Civitas Capitol Connection June 2011

Senate leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Thom Tillis have differing opinions from Gov. Perdue on state taxes and the budget. Photos: News &

Observer; Don Carrington

Charlotte Tea Party leader Matthew Ridenhour speaks to a crowd on the importance of returning to fiscally conservative economic policies. Photo: anonymous

100 S

outh

Har

ringt

on St

reet

Ralei

gh, N

.C. 27

603-

1814

NO

N-P

ROFI

T O

RG.

US

POST

AGE

PAID

Perm

it #1

44

Reid

svill

e, N

C

T he largest difference be-tween budget proposals from Gov. Beverly Perdue and the General Assem-

bly leadership is how each views state taxes.

On one side, Perdue favors impos-ing a net tax increase of $710 million. And on the other, the General Assem-bly plan includes a tax cut package totaling $131 million the first year, growing to $336 million the second.

Specifically, Perdue’s plan calls for an increase in the statewide sales tax by three-fourths of a penny. As of July 1, 2011, the state-level sales tax is sched-uled to fall back to 4.75 percent as the 2009 “temporary” sales tax increase will expire (counties and some munic-ipalities also levy a sales tax, typically 2 cents per dollar spent). In short, un-der Perdue’s plan, the statewide sales tax rate would be 5.5 percent on July 1 as opposed to 4.75 percent as it would

Perdue Battles for $710M Tax Hike

Citizen of the Month: Matthew RidenhourTea Party Leader & Concerned Citizen

Frustrated with the 2009 bail-outs and the direction in which the country was headed, Charlotte na-tive Matthew Ridenhour decided it was time to get involved. Despite frequently writing letters and mak-ing calls to representatives, he felt there was much more to be done.

“It seemed I was just one small voice,” Ridenhour said.

It was CNBC host Rick Santel-li’s explosive on-air speech assailing massive government bailouts and lack of personal responsibility that prompted Ridenhour to organize an April 15, 2009 Tea Party rally in Charlotte, North Carolina. In what he calls “one of the most ex-citing days of my life,” over 2,500 people converged on City Hall in downtown Charlotte to protest the bailouts, high taxes, and big govern-ment policies. The group remains active and has held rallies to draw attention to the importance of free market principles and fiscally con-servative economic policies.

Having served the last 10 years in the US Marine Corps Reserve and completed two tours in Iraq,

In This Issue

www.nccivitas.org

CompromiseContinued on Pg. 3

CitizenContinued on Pg. 3

Legislative Compromise Still Not Enough for Perdue

After months of back and forth discussion, the final $19.7 billion budget emerging from Jones St. this month represents a curiously one-sid-ed relationship between the legislature and the governor. While the original budget proposal featured wide rang-ing spending reform efforts, includ-ing early childcare reform of the state’s Smart Start program, elimination of Teaching Assistants for grades 1 – 3, and taking funding from the Golden LEAF Foundation, the lion’s share of such initiatives were shelved by Re-publican legislators in the interests of compromise. Although the House and Senate both sought to reconcile a $2.4 billion budget hole differently, their efforts have been met with strong crit-icism by Gov. Beverly Perdue on the total amount spent on education.

Perhaps in response to Perdue’s criticism, the N.C. Senate modified total spending amounts by around $200 million throughout the budget writing process, increasing total K-12 education spending to $7.4 billion, including a provision that would re-duce class sizes in K-12 classrooms to one teacher per 17 students. Perdue denounced the compromise as a “cha-

BattleContinued on Pg. 8

be under current legislation. Esti-mates project the three-fourths penny extra sales tax rate would cost taxpay-ers $826 million annually.

Moreover, Perdue’s proposal in-cludes a reduction in the state’s cor-porate tax rate from 6.9 percent to 4.9 percent. But because the corporate tax

rate applies to a relatively few num-ber of businesses, total savings from Perdue’s tax reduction would only amount to a projected $115 million.Thus the combined impact of Per-due’s desired tax changes yields a net tax increase of roughly $710 million.

Conversely, the General Assem-

bly’s approved budget does not in-clude a sales tax increase or a corpo-rate tax rate reduction. Instead, their plan includes a tax cut package fo-cused primarily on small businesses. It features a tax exemption of the first $50,000 in business income for start-up and small businesses having gross receipts less than $825,000.

The tax exemption is projected to produce a tax savings of $131 million for the coming fiscal year, and savings of $336 million the following year. The tax exemption, however, is tar-geted to sunset at the end of the 2013 calendar year.

Clearly the premise behind these conflicting tax plans offers a stark contrast.

In order to avoid making sensible reductions to the growth of state gov-ernment, and to maintain a higher level of state government workers,

BY BRIAN BALFOUR

BY ANDREW HENSON

BY KATHLEEN TROUT

rade” and maintained a consistent mantra of disapproval throughout the final passage of the budget. Senator Richard Stevens hinted at the gov-ernor’s possible overreaction toward total education expenditures which he claims differs from her budget in terms of total dollars reaching local school districts by one half of one percent.

The final vote on the biennium budget revealed cracks within the Democratic party, as five House Democrats rejected Perdue’s blister-ing criticisms of proposed educa-tion cuts by voting with Republican legislators to pass the House budget with a veto-proof majority. This band of Democrats has a history of voting with Republicans -- four out of these five representatives voted to elect Rep. Thom Tillis (R – Mecklenburg) to become Speaker of the House. The list of Democrats includes: Jim Craw-ford (D – Granville), Bill Owens (D – Pasquotank), William Brisson (D – Bladen), Dewey Hill (D – Colum-bus), and Tim Spear (D - Washing-ton).

At the time of this publishing,

Civitas CAPITOL CONNECTIONJune 2011 • Vol. 3, no. 5

2Budget Fight AvoidablePerdue’s Scare Tactics

3Malpractice Reform Still

On the TableElection Reform & The

New Majority

4Compromise Reached on

State Health Plan

6NCGA’s Mixed Messages

on Obamacare

12Scandal:

Poole Heads to Jail

2 June 2011 nccivitas.org

CAPITOL CONNECTIONCivitas

NAME

ADDRESS

CIT Y

STATE Z IP

PHONES

EMAIL Please mail to:

100 South Harrington Street, Raleigh, NC 27603http://www.nccivitas.org/signup | 919-747-8052

Not a subscriber? Get a

FREE SUBSCRIPTION Not sure if you are a subscriber? Verify by

checking the address label. If the word“subscriber” is not included, you need to

subscribe to insure you continue toreceive your very own issue of


The current wrangling over the state budget has been focused almost exclusively on trying to reconcile a budget gap of more than $2 billion – and how much of that should be filled with tax increases or spending reductions.

North Carolinians should be reminded, however, that this situa-tion was completely predictable and largely avoidable. State budget writ-ers had more than two years to pre-pare for this, but they refused to take responsible measures to minimize the current budget mess.

To understand how this situation has unfolded, we need to go back to early 2009 when the economic reces-sion first began to substantially impact the level of state revenue.

Because state revenue was much lower than anticipated when the budget was approved the previ-ous summer, the governor’s office had to take extensive measures to hold back money from state agencies in order to make revenue last until the end of the fiscal year on June 30.

During the summer of 2009, when it was readily apparent that the nation and state were mired in the deepest recession since the Great Depression, state lawmakers went to work crafting a state budget. They had a decision to make: enact sen-sible spending reductions to reflect the lowered rate of recession-era rev-enue, or rely on short-term revenue streams and pin their hopes on an economic recovery to bail them out in future years.

Unfortunately, lawmakers opted for the shortsighted, irresponsible option.

State Budget Fight Could Have Been Avoided

Included in the 2009-10 fiscal year budget was the enactment of more than $1 billion in new “tem-porary” taxes. The largest revenue grab came from a 1-cent increase in the statewide sales tax. Other tax hikes included an additional surcharge on corporate and in-come taxes. While North Caro-lina raised all three of the major state taxes, no other state in the southeast resorted to raising even one of those taxes in 2009.

State budget writers also re-lied heavily upon federal

“stimulus” dollars to backfill funding for

state programs – primarily public

The North Carolina Senate’s at-tempt to appease Gov. Beverly Per-due with additional budget spending still was not enough to keep her of-fice from engaging in an over-the-top public relations campaign to smear the Senate’s proposal.

The original Senate budget pro-posal totaled $19.43 billion in state spending. Based upon Perdue’s sig-nals that she would veto such a plan, the Senate re-worked their budget to add $250 million in spending, bring-ing the total to $19.68 billion. The Senate’s changes focused on Perdue’s primary objection: public education spending.

Specifically, the Senate increased funding for K-12 education by $240 million over its original plan. The most significant change included dropping their initial proposal to save $390 million by reducing teaching as-sistants in grades K-3.

Despite the Senate catering to Perdue’s wishes, the governor was less than satisfied and continued to lash out at the plan. Indeed, on the eve of the Senate releasing its compromise budget plan, a spokesperson for Per-due declared “a lot of bad things will happen if this (the Senate’s) budget passes.”

Moreover, a day before voting was scheduled to begin, Perdue declared that the Senate’s plan “raises enor-mous concerns” and will “unnecessar-ily defund education and other crucial programs.”

