In the Aftermath of the “Reset” of HB 2

April 17th, 2017 by Skip

In The Aftermath of the “Reset” of HB2
Paul Stam
April 13, 2017

In the aftermath of the “reset” of HB 2 Gov. Roy Cooper has made four claims, on Capital Tonight, Spectrum Cable, April 10, 2017.
1.) Under the law, as HB 2 was repealed and replaced by HB 142, those persons claiming to be transgendered will still be able to use the changing room/restrooms of their own choice. This will doubtless be a surprise to the managers of HB 142 who assured the public that HB 142 preserved the privacy and security of women and children. An April 12, 2017 blog post by Professor Robert Joyce of the UNC School of Government advises local governments that while they may not adopt “policies” individual managers may allow biological males into women’s changing rooms and, if they don’t they may be liable to that biological male.

Governor Cooper’s claim may also surprise state employees since Governor Cooper has not rescinded Governor McCrory’s Executive Order dated April 12, 2016 on the usage of changing rooms and restrooms in state offices under the Governor’s control.
2.) Governor Cooper claims that HB 142 now allows local government (cities and counties) to enact protected classes for their own employees. This is really a surprise since HB2 specifically provided that this was already allowed. HB 142 made no change there. See Section 3.1(c) (last clause) of HB2.
3.) Governor Cooper claims that under HB 142 cities and counties can now enact ordinances requiring their bidders to have additional protected classifications for the contractors’ employees and vendors. This position was taken by the University of North Carolina School of Government the day after HB 142 became law. This would be a surprise to the managers of HB 142 since House leadership did not intend this change.

To continue reading about the aftermath, click here.

A Conversation with Rep. Paul Stam on Education

January 22nd, 2016 by Skip

Here is a recent podcast that Rep. Stam did with EducationNC!

A true champion for education and a true state man!

New podcast: A conversation with Rep. Paul Stam

by Alex Granados | January 22, 2016

For the debut of our new podcast EdTalk, I interviewed Rep. Paul Stam, R-Wake. We talked about education policies that came out of the last General Assembly session, what to expect from the upcoming short session, constant efforts by lawmakers to “fix” K-12 education, and more.

Stam Reflects on His Career, Part 1

January 21st, 2016 by Skip

This week, in part one of a two-part series, NC Family president John Rustin talks with Representative Paul “Skip” Stam, who represents the southern portion of Wake County in the N.C. House, about his career as a pro-life attorney and his work in the General Assembly.

“Family Policy Matters”
Transcript: Stam Reflects On His Career, Part 1

INTRODUCTION: Representative Paul Stam is an attorney based in Apex, North Carolina, who is currently serving his eighth term in the North Carolina House of Representatives, representing the southern portion of Wake County, including Apex, Holly Springs, Fuquay Varina, Willow Spring, and other communities.

Over the years, Representative Stam has held a variety of leadership positions in the State House, most recently as Speaker Pro Tempore, but he recently announced that he will not seek re-election to the House in 2016. He has been a stalwart defender of the unborn, Biblical marriage, parental rights, choice in education, and responsible government, just to name a few.

On a personal note, it has been my great privilege and honor to work with Representative Stam for years, and I can personally testify that he is one of the most intelligent, compassionate, and well-respected members to serve in the North Carolina House in the past several decades. And it is not only those who agree with him on policy issues who share this sentiment, but also those who often do not agree with him, because he is a true gentlemen and a great example of a humble public servant.

We’re thrilled to have Rep. Stam on “Family Policy Matters” to talk about his career as an attorney, his time in the North Carolina General Assembly, and what’s next following the conclusion of the 2016 legislative session.

JOHN RUSTIN: Before we talk about your time in the General Assembly, I wonder if you would share with us a little bit about your background. I know you’ve been in Apex for close to 40 years, but where did you grow up and what brought you to North Carolina?

REP. PAUL STAM: Until I was 17, I followed the textile industry—born in Princeton New Jersey, lived in Danville Virginia, Greensboro, Northern New Jersey, but what brought me to North Carolina was the Marine Corps, Camp LeJeune.

JOHN RUSTIN: Tell us a little bit about your family Representative Stam. How long have you been married to your wonderful wife Dottie, and talk about your children and your grandchildren?

REP. PAUL STAM: We’ve been married 42 years, and lived here in Apex almost all that time. We have two grown children and their families, including eight grandchildren. They all live around Apex, get to see them all the time.

JOHN RUSTIN: That’s wonderful. I know family is extremely important to you, and I have seen you out and about town with your grandchildren, and I know you are extremely proud of both your children and your grandchildren.

