of the state. This legislature is hoping to overturn the will of the voters by giving those powers to themselves.
Kirk Kovach is a native North Carolinian interested in writing about politics, communication and culture.
Governors Jim Martin, Pat McCrory, and perhaps Jim Hunt should chair a bi-partisan campaign to defeat the constitutional amendment. The governor, whether Democractic or Republican should have the power to executive and administer the laws of North Carolina.
Sounds like a smart idea to me. Maybe you could write to a couple of the leading newspapers in the state and perhaps generate some attention to this possibility.
North Carolina as NC stands for “Not Conscious” when I think of the various battering of laws passed since the Republican take over.
“Nothing works that you don’t believe in.” is one of my sayings. The North Carolina Republican Legislature demonstrates a loathing for the majority of its citizens as working hard to suppress the vote and make sure “food insecurity” keeps citizens in the best of times, desperate.
The progressive relabeling of state loans, the bonds illustrates financial malfeasance since while the Federal Treasury can create all money needed for health, education, defense and infrastructure, but the state cannot.
While I am not of the judgement that soaking the rich is a desirable attitude, I am of the judgement that for regular day in and day out financial needs taxation of those who will not go hungry at rates enough to call for bonds except for the most unusual of needs.
And be assured with a minimum wage that provides never enough for a decent diet and shelter & clothes the reports of astounding hunger & food insecurity for children betray the philosophy of these people as dystopian, without grace, governance almost without purpose.
Hunger. There is simply too much hunger in North Carolina. It is first and foremost a function of wages kept artificially low by whining employers in concert with worthless politicians not even willing to talk about a living wage dictated by the state.
Scott, your comments about hunger are accurate. I volunteer in a food pantry and most of those we see are working or elderly and/or disabled. A few have recently lost a job, or only have a part time job, which is never going to be enough. It is also sometimes happens that a family member has been ill and without any kind of medical insurance. The summer brings children staying with a grandmother because the parents are working but cannot afford child care when school is out, and grandmother needs the food pantry to get through some of those weeks. Even those working sometimes qualify for food stamps, and still find one car repair or other unusual bill pushes them to need the food pantry.
Norma: I heard the same arguments in 1959-60 about Michigan calling a constitutional convention. But, in 1961, we did call one and the Delegates were elected on a partisan basis from the State Senate and State House Districts. Overall, the selection of Delegates was successful in that many civic, business, professional, labor and academic leaders did run (legislators then in office were not allowed to run). At 32 years of age, I was elected as a Republican Delegate from Grand Rapids and ended up as Chairman of the Committee on Administration which ran the convention. Former President Eisenhower addressed the Con-Con in its opening session and urged us to write a new constitution and not try to repair the old one with amendments. It took 6 months, through entirely open (indeed, televised) sessions, and we produced an updated, mostly bipartisan document. The Con-Con also put new blood into Michigan’s political system and resulted in the reform and reorganization of Michigan’s state and local government. I worked especially hard to get a provision in the constitution that the voters of Michigan would get a chance every sixteen years (a generation) to vote on calling another convention. So, every sixteen years a vote has been held and thus far every election has turned down calling another convention. The new constitution was passed in 1963 in large part because the state’s new Republican governor, George Romney, led the fight for it.
It may seem hopeless in North Carolina, but you have been through a similar process, and know that it can and must be done.
Excuse me. The proposal is for a constitutional amendment, not a constitutional convention, so your experience is not on point. And while we’re at it, how’d that all work out-think Detroit, think Flint, etc.
Andrew: Say what? I was replying to Norma’s post. Amending a constitution, as the GOP General Assembly, is doing by referendum makes no sense and is being done for strictly partisan purposes. Indeed, their only goals are to reduce voter participation and to make the legislative branch supreme over the executive and judicial l branches– which are supposed to be coequal. Bad politics and terrible government.
A constitutional convention is a place where these changes need to be discussed and a new constitution proposed.
It would be a good thing to accomplish, but I really doubt that the current GOP would allow it to function fairly or even intelligently. Anyone who will write some of those crappy amendments they have in the past few weeks is simply not to be trusted with any governmental power or influence. I just don’t see how we get from here to a CC that has thoughtful, non-partisan, delegates.
I wonder how social media and instant communication would alter the process. My instinct is to say not for good, but that is probably overly skeptical due to the past couple of years. It would be interesting to see how one could structure the discussions so more public input could be received. from a wider range of people. Would also probably make the process longer and it is already a very time consuming effort.
I think one could probably create an online “discussion” about what a new NC Constitution should include even if there was no actual CC insight. Perhaps you and Jay LIgon should consider it. Before you say “NO”, consider carefully that none of us want even the best of Raleigh initiating this. Consider it an experiment in a modern day approach to building a new framework for a new constitution.
If the Constitution guarantees all men equality under the law, why isn’t a Democratic governor guaranteed the same rights as a Republican governor?
Wow. Martin doesn’t surprise me, but when you’ve lost McCrony…
You are right, but then one should never underestimate the anger of someone who has been — in his/her view — mistreated. An opportunity for both payback and appearing to be a thoughtful politician, not to mention actually right for once, was probably too hard for McCrory to resist.
The more serious question is how do we fix this mess if the GOP loses its majority. Will the desire for payback be too much for the Democrats should they re-gain control? Good policy and thoughtful, responsive governance cannot be about payback. I think finding the line between payback and actions that solve problems is not going to be easy for any of us.
Norma: You can only fix this mess by calling a constitutional convention to write a new constitution for North Carolina that restores the proper executive/legislative relationships. Of course, now that the GOP legislative leadership wants to design our court system as well, careful attention must also be paid to the judicial responsibilities in the NC constitution.
Berger and Moore believe that: L’etat. c’est moi –we are state and the only politicians who matter.
In the Call to the convention, it needs to be worded that none of the current members of the General Assembly can run as Con-Con Delegates. This state has plenty of people who are qualified, competent and ethical candidates who should be elected to write a long overdue new constitution.
Walt, yes, one could IF the delegates are indeed capable, honest and non-partisan. And yes, such people exist. Or they did once. I think most would now be labeled “elites” and never asked to serve. Who would select delegates? Or who would this state’s electorate trust to appoint delegates?
I am not saying it can’t be done. Just that it is a thorny path. If the question of calling such a convention were put to a referendum, I wonder how the independents would vote?
The charter revision task force in NYC spent about two years re-writing much of the NYC’s charter. About halfway through, and a bit belatedly in my view, they realized they had never asked, nor evaluated, the impact of the changes on the non-profit sector. The latter is enormous in NYC. They put together a group of about 40 people to review what they were doing, and to advise on what was missing. I was the cultural rep. It was fascinating, tough and eventually I thought very worth my time, especially later when the City Council and the various agencies had to implement the changes — which were enormous. They essentially reconfigured most of the governance structure of the City, and added some layers of oversight — among them a Procurement Policy Board. Boring, yes, but at that point, the City’s budget included just over $5 Billion being spent on procurement needs, among which was all the cultural funding. Knowing how it was supposed to work did not solve all our problems, but it gave me tools and knowledge to force agencies, the Mayor and Council members to play by some rules as well as be more transparent.
So, I believe that governing documents are critical and can be understood by lay people. I would vote for a Constitutional Convention and hope for the best, but not sure about a lot of others who see all government as intrusive and not to be trusted. (I might want to limit the number of lawyers who could serve! Just in the interest of actually getting something done in less that a couple of decades.)
+1