To understand the absurdity of Perdue’s statements, a little perspec-tive is in order. The Senate compro-mise budget would spend $19.68 billion. Meanwhile, Perdue’s budget plan would spend $19.9 billion – for

a difference of 1.1 percent. This minor difference “raises enormous concerns” to Perdue?

Moreover, when federal funds are added in, North Carolina’s Gen-eral Fund operating budget will total roughly $35 billion. The difference between Perdue’s plan and the Senate’s is $220 million. Thus, when you con-sider a total operating budget of $35 billion, the difference comes to a pal-try six-tenths of one percent.

Does the governor’s office expect us to believe this small difference is protecting us from “bad things” hap-pening?

Lastly, it is imperative that one understands how the state budget has found itself in such a significant hole. When examining the time frame lead-ing up to the current recession, we see that state budget writers have gone on an extended, unchecked spend-ing spree. For the 30 year time span from 1979 to 2009 – even after ad-justing expenditures for inflation – the state budget grew at a rate more than three times the rate of population growth.

Considering the three decades of growing state budgets and ever-expanding government, the current minor correction in the radical expan-sion of state spending hardly warrants such extreme rhetoric from the gover-nor’s office.

In light of the actual numbers, Gov. Perdue should be ashamed to stoop to such lowly fear-mongering. Her irresponsible comments are a dis-traction from the legitimate debate about the proper role of state govern-ment that should be taking place in Raleigh. The governor at least owes taxpayers an honest budgetary discus-sion. After all, it is their money she is spending. w

Perdue’s Overblown Budget Scare Tactics

BY BRIAN BALFOUR

BY BRIAN BALFOUR

PUBLISHER

Francis X. De [email protected]

MANAGING EDITOR

Kathleen [email protected]

Editorial & Advertising

100 S. Harrington Street

Raleigh, NC 27603

919-834-2099 (phone)

919-834-2350 (fax)

www.nccivitas.org

All non-advertising content published

in Civitas Capitol Connection may be

republished as long as appropriate

credit is given and it is published in its

entirety.

Copyright 2011


education and Medicaid. The fed-eral stimulus bill provided North Carolina with a $1.4 billion infu-sion in fiscal year 2009-10 and an-other $1.6 billion in the current budget year.

Budget writers, however, knew that both of these substantial rev-enue sources were temporary and would no longer be available for the 2011-12 state budget. Specifi-cally, nearly $3 billion in revenue from the federal stimulus plan and temporary taxes used to help bal-ance this year’s budget must now somehow be made up for in the coming year because budget writ-ers chose to avoid sensible reduc-tions and maintained unsustain-able spending levels.

This drop-off in temporary revenue helps to explain the deep budget hole facing the General As-sembly and Gov. Beverly Perdue.

Many critics have been warn-ing state leaders that their short-sighted reliance on temporary revenue sources, while avoiding any meaningful spending reform, will create a severe day of reckon-ing when the temporary revenue sources dry up.

That day of reckoning is now, and the critics have been proven right.

The heated budget debate and blame game continues in Raleigh. But remember: if lawmakers had taken responsible measures to ad-dress the troubling budget prob-lem two years ago, the current situation could have been avoided. They have no one to blame but themselves. w

Please tell me who you trust more – the state

legislature or Governor Perdue –

to handle cutting state spending.

Civitas Poll May 2011

Legislature 60%Perdue 26%Both 2%Neither 6%Don’t Know 5%

3June 2011nccivitas.org


Medical Malpractice Reform Still on the TableMedical malpractice has gotten

out of control with doctors facing frivolous lawsuits which lack suffi-cient evidence of wrongdoing, wast-ing time and resources that could have been used to see patients. Many par-ties have realized that reforming the tort system, the legal system created to correct civil wrongdoing, is vital to keeping insurance costs down and ensuring good doctors remain in the medical field. A study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health found that 37 percent of medical mal-practice claims are meritless. Litigat-ing cases without merit wastes valuable resources and increases insurance and physician rates.

As a result, several legislators have offered bills to address the grow-ing problem. So far, both chambers of the General Assembly have passed SB 33, the Medical Liability Reforms Act, sponsored by Senator Apodaca (R-Henderson). The appointed joint

conference committee is currently ne-gotiating an agreement between the Senate and House versions of this leg-islation.

While SB 33 remains in nego-tiations, HB 542, the Tort Reform for Citizens and Businesses Act, sponsored by Representative Rhyne (R-Lincoln), has passed the House and now moves to the Senate for debate. This bill includes an actual dam-ages provision, allowing

the actual medical costs to be admit-ted into evidence at trial in a medi-cal malpractice case. Actual medical costs are the true medical dollars paid to settle a medical bill, not the billed charges, which is the current evidence standard in malpractice trials. Such a provision would provide the jury with a more accurate and honest reflection

of the costs incurred by the in-jured plaintiff. It would

also help lower litigation costs while decreas-

ing health insurance rates and malprac-tice coverage.

Most of the de-bate in malpractice

legislation centers around the cap on

non-economic damages. Non-economic damages are

generally damages awarded for pain, suffering, emotional distress and other less-tangible injuries. Legislators are debating whether to cap the dam-ages at $250,000 or $500,000, while

others feel there should be no cap at all. In their current form, neither pro-posed bill would limit compensatory damages, which are damages recovered for the actual injury or economic loss incurred.

Another point of contention in-volves emergency room doctors. Leg-islators have debated whether to offer them a higher threshold of liability and hold them to a standard of care of a reasonable emergency room doctor, not to a routine family practice physi-cian. Including this provision seems fair considering emergency doctors must make split second decisions on a daily basis.

Any tort reform legislation should balance the need to allow truly injured plaintiffs to have their day in court while filtering out frivolous claims and weak cases. Either bill would begin to address the current abuse in tort re-form while also freeing up the courts to hear legitimate malpractice suits. w

Election Reform and the New Republican MajorityAt print, the 2011-2012 biennium

of the North Carolina General As-sembly is 75 days into the “100 days that will change North Carolina.” In the days before the General Election of 2010, both the North Carolina House and Senate Republican candidates promised that, if elected, they would focus on a top 10 list of priorities.

With 25 days left in the promise and the budget bill taking center stage, it is best to reserve judgment on the overall accomplishments of the new Republican majority, but we will cer-tainly use their campaign promises to measure their success.

Both the state House and the Sen-ate’s top 10 lists included passing an “Honest Election Act” requiring a valid photo ID to vote. The House is on the verge of passing their version of a voter photo ID bill. In the 2010 campaign, candidates knew that the voter photo ID issue resonated with constituents – actually it was one of the primary is-sues. Since 2006, Civitas polling has consistently shown support of a voter photo ID requirement running be-

tween 83 and 88 percent. Voters in every demographic believe that having to provide an ID card with a photo-graph is just common-sense. In light of these facts, passage of this legislation should be a “no-brainer,” and it makes one wonder why the state House has had such difficulty in defending and passing a good voter photo ID bill.

It is always difficult to change what so many think of as “the norm.” Democrats have been targeting groups of vot-ers legislatively for gen-erations. Their tactics and the results of such are so ingrained in North Caro-lina's legislative process and daily lives that it seems normal, even righteous. This is why, now that Re-publicans are in charge, any change to the status quo is frightening -- in some cases even to Republicans themselves.

Republican state House members found it difficult to drive the voter photo ID legislation during this legis-lative session. Twice they compromised their bill to appease House Democrats

and twice they “discovered” that the Democrats in the House would not co-operate. At this time, the original bill is being discussed on the House floor and passed second reading on June 8, 2011.

The Senate can be commended for presenting the strongest voter

photo ID bill in SB 595, sponsored by Debbie

Clary (R-Cleveland). Senator Clary’s bill

BY KAREN DUQUETTE

BY SUSAN MYRICK

Perdue has not vetoed the Republi-can-crafted budget; but without the support of her party it seems unlike-ly she will do so. This sentiment has been echoed by Republican legisla-tors who previously worried about the possibility of a government shutdown in the event of an execu-tive veto. Now Republicans expect the budget process to be wrapped up shortly and for the legislative session to adjourn until redistricting meet-ings begin in July. w

CompromiseCitizenCONTINUED FROM PG 1CONTINUED FROM PG 1

Do you support or oppose legislation to place caps on the amount of money that can be awarded in medical malpractice suits?

Civitas Poll February 2011

Strongly Support 45%Somewhat Support 24%Somewhat Oppose 10%Strongly Oppose 14%Not Sure 7%

Ridenhour is no stranger to public service and hard work. He has ap-peared on numerous local talk radio and television stations to share the Tea Party’s perspective on various topics. And though not visible on the political scene until two years ago, he grew up in a politically aware family which he credits for his pas-sion and enthusiasm in the Tea Party movement today.

“We would watch the Nightly News with Dan Rather, 60 Minutes and Crossfire, so politics was always a topic of discussion. My mother

often listened to Rush Limbaugh, so during the summers I would catch a good number of his shows,” said Ridenhour. “I think the Tea Party movement was a wake-up call for me saying, ‘If I don’t get involved now, there may not be much left for me to fight for later.’”