REP. PAUL STAM: My children and my two oldest grandchildren have been participants in quite a few of our public policy matters. My daughter even lobbied a little bit for the parental consent bill a long time ago. I paid her $50 to lobby on a Monday night one time, and she got two senate votes for it.

JOHN RUSTIN: That was quite a good investment.

REP. PAUL STAM: Right, when she was 16.

JOHN RUSTIN: Representative Stam, you’ve been involved in the pro-life movement for many years, serving as legal counsel for North Carolina Right to Life, and you have been directly involved in a number of key lawsuits on life-related issues. I want to talk about a few of those cases in just a minute, but first, I wonder if you’d tell our listeners what really sparked your interest in the law and also in working so hard, as you have, to defend the sanctity of human life?

REP. PAUL STAM: It’s interesting, when I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, it really was not much of an issue that anybody talked about very much. But I remember two things before Roe v. Wade. First that one of my favorite books growing up was a Dr. Seuss book Horton Hears a Who about how “a person’s a person no matter how small.” Then, after the military, I was in college, and one semester I was taking three courses at the same time, Logic, Biology (human anatomy), and Pre-Law. And in Pre-Law, we were discussing the American Bar Association’s proposals on abortion, and I noticed how completely illogical and unscientific they were, and I wrote some letters to the editor at my college, Michigan State, on that subject. So, it was an academic curiosity; it was not a personal involvement with any particular situation. The pro-choice argument just does not add up if you know any logic or any biology.

JOHN RUSTIN: That’s interesting—and what drew you into the law because you have been an active attorney for years and have really made a name for yourself in the legal arena, not only as a legislator.

REP. PAUL STAM: My grandfather was a lawyer for about 50 years, and he was probably the greatest influence there. He represented many missions’ organizations and was actually the attorney for the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association for quite a while. And he showed me the joys of a small private practice, and all the things you can do as part of that practice.

JOHN RUSTIN: And I know you do a wide variety of different types of law in your practice, and you concentrate a good deal on real estate law, other areas of business law, but clearly you’ve been involved in a wide variety of different areas of the law throughout your years of legal practice.

REP. PAUL STAM: Mostly real estate, but in small town practice you do a lot of things.

JOHN RUSTIN: No doubt about it. Now, I want to ask you specifically about some of those life-related cases that you’ve worked on over the years. I know in the 1980s you represented a group of pro-life citizens who were protesting abortion clinics around Jacksonville, North Carolina. Tell us about that work, and how you got involved with that.

REP. PAUL STAM: It took about 10 years, not any one case but a series of cases. There was a group of about six protesters, who were sued by Tackey Crist, who is the volume abortionist in Jacksonville, and has been doing it for 40 years, about 2,000 abortions a year. And they had their usual protest signs, and he took quite a bit of umbrage to the fact that they referred to children and killing, and things like that. So he sued them. And in the 10 years, they were never enjoined by a judge from anything they did, and when [the abortion groups] would bring criminal charges occasionally, no criminal charge ever stuck. That’s how I got involved in it. We were taking the deposition of Dr. Takey Crist, and he also fancied himself as a normal OBGYN as well. [In other words] he did not think of himself as always an abortion clinic even though he’s done probably more than anybody in the state. So, he had a fertility practice as well. He published a half-page advertisement in the Raleigh News and Observer that went all over eastern North Carolina for his fertility practice. And he had a picture of an ultrasound with about an eight week-old embryo, unborn child, and the title of this advertisement is, “Mr. and Mrs. Johnson meet their son for the first time.” So, I asked him how he could be so offended by these protestors, talking about children and killings, if in his own advertisement for which he’d paid thousands of dollars, he was talking about the same thing as being sons. And his answer was this, he said, “I never really liked that ad. The ladies in my clinic put it together, but I didn’t like it.” He was under oath at that time.

JOHN RUSTIN: Well that really does defy logic…

Now, Representative Stam, you have represented North Carolina Right to Life in several key cases over the years. I know there are a variety of cases there, but tell us briefly about some of those cases, your role in those lawsuits, and why the outcome of these cases was particularly important to the status of pro-life policies in North Carolina?