It is this concern that moti-vates him to keep people engaged and informed. Moving into 2012, Ridenhour says educating citizens will become a primary goal for the Tea Party in Charlotte. Using social media such as Facebook and Twitter, Ridenhour hopes to foster open dia-logue and information sharing with Tea Party members, particularly to

impact the upcoming local elections. The group will focus on finding candidates to run for local offices, mobilize members to help with cam-paigns, and share the Tea Party plat-form in the Charlotte community.

“If we don’t educate people on economics, monetary policy, and fis-cally conservative values, then we’re really not making a lasting impres-sion,” he explained. “This year is go-ing to set the stage for what we can accomplish next year.” w

Follow the Charlotte Tea Party and upcoming events by visitingCharlotteTeaParty.org.

most closely follows the Georgia voter photo ID bill that has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court and the Justice Department. Unfortunately this bill was referred to Senate Com-mittee Judiciary I on April 4, 2011 and has only been discussed in one meeting since then.

Only now, with two days left be-fore the crossover deadline, are we see-ing any election reform bills making it to the House or Senate floor for de-bate. There are at least 19 sponsored bills (see chart) that attempt to achieve positive reform in many areas of North Carolina elections. Most of these bills have been referred to a committee and may never be heard. And while many of these bills attempt to do different things, they all try to restore some in-tegrity to North Carolina’s elections.

The new Republican majority has not lost the opportunity to start revers-ing years of liberal election laws – yet. They need to pass these well thought-out election reform bills now before this session ends. w

See the ChartContinued on Pg. 5

Currently North Carolina does not require voters to

show a government issued photo ID to

vote. The legislature is considering legislation

to require all voters to show a photo ID when voting. Would requiring voters to show a photo ID improve the integrity and security of voting in North Carolina or have no effect on voting in North Carolina?

Civitas Poll March 2011

Improve Security 69%No Effect 27%Not Sure 3%



Differing Views on Public Education at Heart of Budget Battle

Public education is ground zero for an expected budget battle between conservative majorities in the North Carolina House and Senate and a lib-eral governor facing a $2 billion budget deficit who is anxious to improve her approval ratings.

Facing the loss of $670 million in federal stimulus funding and an ongo-ing recession, any plan to address the state’s budget deficit would signifi-cantly impact public education which accounts for over 50 percent of state spending. Those realities and differing political visions have helped to propel Gov. Beverly Perdue and the legislature in different directions.

Gov. Perdue’s $11.2 billion budget plan called for extending a “temporary” sales tax to add another $825 million to budget coffers. By adding another tax, the governor minimized the size

of the cuts needed to address the state’s budget deficit and also reduced the cuts to public education by protecting teachers and teacher assistants from job losses. Overall, the governor rec-ommends reductions of $351 million for the public schools, $86 million for community colleges and $230 million for the UNC System.

Eager to keep their promise of no new taxes, newly-elected Republican legislators have sought to address the $2 billion budget deficit by reducing the size of government. The House budget calls for $1.2 billion in cuts to public education – about $586 million more than the governor’s budget. This includes reductions of $694 million to the public schools, $111 million in re-ductions for community colleges and $447 million in UNC budget reduc-tions. In percentage terms this equates to reductions of 8.8 percent for the public schools, 10 percent for com-

munity colleges and 15.5 percent for the UNC System. The House agreed to fully fund all teacher positions for the next biennium, yet eliminated all Teacher Assistants for third grade and while seeking to give local districts more flexibility in making budget re-ductions.

Not surprisingly, the Senate also put its own stamp on the education budget. The Senate’s public education budget (K-12, community colleges and UNC) is about $258 million less than Gov. Perdue’s recommended budget.

For all the talk about draconian cuts by the Republicans, the Senate’s final budget numbers are not signifi-cantly different than Perdue’s. Her budget provides $11.2 billion; the Senate -- $10.98 billion. The Senate however provides less the Governor’s recommended budget to the UNC System ($117 million difference) and community colleges ($32 million dif-

ference). In overall percentage terms, the

Senate reduces the K-12 education budget by 5.7 percent while Gov. Per-due’s budget reduces K-12 spending by 4.4 percent.

The Senate budget figures include about $300 million added back to the budget to fund Teacher Assistants in grades K through 3 and the hiring of 1,100 new teachers to reduce the teacher-student ratio in lower grades to 1 to 17. Both provisions were includ-ed in hopes of gaining enough votes from House Democrats to override a veto from the governor. Five House Democrats voted with Republicans in support of the House bill in May. Last week the House voted to agree with the Senate budget. After the House’s ap-proval, the bill was sent to Gov. Perdue for her signature. She has not decided if she will veto the budget bill. w

Compromise Reached over State Health PlanLawmakers and Gov. Beverly

Perdue were able to reach a com-promise over the State Health Plan. Senate leaders substituted language in an old House bill (HB578) with another version of changes to the State Health Plan. The House ap-proved them and the bill was sent by special messenger to Gov. Per-due. Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) says he and other leaders met with Perdue and she agreed to the new version. It is similar to the bill she previously vetoed with one distinct excep-tion: the new bill allows the State Health Plan to use cash reserves of about $40 million to offer free health insurance coverage under a 70/30 plan for one year. While an individual employee wouldn’t pay a premium, they would pay a higher co-pay. The option could be continued to 2013 if the board of trustees can find the funds to sup-port it.

Oversight of the State Health Plan would be moved to the State Treasurer’s office which now over-

sees the pension plan.There is one problem, state em-

ployees had 22 days to finish re-en-rolling in the State Health Plan un-der the old rules; many had already signed up. Those old rules includ-ed admitting to smoking which put an employee into a 70/30 plan; the same would apply to overweight workers.

Artis Watkins with the State Employees Association of North Carolina says that means the state will have to open a new enrollment period for those who have already signed up, which could cost up to $20 million in administrative ex-pense and money lost in the delay.

Representative Dale Folwell (R-Forsyth) calls that just a band-aid. He introduced a bill (HB928) that he says would provide a long term fix for the State Health Plan. “Our actuary told us our unfunded liabil-ity for the State Health Plan is $33 billion,” explained Folwell. “The appropriation that should be asso-ciated with that is almost $3 billion a year, for 17 years,” he said. The same actuary recently reported that liability would climb to $59.8 bil-

lion in six years if something isn’t done to fix the plan.

Folwell says young state em-ployees are leaving the State Health Plan in droves because they can more cheaply go online and buy coverage for their family. The state plan doesn’t charge for individual coverage but charges a hefty pre-mium for a family.

In addition, Folwell’s bill would have the plan administrators set up an incentive program for employees to look for errors in medical bills.

IN FAVOR OF STATE HEALTH PLAN REFORMHB 578

House Republicans (63)Avila Barnhart Blackwell Blust Bradley BrawleyBrown, L Brown, R Brubaker Burr Cleveland CollinsCook Daughtry Dixon Dockham Dollar FairclothFolwell Frye Gillespie Guice Hager HastingsHilton Hollo Holloway Horn Howard HurleyIler Ingle Johnson Jones Jordan JusticeLangdon LaRoque Lewis McCormick McElraft McGeeMcGrady Mills Moffitt Moore, T Murry PridgenRandleman Rhyne Sager Samuelson Sanderson SetzerShepard Stam Starnes Steen Stevens StoneTorbett Warren, H West

House Democrats (27)Alexander, K Bell Brandon Brisson Bryant Carney

Crawford Earle Farmer-Butterfield Fisher Gill Glazier

Goodman Hill Jeffus Keever McGuirt MichauxMoore, R Owens Parfitt Parmon Rapp SpearWainwright Wilkins Wray

AGAINST STATE HEALTH PLAN REFORM

House Republicans (0)

House Democrats (24)Adams Alexander, M Bordsen Cotham Faison FloydGraham Hackney Hall Hamilton Harrison InskoJackson Lucas Luebke Martin McLawhorn MobleyPierce Ross Tolson Warren, E Weiss Womble

NOT VOTING (1) ABSENT (5)

House Tillis (R) Boles (R) Current (R) Haire (D)

Killian (R) McComas (R)

Sponsors Roll CallMurry (R) Dockham (R) Barnhart (R) House #528

They would receive a reward of 10 percent of the savings they find.

Meanwhile, Folwell also intro-duced a bill (HB927) that he claims would put the state employees’ re-tirement fund back on track. For one thing, state employees would have to wait 10 years instead of five to be vested in the fund. Folwell’s bill would require a state employee to work 30 years and reach age 60 to qualify for full benefits. That would only apply to those who are hired on or after August 1, 2011. w

BY BOB LUEBKE

BY MATT WILLOUGHBY



Election Reform Bills Filed in the NCGAHouse Bill # Description Intent Status Primary Sponsor(s)

House 658 Change Early Voting Period Shortens early voting (in-person) by one weekRef To Com On Judiciary I on May 23, 2011

Jones, Stam, Collins, Sager

Senate 419Campaign Finance and Regulatory Reforms

An act to repeal the authority to provide for public funding of campaigns in North Carolina and to make other campaign finance reforms

Ref To Com On Judiciary I on Mar 28, 2011

Davis

Senate 503 No Second Primaries Eliminates Second PrimariesRef To Com On Judiciary I on Apr 5, 2011

Davis

House 32Electoral Freedom Act of 2011

Amends the statutory requirement for a political party to maintain ballot eligibility; to provide that the results of primaries of politi-cal parties with less than ten percent of the registered voters are determined by a plurality unless the party chooses to nominate by convention; to change the definition of a “political party” by reducing the number of signatures required for the formation of a new political party; to reduce the number of signatures required for unaffiliated candidates to obtain ballot access eligibility; and to eliminate the need for petitions for write-in candidacy

Passed Third Reading on Jun 7, 2011; Ref To Com On Judiciary I (Senate) on Jun 8, 2011

LaRoque, Bradley, Luebke, Farmer-Butter-field

Senate 225Electoral Freedom Act of 2011

See HB 32Ref To Com On Rules and Operations of the Senate on Mar 7, 2011

Brock, Kinnaird

House 114Assistance to Voters in Fam-ily Care Homes

Any registered voter qualified to vote in the election who, on account of living in a family care home as a person with disabilities as defined in G.S. 168-21, is entitled to assistance only from the voter’s legal guardian

Ref To Com On Elections on Feb 17, 2011

Setzer

Senate 399Minority Appeal from County Board of Election

An act to provide a process for an appeal of a decision of the county board of elections to the state board of elections by a member of the county board of elections

Ref To Com On Elections on Apr 4, 2011

Clary

House 452Eliminate Instant Runoff/Public Finacing

An act to eliminate “instant runoff” voting for judicial offices when late vacancies occur and instead determine the results of the vacancy election by plurality, and to repeal public campaign financing for judicial and council of state races.

Passed 3rd reading on Jun 7, 2011; Ref to Com On Judi-ciary on Jun 8, 2011

Starnes

Senate 657 Voting IntegrityShortens early voting (in-person) by one week, eliminates Same-Day Registration

Ref To Com On Judiciary I on Apr 20, 2011

Davis, Daniel, Hise

House 300Election Fairness Act of 2011

An act to rotate the order of candidates and political parties as they appear on ballots, to eliminate straight-party ticket voting, and to provide partisan balance on the state board of elections.

Passed Second Reading on Jun 8, 2011

Jones, Hager

Senate 47Restore Partisan Judicial Elections

An act to restore judicial elections to a partisan basisPassed Second and Third Readings on Jun 8, 2011

Tillman

House 64Restore Partisan Judicial Elections

An act to restore judicial elections to a partisan basisRef To Com On Elections on Jun 8, 2011

Sager, Dixon, Cleveland, Jones

Senate 595Voter Identification at the Polls

Require voters to provide photo identification prior to votingRef To Com On Judiciary I on Apr 14, 2011

Clary

Senate 352Restore Confidence in Government

Requires voters to provide photo identification before voting and other election and campaign reforms

Ref To Com On Judiciary I on Mar 16, 2011

Meredith, Hise

House 351Restore Confidence in Government

Requires voters to provide photo identification before voting and allows more flexibility in requesting absentee ballots


Lewis, T., Moore, Killian

Senate 725 Campaign Finance ReformVarious campaign finance reforms including changing NCGS 163-277 so that an individual compelled to testify before “any court or magis-trate upon any investigation” would not be excused from prosecution.

Ref to Com on Judiciary I on Apr 20, 2011

Hise, Goolsby

House 710Board of Ethics, Lobbying and Campaign Finance

An act to combine the functions of the state ethics commission, the lobbying section of the secretary of state, and the campaign finance division of the state board of elections into an agency to be known as the state board of ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance


Lewis

Senate 456Candidate List Party or Unaf-filiated Status

Will allow for party designations in partisan ballot items and nonpar-tisan ballot items as requested by the candidate.

Passed third Reading Jun 8, 2011; Ref To Com On Elec-tions (House) on Jun 8, 2011

Goolsby

IN FAVOR OF SHORTENING EARLY VOTE PERIODHB 658House Republicans (60)Avila Barnhart Blackwell Blust Boles BradleyBrawley Brown, L Brown, R Brubaker Burr ClevelandCollins Cook Current Daughtry Dixon DockhamDollar Folwell Frye Gillespie Hager HastingsHilton Hollo Holloway Horn Howard HurleyIler Ingle Johnson Jones Justice LangdonLaRoque McComas McCormick McElraft McGee MillsMoffitt Moore, T Murry Pridgen Randleman RhyneSager Samuelson Sanderson Setzer Shepard StamStarnes Steen Stevens Stone Warren, H West

House Democrats (0)

NOT VOTING (1) ABSENT (1)House Tillis (R) Killian (R)

AGAINST SHORTENING EARLY VOTE PERIOD

House Republicans (6)Faircloth Guice Jordan Lewis McGrady Torbett

House Democrats (52)Adams Alexander, K Alexander, M Bell Bordsen BrandonBrisson Bryant Carney Cotham Crawford Earle

Faison Farmer-Butterfield Fisher Floyd Gill Glazier

Goodman Graham Hackney Haire Hall HamiltonHarrison Hill Insko Jackson Jeffus KeeverLucas Luebke Martin McGuirt McLawhorn MichauxMobley Moore, R Owens Parfitt Parmon PierceRapp Ross Spear Tolson Wainwright Warren, EWeiss Wilkins Womble Wray

Sponsors Roll CallJones (U) Stam (R) House #519Collins (R) Sager (R)

See accompanying article, page 3



State Responses to Obamacare

Deciphering Mixed Messages on Obamacare from NC Legislature

On May 11, 2011, GOP leg-islative leadership filed an Amicus brief challenging the constitutional-ity – especially the individual man-date – of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare.) Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berg-er (R-Rockingham), Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown (R-Onslow), House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg), and House Major-ity Leader Skip Stam (R-Wake) all signed the “friend of the court” brief.

Earlier in the session, the leg-islature passed HB 2, the “Protect Healthcare Freedom Act,” which would have allowed North Carolina to join 26 other states in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal law. However, Governor Beverly Perdue vetoed the bill and the legislature was unsuccessful in overriding the veto. North Carolina has now joined Minnesota in filing an Amicus brief to the lawsuit cur-rently in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

An Amicus brief is filed by an

individual or an entity that is not a party to the litigation, but has an in-terest in its outcome, usually siding with one of the parties to the case. These briefs are important because they provide unique perspectives and legal arguments that may differ from the involved parties’ views.

The legislature’s brief argues Obamacare is unconstitutional be-cause its “individual mandate is not a valid regulation of economic activ-ity” and that it dramatically expands Medicaid, forcing the states to even-tually absorb these costs. GOP lead-ership has contested that the fed-eral government is encroaching on states rights and individual liberties by forcing individuals to purchase health insurance and making states absorb additional healthcare costs.

With the recent filing of the Am-icus brief, it is somewhat puzzling that the same GOP-led legislature is also quickly pushing through an un-necessary health insurance exchange bill in response to Obamacare.

Under Obamacare, the states “shall” establish a health insurance exchange. If a state chooses not to

provide its own exchange by January 1, 2014, the federal government, un-der the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, will set up an ex-change for it. However, so far, there has been little guidance from the federal government on key questions about what the exchanges should in-clude and how they should be run.

The state health insurance ex-change bill, HB 115, would set up an exchange with a mix of federal money and funds from the state’s high-risk pool, as well as fees on those who buy insurance policies through the exchange. It would be governed by a 12 member board of directors comprised of businesses, health insurance, medical provider and public representatives.

Based on other states’ exchange experiences, these programs bear little resemblance to a market-based healthcare system. Instead of indi-viduals purchasing among a wide variety of private insurance plans and taking personal ownership of their coverage, an exchange expands enrollment in public programs like Medicaid and constricts consumer

health choice.The constitutionality of Obam-

acare has yet to be determined as the U.S. Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case until 2012. Because its constitutionality is undetermined and because we have until 2014 and probably beyond based on the HHS’ postponed deadlines, there is no rush to set up an exchange process this year. In a time of a major bud-get crisis, why waste money and re-sources setting this up when our own state leadership thinks Obamacare should be held unconstitutional? If the federal law and its required ex-changes are found unconstitutional, the exchange program becomes com-pletely moot.

Only when and if Obamacare is upheld should our legislature worry about researching and setting up a health benefits exchange. And if it is required, North Carolina and its legislators should implement an ex-change that is as competitive and market-driven as possible to ensure patients receive the best options available. w

BY KAREN DUQUETTE

TX

MT

CA

ID

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

ILUT

MN

SD

IA

KS

NE

ND

WI

WA

OK

MO

FL

MI

IN

GA

NY

AL

PA

ARNC

LA

TN

MS

VAKY

OH

ME

SC

MI

WV

VTNH

MACT

MD

NJ

DE

RIRI

No Action

Filed Virginia Lawsuit

Joined Florida Lawsuit

Filed Amicus Brief for Florida Lawsuit

Filed Oklahoma Lawsuit

AK

HI



Unemployment Declining while Unemployment Insurance Debt Continues to Increase

The latest report from the North Carolina Employment Security Com-mission once again shows a steadily declining trend in unemployment rates across the state. The statewide unem-ployment rate fell to 9.5 percent (sea-sonally unweighted), down from 9.7 percent in March. Conversely, the na-tional rate increased from 8.8 percent

to 9 percent. Unemployment rates fell in 73 out of the state’s 100 counties, increased in 10, and remained the same in 17. Additionally, unemployment decreased in 10 of the state’s metro-politan areas and remained the same in four. No metropolitan area incurred an increase in unemployment. Currituck County had the state’s lowest unem-ployment rate of 5.6 percent, whereas Scotland County represented the high-

est rate at 15.8 percent. Only 36 counties were at or

below the state’s average, yet unem-ployment trends continue to decline optimistically, as nearly half of North Carolina’s counties fell under the 10 percent line. The number of employed North Carolinians increased by 6,751, while the number of uninsured fell by 10,036. Unemployment insurance claims totaled 30,307 in April, down

State Unemployment Rates, June 2011Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

2,896 from the previous month. While North Carolina resi-

dents can look forward to increasing job opportunities, the state is reeling from paying over $4.9 billion in un-employment benefits since April 2010 and losing $109.8 million in unem-ployment insurance payments in April alone. These rates must decline further to ease pressure on the state’s strained budget. w

Dare10.6

Hyde8.5

Pitt9.5

Carteret8.1

Wake7.5

Pender10.3

Bladen11.4

Duplin8.4

Bertie11.4

Onslow8.2

Wilkes11.7

Moore8.5

Beaufort10.3

Craven9.7

Union8.6

Halifax12.1

Robeson12.0

Nash11.5

Sampson8.0

Brunswick10.3

Surry10.1

Iredell10.4

Tyrrell10.6

Columbus12.0

Johnston8.7

Wayne8.3

Anson11.9

Harnett10.4

Randolph9.7

Guilford9.7

Macon10.5

Hoke9.0

Rowan10.8

Stokes9.0

Warren12.5Person

9.9Caswell

10.3Forsyth

9.1Yadkin

9.2

Swain13.4

Burke12.1

Ashe10.6

Chatham6.4

Jones9.1

Martin10.6

Pamlico9.6

Lee11.6

Stanly10.4 Lenoir

10.2

Buncombe7.3

Franklin9.6

Davidson10.6

Granville9.5

Haywood9.4

Gates6.8

Jackson8.3

Currituck5.6

Caldwell12.4

Orange5.9

Wilson12.4

Polk7.4

Cumberland9.1

Madison8.9

Rutherford13.7 Gaston

10.6Clay9.6

Cherokee12.7

Catawba11.4

Davie9.4

Cleveland11.2

Richmond12.3

McDowell12.2

Rockingham11.4 Vance

12.7

Alamance9.8

Hertford9.6

Yancey10.7

Avery11.2

Edgecombe14.4

Mecklenburg9.8

Northampton11.3

Lincoln10.9

Montgomery11.8

Cabarrus9.4

Graham14.6

Durham7.3

Camden7.9

Greene10.3

Scotland15.8

Watauga7.6

Washington11.1

Henderson7.5

Transylvania8.6

Chowan10.6

Mitchell10.7 Perquimans

9.7

New Hanover9.0

Alleghany11.3

Alexander10.4

Pasquotank8.9

UnemploymentCounties%

5.6 - 7.5

7.6 - 9.5

9.6 - 11.5

11.6 - 13.5

13.6 - 15.8

BY ANDREW BLACKBURN

9.5%

7.0% 7.7% 7.7% 8.2% 8.3%

9.1% 9.1% 9.5% 9.6% 9.8% 9.9% 10.3%

11.7% 12.5%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

North

Carolina

Durha

m/Chapell Hill

Asheville

Raleigh/Cary

Jackso

nville

Golds

boro

FayeHe

ville

Winston

-‐Salem

Wilming

ton

Greenville

Burlin

gton

Greensboro/

High P

oint

CharloH

e/Gast

onia/Rock Hill NC/SC

Hickory/

Lenoir/Morg

anton

Rocky

Mount



BattleCONTINUED FROM PG 1

Perdue appears willing to reach deeper into consumer’s pockets – even during this ongoing recession.

The General Assembly plan, however, offers some sensible bud-getary reductions coupled with a tax cut plan intended to bolster North Carolina’s private sector economy.

Which plan is better for North Carolina?

A study produced by the Bos-ton-based Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University compared the two plans. It concluded that the legislature’s tax plan would lead to a net creation of 8,000 new jobs in North Carolina in the first year

alone, as private sector job growth would far outpace state government worker layoffs.

By comparison, the study found that while Governor Perdue’s tax hike plan would preserve thousands more state workers, it would lead to virtually no detectible improvement in private sector job growth.

From these results, the study’s authors concluded that the legisla-ture’s tax package would clearly have a greater positive net impact on North Carolina’s economy. w

Sylinthia Stewart of Fayetteville, who has had five abortions, testifies before the North Carolina House of Representatives that she never got information on the risks of abortion.

The John W. Pope Civitas Institute

Free Market AcademyWant to fight back against the erosion of our economic liberty? The most important tool in winning intellectual battles is education and knowledge. Have your activist group host a Free Market Academy educational workshop and learn what left-wing professors, politicians and the media don’t want you to know about free markets!

nccivitas.org/free-market-academy

Bill Requires Full Disclosure of Options before Abortion

Incumbent Wins Washington County Sheriff’s Election Redo

Doctors would have to make women wait at least 24 hours be-fore getting an abortion under a bill (HB854) in the state House of Representatives. It would require a doctor or qualified personnel to fully explain the medical risk of an abor-tion. The legislation would man-date that 24 hours before an abor-tion the woman would be told the doctor's name and where the proce-dure would be performed. Within that time frame, she would be given the chance to see an ultrasound of the fetus and hear the heartbeat, al-though she could refuse. The patient would have to be given information on alternatives to abortion such as medical assistance after birth, public assistance programs, and assurance that the father would be responsible for child support.

Doctor Amy Bryant, a Chapel Hill gynecologist, told a House com-mittee she was opposed to the bill because it was an intrusion. “The legislature should not be inserting itself into a woman’s private health-

This article follows up the article “Washington County Votes in New Election for Sheriff” in the May 2011 edition of the Civitas Capitol Connec-tion.

The “redo” election for Washing-ton County Sheriff was held on Tues-day, May 24, 2011. Democratic in-cumbent sheriff James (Smiley) Ross won the new election with 2,190 votes to the challenger’s, Republican Gregory (Greg) Hassell, 2,065 votes. There was a four vote difference be-tween the candidates in the Nov. 2, 2010 General Election.

In a teleconference on Feb. 25, 2011, the State Board of Elections ac-knowledged that there were sufficient irregularities to taint the results of the election and ordered a new election.

The 2010 Washington County sheriff’s election is a good example

care decision,” said Bryant. “House bill 854 is misleadingly named a ‘Woman’s Right to Know Act.’” She continued, “This provision if enact-ed would actually punish women for deciding to have an abortion.”

She claimed women already re-ceive a lot of information before any

of how the State Board of Elections avoids investigations into apparent voter fraud, thus perpetuating the myth that there is no voter fraud in North Carolina.

As soon as the Board of Elections called for a new election, all hope for “getting to the bottom” of the accusa-tions and evidence of voter fraud in Washington County was lost. After the new election was ordered, the State Board of Elections began to ex-plain away the evidence of fraud as simply administrative error.

While there were serious admin-istrative problems in the election for Washington County sheriff, such as the denial of assistance to voters with disabilities, absentee ballots mailed to wrong addresses and duly registered voters having been removed from the official voter registration list, there were many more egregious violations discovered by Greg Hassell in his in-vestigation into the November 2010

procedure is done.“A woman does not arrive at the

decision to have an abortion lightly; she receives accurate information about the risks, benefits and possible complications of abortion.”

But Sylinthia Stewart of Fayette-ville, who had five abortions, said she

election. Mr. Hassell’s evidence contained

testimony from voters, poll workers and staff from the Roanoke Develop-ment Center. Also included in the evidence Mr. Hassell was prepared to present in a scheduled hearing (which was cancelled by the State Board of Elections), were examples of intimi-dation and fraud such as:

• A missing ballot that was found 27 days after Election Day (voted for Hassell)

• Voters told to vote a straight Democratic ticket

• Voters told that their provision-al ballots would not count

• Absentee/One-Stop votes were cast and counted in the names of the four individuals who were deceased at the time of the vote

• Residents of the Roanoke De-velopment Center were given unsolic-ited and unwanted assistance to vote and according to Hassell, “the votes

didn’t get any information before her abortions and is still having trouble getting information on them now.

“Every time I went for an abor-tion I was never told the informa-tion,” she said. “You know what my education was when I went for my abortion at Planned Parenthood, a doctor’s office: do you want it?”

A doctor specializing in psychia-try told the committee women like Stewart can struggle with psychiatric illnesses long after having an abor-tion.

“The women who come to me say they wish they had received bet-ter information about the risks be-fore they made their abortion de-cision,” said Dr. Martha Shuping. “One North Carolina woman told me that she received better informed consent counseling before her dog had surgery compared to what she received when she had her abortion.”

The bill was approved by the House on June 8, 2011 and was sent to the Senate. w

cast on behalf of the 11 handicapped voters by unauthorized person or persons did not reflect the expressed choice or the will of the voters.”

• Hassell’s evidence went on to reveal that the Roanoke Development Center was operated by Dr. Zebedee Taylor, the Chairman of the Wash-ington County Democratic Party

Sheriff Ross may have won re-election in Washington County, but the voters have lost again because without a proper hearing and inves-tigation, the citizens of North Caro-lina will never know what really hap-pened there during the November 2010 General Election. And after another “close call,” the State Board of Elections can now resume their claim that all is well with elections in North Carolina because we have so few “substantiated” cases of voter fraud. w

BY MATT WILLOUGHBY

BY SUSAN MYRICK



Know someone who’sMade A Difference?

The Civitas Citizen of the Month is an award given to recognize a person who has had an impact on state or local policy debate,

provided information to the public, or otherwise had a noteworthy accomplishment. The Citizen of the Month will be recognized at

our monthly poll luncheons and honored with a gift.

If you know someone who fits the definition and has given of their time for a constitutional, free-market society based on liberty,

please email [email protected].

Smart Start Reform Near Miss in Senate BudgetThe process of brokering a bud-

get agreement this year involves put-ting off several reform efforts by the Republican legislature to insulate their budget from the likely pos-sibility of yet another veto by Gov. Beverly Perdue. One of these shelved projects, Smart Start reform, was scrapped in an effort to hold onto a veto-proofing handful of Democrats who voted in favor of the Republi-can-crafted House budget. The Sen-ate budget largely deferred to the House’s budget in order to keep the support of these critical House Dem-ocrats, shifting far away from special

provisions included in their original budget proposal.

The Senate’s original budget proposal would have brought sweep-ing changes to the Smart Start sys-tem, North Carolina’s early childcare initiative administered by the non-profit North Carolina Partnership for Children (NCPC). The original proposal, rolled out in mid-May, included cutting Smart Start ad-ministration by 50 percent, lock-ing in subsidy expenditures at $72 million—while using extra subsidy funding to reduce the number of children on the subsidy waitlist, and even eliminating the central bureau-cratic office of Smart Start, making

the organization more locally run and operated.

The Senate budget invoked the age-old business practice of “cutting out the middleman” by eliminating funding to NCPC, one of several entities making up the long bureau-cratic chain that funnels state fund-ing along to children and childcare providers as part of the state’s Smart Start program. As the budget pre-viously directed, local Smart Start partnerships would have contracted directly with the state Department of Health and Human Services’ Divi-sion of Child Development (DCD) to perform functions currently un-der NCPC. These functions consist

primarily of compliance and finan-cial reimbursement of the local part-nerships. This reduction would have taken one link out of the chain, sav-ing the state around $5 million dol-lars while preserving the integrity of Smart Start’s concept and mission of local flexibility and community part-nership.

The majority of Smart Start re-form did not make the final cut of the budget writing process. Smart Start received an overall 20 percent cut for fiscal year 2011-12.

One provision that did survive the budget-writing process was a mechanism to prevent excessive com-pensation for Smart Start adminis-trators. Legislators found compensa-tion levels to be so high for NCPC and local partnerships that both House and Senate budgets include salary caps for Smart Start employ-ees to ensure fairer pay grades. The average salary for NCPC employees exceeds $60,000, with the average top five employee salaries exceeding $110,000. NCPC President Stepha-nie Fanjul recently earned a total compensation package of $173,000.

While Smart Start reform may have been tabled this year, how to best spend the over $180 million that North Carolina invests in early childcare will be a continuing issue of great importance. w

Rep. Larry Womble (D-Forsyth) told a House committee that the Racial Justice Act must be upheld because racial bias plays a major role in court trials today.

Racial Justice Act RevisitedHouse Republicans took a bill

(SB9) that had already passed the Senate and substituted new language that would radically alter the Racial Justice Act. The act was passed in 2009 and allowed death row inmates to plead to be taken off death row based on claims of racial discrimina-tion. The inmates could use statis-tical and other types of evidence to show the justice system was biased against minorities. Minority groups say it is because more blacks are sen-tenced to death than whites.

The new Senate bill would no longer allow evidence that only paints a picture of discrimination in the justice system. Inmates would have to actually prove the prosecu-tors considered race as a basis for a death sentence using hard, factual evidence of intent. Suspects would also no longer have pre-trial or post-hearings to make the same com-plaints.

Representative Larry Womble (D-Forsyth) was the sponsor of the Racial Justice Act. He told a House committee considering the Senate bill it was an attempt to repeal the act.

“The people in North Carolina cannot ignore the fact that racial bias still plays a role in many of life and death trials,” said Womble. “This is why we must uphold, we must ex-tend and we must the keep Racial Justice Act as it is now.”

Since the Racial Justice Act went into effect there have been 152 ap-peals by death row inmates. Motions for hearings have also been made in 46 cases pending trial.

District Attorney Seth Edwards, President of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, told the same panel prosecutors do not see race when they get a case -- they see a crime. He said two of his cases illustrate there is no basis for appeals based on race. Supporters of the Racial Justice Act laughed when told that in a committee meeting.

Edwards used the cases which have been appealed under the act to show race didn’t play a role in the death sentences. One was a white man from Beaufort County who killed another white man and his wife.

“I’ve yet to figure out how he can claim racial discrimination” said Edwards. “But I think the answer is because he can, because he can use statistics from some other part of North Carolina to try to show racial discrimination in this case.” Ed-wards said in another case under ap-peal a black man killed a black man by wrapping tape around his head so the victim suffocated. The District Attorney said the sentence wasn’t based on race, but based on the fact it was a violent crime.

The committee approved the bill. The House was scheduled to take it up June 14th. w

BY MATT WILLOUGHBY

BY ANDREW HENSON



1 Camden, Currituck, Pasquotank, Tyrrell Bill Owens (D)Rm. 611, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

2 Chowan, Dare, Hyde, Washington Timothy L. Spear (D)Rm. 402, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

3 Craven, Pamlico Norman W. Sanderson (R)Rm. 306A2, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

4 Duplin, Onslow Jimmy Dixon (R)Rm. 1002, 16 West Jones [email protected]

5 Bertie, Gates, Hertford, Perquimans Annie W. Mobley (D)Rm. 501, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

6 Beaufort, Pitt Bill Cook (R)Rm. 1303, 16 West Jones [email protected]

7 Halifax, Nash Angela R. Bryant (D)Rm. 542, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

8 Martin, Pitt Edith D. Warren (D)Rm. 1323, 16 West Jones [email protected]

9 Pitt Marian N. McLawhorn (D)Rm. 1217, 16 West Jones [email protected]

10 Greene, Lenoir, Wayne Stephen A. LaRoque (R)Rm. 635, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

11 Wayne Efton M. Sager (R)Rm. 416B, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

12 Craven, Lenoir William L. Wainwright (D)Rm. 613, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

13 Carteret, Jones Pat McElraft (R)Rm. 637, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

14 Onslow George G. Cleveland (R)Rm. 417A, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

15 Onslow Phil R. Shepard (R)Rm. 301N, 300 N. Salisbury St.919-715-9644Phil. [email protected]

16 New Hanover, Pender Carolyn H. Justice (R)Rm. 420, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

17 Brunswick Frank Iler (R)Rm. 632, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

18 New Hanover, Pender Susi H. Hamilton (D)Rm. 1319, 16 West Jones [email protected]

19 New Hanover Daniel F. McComas (R)Rm. 506, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

20 Brunswick, Columbus Dewey L. Hill (D)Rm. 1309, 16 West Jones [email protected]

21 Sampson, Wayne Larry M. Bell (D)Rm. 606, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

22 Bladen, Cumberland William D. Brisson (D)Rm. 1325, 16 West Jones [email protected]

23 Edgecombe, Wilson Joe P. Tolson (D)Rm. 608, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

24 Edgecombe, Wilson Jean Farmer-Butterfield (D)Rm. 631D, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

25 Nash Jeff Collins (R)Rm. 1006, 16 West Jones [email protected]

26 Johnston N. Leo Daughtry (R)Rm. 2207, 16 West Jones [email protected]

27 Northhampton, Vance, Warren Michael H. Wray (D)Rm. 502, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

28 Johnston, Sampson James H. Langdon, Jr. (R)Rm. 417B, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

29 Durham Larry D. Hall (D)Rm. 1015, 16 West Jones [email protected]

30 Durham Paul Luebke (D)Rm. 513, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

31 Durham Henry M. Michaux, Jr. (D)Rm. 1220, 16 West Jones [email protected]

32 Granville, Vance James W. Crawford, Jr. (D)Rm. 1321, 16 West Jones [email protected]

33 Wake Rosa U. Gill (D)Rm. 1305, 16 West Jones [email protected]

34 Wake Grier Martin (D)Rm. 1219, 16 West Jones [email protected]

35 Wake Jennifer Weiss (D)Rm. 1109, 16 West Jones [email protected]

36 Wake Nelson Dollar (R)Rm. 307B1, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

37 Wake Paul Stam (R)Rm. 2301, 16 West Jones [email protected]

38 Wake Deborah K. Ross (D)Rm. 1023, 16 West Jones [email protected]

39 Wake Darren G. Jackson (D)Rm. 1019, 16 West Jones [email protected]

40 Wake Marilyn Avila (R)Rm. 2217, 16 West Jones [email protected]

41 Wake Tom Murry (R)Rm. 2121, 16 West Jones [email protected]

42 Cumberland Marvin W. Lucas (D)Rm. 607, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

43 Cumberland Elmer Floyd (D)Rm. 1311, 16 West Jones [email protected]

44 Cumberland Diane Parfitt (D)Rm. 1017, 16 West Jones [email protected]

45 Cumberland Rick Glazier (D)Rm. 1021, 16 West Jones [email protected]

46 Hoke, Robeson, Scotland G.L. Pridgen (R)Rm. 2223, 16 West Jones [email protected]

47 Robeson Charles Graham (D)Rm. 1315, 16 West Jones [email protected]

48 Hoke, Robeson, Scotland Garland E. Pierce (D)Rm. 1204, 16 West Jones [email protected]

49 Franklin, Halifax, Nash Glen Bradley (R)Rm. 536, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

50 Caswell, Orange Bill Faison (D)Rm. 405, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

51 Harnett, Lee Mike C. Stone (R)Rm. 1008, 16 West Jones [email protected]

52 Moore James L. Boles, Jr. (R)Rm. 503, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

53 Harnett David R. Lewis (R)Rm. 534, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

54 Chatham, Moore, Orange Joe Hackney (D)Rm. 612, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

55 Durham, Person W. A. (Winkie) Wilkins (D)Rm. 1301, 16 West Jones [email protected]

56 Orange Verla Insko (D)Rm. 603, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

57 Guilford Pricey Harrison (D)Rm. 1218, 16 West Jones [email protected]

58 Guilford Alma Adams (D)Rm. 604, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

59 Guilford Maggie Jeffus (D)Rm. 1307, 16 West Jones [email protected]

60 Guilford Marcus Brandon (D)Rm. 1209, 16 West Jones [email protected]

61 Guilford John Faircloth (R)Rm. 306A3, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

62 Guilford John M. Blust (R)Rm. 1229, 16 West Jones [email protected]

63 Alamance Alice L. Bordsen (D)Rm. 602, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

64 Alamance Dan W. Ingle (R)Rm. 530, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

65 Rockingham Bert Jones (U)Rm. 306A1, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

66 Montgomery, Richmond Ken Goodman (D)Rm. 1111, 16 West Jones [email protected]

67 Montgomery, Stanly, Union Justin P. Burr (R)Rm. 538, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

68 Union D. Craig Horn (R)Rm. 1010, 16 West Jones [email protected]

69 Anson, Union Frank McGuirt (D)Rm. 1015, 16 West Jones [email protected]

70 Randolph Pat B. Hurley (R)Rm. 532, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

71 Forsyth Larry Womble (D)Rm. 510, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

72 Forsyth Earline W. Parmon (D)Rm. 509, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

73 Davidson, Forsyth Larry R. Brown (R)Rm. 303, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

74 Forsyth Dale R. Folwell (R)Rm. 301F, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

75 Forsyth Wm. C. “Bill” McGee (R)Rm. 634, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

76 Rowan Fred F. Steen, II (R)Rm. 305, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

77 Rowan Harry Warren (R)Rm. 533, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

How do I Contact My Legislator?House

For additional infor-mation on finding your legislator by county or to see how they vote, please visit civitasaction.org

WHY WE GIVE PARTY AFFILIATIONS:The Legislature is managed as a partisan institution. Lawmakers segregate themselves by party in matters from daily meetings to electing leaders. They have separate and taxpayer-financed staffs. As such, gaining a full understanding of the vote of an individ-ual lawmaker requires knowing his or her partisan affiliation.

This legislative directory provides legislative phone number and legisla-tive address. Jones St. zip code is 27601. The Salisbury St. zip code is 27603.



78 Randolph Harold J. Brubaker (R)Rm. 302, 16 West Jones [email protected]

79 Davie, Iredell Julia C. Howard (R)Rm. 1106, 16 West Jones [email protected]

80 Davidson Jerry C. Dockham (R)Rm. 2204, 16 West Jones [email protected]

81 Davidson Rayne Brown (R)Rm. 638, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

82 Cabarrus Jeff Barnhart (R)Rm. 304, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

83 Cabarrus Linda P. Johnson (R)Rm. 301D, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

84 Avery, Caldwell, Mitchell, Yancey Phillip Frye (R)Rm. 639, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

85 Burke, McDowell Mitch Gillespie (R)Rm. 307B2, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

86 Burke Hugh Blackwell (R)Rm. 541, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

87 Caldwell Edgar V. Starnes (R)Rm. 419A, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

88 Alexander, Catawba Mark W. Hollo (R)Rm. 633, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

89 Catawba, Iredell Mitchell S. Setzer (R)Rm. 1206, 16 West Jones [email protected]

90 Alleghany, Surry Sarah Stevens (R)Rm. 416A, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

91 Rockingham, Stokes Bryan R. Holloway (R)Rm. 529, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

92 Iredell, Surry, Yadkin Darrell G. McCormick (R)Rm. 2119, 16 West Jones [email protected]

93 Ashe, Watauga Jonathan C. Jordan (R)Rm. 418C, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

94 Wilkes Shirley B. Randleman (R)Rm. 531, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

95 Iredell Grey Mills (R)Rm. 2221, 16 West Jones [email protected]

96 Catawba Mark K. Hilton (R)Rm. 1227, 16 West Jones [email protected]

97 Lincoln Johnathan Rhyne, Jr. (R)Rm. 2208, 16 West Jones [email protected]

98 Mecklenburg Thom Tillis (R)Rm. 2304, 16 West Jones [email protected]

99 Mecklenburg Rodney W. Moore (D)Rm. 1211, 16 West Jones [email protected]

100 Mecklenburg Tricia Ann Cotham (D)Rm. 403, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

101 Mecklenburg Beverly M. Earle (D)Rm. 610, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

102 Mecklenburg Becky Carney (D)Rm. 1221, 16 West Jones [email protected]

103 Mecklenburg William Brawley (R)Rm. 1313, 16 West Jones [email protected]

104 Mecklenburg Ruth Samuelson (R)Rm. 419B, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

105 Mecklenburg Ric Killian (R)Rm. 2219, 16 West Jones [email protected]

106 Mecklenburg Martha B. Alexander (D)Rm. 1213, 16 West Jones [email protected]

107 Mecklenburg Kelly M. Alexander, Jr. (D)Rm. 404, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

108 Gaston John A. Torbett (R)Rm. 537, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

109 Gaston William A. Current, Sr. (R)Rm. 418B, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

110 Cleveland, Gaston Kelly E. Hastings (R)Rm. 2123, 16 West Jones [email protected]

111 Cleveland Tim Moore (R)Rm. 1326, 16 West Jones [email protected]

112 Cleveland, Rutherford Mike Hager (R)Rm. 306C, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

113 Henderson, Polk, Transylvania W. David Guice (R)Rm. 528, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

114 Buncombe Susan C. Fisher (D)Rm. 504, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

115 Buncombe Patsy Keever (D)Rm. 1317, 16 West Jones [email protected]

116 Buncombe Tim D. Moffitt (R)Rm. 1025, 16 West Jones [email protected]

117 Henderson Chuck McGrady (R)Rm. 418A, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

118 Haywood, Madison, Yancey Ray Rapp (D)Rm. 1013, 16 West Jones [email protected]

119 Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain R. Phillip Haire (D)Rm. 609, 300 N. Salisbury [email protected]

120 Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Macon Roger West (R)Rm. 1004, 16 West Jones [email protected]

Senate1 Beaufort, Camden, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Tyrrell, Washington Stan White (D) Rm. 1121, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-8293 [email protected]

2 Carteret, Craven, Pamlico Jean R. Preston (R) Rm. 629, 300 N. Salisbury St. [email protected]

3 Edgecombe, Martin, Pitt S. Clark Jenkins (D) Rm. 621, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3040 [email protected]

4 Bertie, Chowan, Gates, Halifax, Hertford, Northampton, PerquimansW. Edward Jones (D) Rm. 518, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3032 [email protected]

5 Greene, Pitt, Wayne Louis Pate (R) Rm. 406, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5621 [email protected]

6 Jones, Onslow Harry Brown (R) Rm. 300B, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3034 [email protected]

7 Franklin, Granville, Vance, Warren Doug Berger (D) Rm. 516, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-8363 [email protected]

8 Brunswick, Columbus, Pender Bill Rabon (R) Rm. 2108, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5963 [email protected]

9 New Hanover Thom Goolsby (R) Rm. 2115, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-2525 [email protected]

10 Duplin, Lenoir, Sampson Brent Jackson (R) Rm. 525, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5705 [email protected]

11 Nash, Wilson E.S. Newton (R) Rm. 410, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3030 [email protected]

12 Johnston, Wayne David Rouzer (R) Rm. 523, 300 N. Salisbury St. [email protected]

13 Robeson, HokeMichael Walters (D) Rm. 1118, 16 West Jones [email protected]

14 Wake Daniel T. Blue, Jr. (D) Rm. 1117, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5752 [email protected]

15 Wake Neal Hunt (R) Rm. 308, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5850 [email protected]

16 Wake Joshua H. Stein (D) Rm. 1113, 16 West Jones St. [email protected]

17 Wake Richard Y. Stevens (R) Rm. 309, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5653 [email protected]

18Chatham, Durham, Lee Robert Atwater (D) Rm. 519, 300 N. Salisbury St.919-715-3036 [email protected]

19 Bladen, Cumberland Wesley Meredith (R)Rm. 2106, 16 West Jones [email protected]

20 Durham Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. (D) Rm. 520, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-4599 [email protected]

21 Cumberland Eric Mansfield (R) Rm. 1119, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-9349 [email protected]

22 Harnett, Moore Harris Blake (R) Rm. 408, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-4809 [email protected]

23 Orange, Person Eleanor Kinnaird (D) Rm. 628, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5804 [email protected]

24 Alamance, Caswell Rick Gunn (R) Rm. 312, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-301-1446 [email protected]

25 Anson, Richmond, Scotland, Stanly William R. Purcell (D) Rm. 517, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5953 [email protected]

26 Guilford, Rockingham Philip Edward Berger (R) Rm. 2008, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5708 [email protected]

27 Guilford Don Vaughan (D) Rm. 515, 300 N. Salisbury St. [email protected] 28 Guilford Gladys A. Robinson (D) Rm. 1120, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-3042 [email protected]

29 Montgomery, Randolph Jerry W. Tillman (R) Rm. 627, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5870 [email protected]

30 Alleghany, Stokes, Surry, Yadkin Don W. East (R) Rm. 522, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5743 [email protected]

31 Forsyth Peter S. Brunstetter (R) Rm. 2022, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-7850 [email protected]

32 Forsyth Linda Garrou (D) Rm. 620, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5620 [email protected]

33 Davidson, Guilford Stan Bingham (R) Rm. 2117, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5665 [email protected]

34 Davie, Rowan Andrew C. Brock (R) Rm. 623, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-0690 [email protected]

35 Mecklenburg, Union Tommy Tucker (R) Rm. 311, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-7659 [email protected]

36 Cabarrus, Iredell Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr. (R) Rm. 300C, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-7223 [email protected]

37 Mecklenburg Daniel G. Clodfelter (D) Rm. 526, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-8331 [email protected]

38 Mecklenburg Charlie Smith Dannelly (D) Rm. 1127, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5955 [email protected]

39 Mecklenburg Bob Rucho (R) Rm. 300A, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5655 [email protected]

40 Mecklenburg Malcolm Graham (D) Rm. 622, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5650 [email protected]

41 Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln James Forrester (R) Rm. 2108, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-3050 [email protected]

42 Catawba, Iredell Austin M. Allran (R) Rm. 625, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5876 [email protected]

43 Gaston Kathy Harrington (R) Rm. 2113, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5734 [email protected]

44 Burke, Caldwell Warren Daniel (R) Rm. 411, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-7823 [email protected]

45 Alexander, Ashe, Watauga, Wilkes Dan Soucek (R) Rm. 310, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-733-5742 [email protected]

46 Cleveland, Rutherford Debbie A. Clary (R) Rm. 314, 300 N. Salisbury St. 919-715-3038 [email protected]

47 Avery, Haywood, Madison, McDowell, Mitchell, Yancey Ralph Hise (R) Rm. 1026, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-3460 [email protected]

48 Buncombe, Henderson, Polk Tom M. Apodaca (R) Rm. 2010, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5745 [email protected]

49 Buncombe Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr. (D) Rm. 1129, 16 West Jones St. 919-715-3001 [email protected]

50 Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain, Transylvania Jim Davis (R) Rm. 2111, 16 West Jones St. 919-733-5875 [email protected]

This legislative directory provides legislative phone number and legisla-tive address. Jones St. zip code is 27601. The Salisbury St. zip code is 27603.

For additional infor-mation on finding your legislator by county or to see how they vote, please visit civitasaction.org


CAPITOL CONNECTIONCivitas12

Former Easley aide Ruffin Poole Jr. was recently sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison, plus a $30,000 fine, for hiding illegal profits he made from developers seeking his influence and access to the former governor. Photo: Don Carrington

• S C A N D A L •

Poole Heads to PrisonOn Tuesday, May 17, one of

the strangest chapters in recent North Carolina political history came to a close as U.S. District Court Judge Terrence Boyle sen-tenced Ruffin Poole Jr., a former top aide to Gov. Mike Easley, to a year and a day in federal prison. Poole was also fined $30,000 for hiding illegal profits he had made from developers seeking his influ-ence over the permit process.

In January 2010, federal pros-ecutors indicted Poole on 51 cor-ruption counts including mon-etary transactions concerning property involved in a criminal enterprise, bribery and money laundering. In March, six more charges including income tax eva-sion and racketeering were added.

In a dramatic turn of events in April 2010, Poole entered a guilty plea to a single charge of income tax evasion in exchange for a promise to cooperate with federal prosecutors in the ongo-ing federal investigation of Eas-ley. As a result, all charges but the one count of income tax evasion were dropped by prosecutors.

Last November, Easley pled guilty in state court to a felony campaign finance charge that ended the investigation against him. He paid a $1,000 fine but did not serve jail time.

As part of the ongoing Eas-ley probe looking into discount-ed lots at the exclusive Carteret County waterfront community of Cannonsgate, investigators found

that Poole had used his position as staff counsel in the governor’s of-fice to influence the speed of the permit process.

A review of regulatory docu-ments reveals Poole appeared to expedite the regulatory process for a variety of properties developed and financed by Gary Allen and Larry Allen, two prominent Dem-ocratic fundraisers and donors.

One of the major backers of the Cannonsgate development, Lanny Wilson, was a former state Board of Transportation member and major fundraiser for Gov. Easley. Wilson allowed Poole to

Pass The Torch DonateCut Out & Mail to

Civitas Institute. 100 S. Harrington St., Raleigh, NC 27603

⃤ My check made payable to The Civitas Institute is enclosed⃤ Please charge my: ⃤ American Express ⃤ Master Card ⃤ Discover ⃤ Visa

Name___________________________________________________________

Address _________________________________________________________

City ____________________________ State _______ Zip ______________

Phone _________________________ Email ___________________________

Card No. ⃤⃤⃤⃤ ⃤⃤⃤⃤ ⃤⃤⃤⃤ ⃤⃤⃤⃤

Amount: $____________ Expiration: ___ ___ / ___ ___ CVV ___________

Signature: ________________________________________________________

All contributions are tax deductible

If you prefer to make your contribution over the phone, please call (919) 834-2099

Donate online at www.nccivitas.org/donate

purchase property there to help win Poole’s favor. Poole pocketed a $55,000 profit -- $30,000 from Cannonsgate and another $25,000 at Summerhouse, another coastal development. Poole never report-ed the income on his taxes.

While many were hoping the proceedings would bring closure to a black chapter in North Car-olina’s political history, they did not.

More than a few court ob-servers were surprised at Poole’s relatively light sentence. The maximum punishment for tax evasion is up to five years in jail

and a $250,000 fine. Nevertheless, prosecutors determined Poole’s situation warranted a sentence of 12-18 months and a significantly reduced fine ($30,000).

Also Judge Boyle’s curious questions and comments to pros-ecutors reopened nagging doubts that the case was handled prop-erly. The judge appeared incredu-lous at how a case involving multi-ple charges of political corruption and a 57 count indictment could be reduced to a single charge of income tax evasion. To date, no one else named in the investiga-tion has been charged.

Judge Boyle’s pointed throw-away question, “How did every-one else get so lucky?” seems to mirror overall public sentiment that while the legal process may be complete, few believe justice was served. w

The Civitas Institute offers training in investigative journalism and ex-posing government corruption. For those interested in learning more, contact Bob Luebke at 919-834-2099, Ext. 135.

Scandal is a regular column in Cap-itol Connection that will explore public corruption in NC Govern-ment. Have a local corruption story? Email us at : [email protected]. or call 919-834-2099.

BY BOB LUEBKE

Keep In Touch with CivitasThings are always moving quickly in Raleigh.

Civitas is working to keep you updated on what your legislators are doing. Keep up with us on

the web at your favorite site:

Also check out:NCCivitas.org Our main website

CivitasReview.com Our blog

CarolinaTransparency.com Stats on the state

Facebook.com/CivitasInstitute

Twitter.com/NCCivitas

YouTube.com/CivitasInstitute

Civitas Capitol Connection June 2011

Documents