REP. PAUL STAM: There were three types of cases, and I’ll address them individually. One, there was a series of cases on “Free Speech,” that is the ability of North Carolina Right to Life and other similar groups to get their message out when for a period of about 10 years the Left was always trying to put campaign finance restrictions, so you couldn’t say certain things as an organization. So that was one series that went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we pretty much won that one. A second one involved abortion funding, and this involved more than one case, but we started in 1978, trying to stop North Carolina from being the only state in the South that had a State Abortion Fund when the federal government had cut off Medicaid abortions. And it took almost 17 years for North Carolina to stop doing that as a statutory matter, but we did win one small victory in that case and that was, even though we couldn’t stop the state from doing it legally, we were able to stop the counties. So that 17 years later, when the State stopped doing it, we already had in place the legal precedent that the counties couldn’t take up the slack that the State had done, and we also did a Friend of the Court Brief in the Supreme Court to uphold that decision on stopping state funding. Then, we also worked for another 17-18 years on parental consent, and that bill took 17 years to get passed, but then the abortion clinics filed suit in federal court to try to throw it out, and we did Friends of The Court Briefs to keep it in, and we actually were able to win that case, along with the Attorney General. And that, in my opinion, reduced abortions by about 2,000 per year. More recently we’ve had a lot of legislation pass that’s reducing it even more, and most of that has not involved litigation, although there’s been some litigation.

JOHN RUSTIN: You’ve been very involved in that [pro-life] legislation and those efforts, and we’re very grateful for that. Now, you’ve also been involved in education related cases, and I want to ask you about a lawsuit that was important to North Carolina’s home school community, Delconte v. North Carolina. Tell us about that case, and what the N.C. Supreme Court ultimately decided?

REP. PAUL STAM: Right, well, my role was local counsel for one of the Friend of the Court Briefs, I believe it was for Rutherford Institute, and we also collaborated on a Friend of the Court Brief by the Christian Legal Society. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Jim Hunt, the Governor, tried to get control over private schools through various mechanisms and litigation. And some people didn’t like that, the Delcontes were from New York, I believe, and had come down here and were teaching their kids at home. And we were able to convince the state Supreme Court that our statutes allowed that, and four or five years after that, in the late 80s, it was codified in statute about what homeschooling was and how it could be regulated. It’s not regulated as to content or credentials of teachers, or many things, but it is regulated as to health, safety, they have to give nationally-norm tests once a year that’s open to inspection by the governor’s office. There have been a few other changes over the years, but the end result has been that North Carolina is considered as one of the most favorable states for homeschooling, and we have about 110,000 homeschooled students now in North Carolina, out of you know one and a half million total students.

JOHN RUSTIN: That’s great and I know that that the home school community is very tight-knit, very active, and when issues come up related to homeschooling they show up at the legislature, and that’s a great thing.

REP. PAUL STAM: They are very active, and they helped us get a bill passed about four years ago that provided scholarships for children with special needs who wanted to get their instruction at home but also needed money for therapy or medical expenses, things like that, and that program has been a great success.

JOHN RUSTIN: It sure has. Unfortunately, Rep. Stam, we are just about out of time for this week, but we are going to continue our discussion with you next week on Family Policy Matters.

Before we go, I just want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share your story with us on Family Policy Matters. And we look forward to talking with you more next week about your work in the North Carolina General Assembly, and what’s next for you after you retire later this year.

– END –

Redistricting in North Carolina

November 20th, 2015 by Skip

Speech by Representative Paul Stam November 11, 2015

Holtzman Public Policy Forum, North Carolina State University

Rep. Grier Martin made the point that we may need to leverage uncertainty. I agree.
I love maps –In 3^rd grade I had behavioral issues. My mother asked my teacher to allow me to trace maps from the encyclopedia in the back of the classroom after I finished my classwork. I learned to love the details of geography.
Some important things take time – a long time- in the Legislature
- It took me 38 years to pass one piece of legislation and 30 years for another
- I filed my first bill on redistricting reform 26 years ago (1989, HB 1099). In 2019, it will have been 30 years. That may be the year for redistricting reform.

As minority leader in 2009, I offered independent redistricting to the Democrats (HB252, Horton Independent Redistricting Comm.). They declined. They should not have been surprised that we picked up 16 seats in 2010. Over time the effects of a gerrymander dissipates. Perhaps in 2019 each side will be uncertain who will win in 2020. We can then leverage that uncertainty.

I support a different method of redistricting for two reasons:
- Justinian’s Institutes: “No man shall be judge in his own cause.”
- “Quasi agnum committere lupo ad devorandum,” Blackstone’s commentaries.

WHEN?
- No one knows who will be elected in 2020
- It took over 9 years to complete the litigation after the 2010 census
- This is the pitch I made to the Democrats when they were in the majority in 2009
- By 2019 population/demographic shifts will have dissipated the effects of the 2011 maps.

ISSUES/PROBLEMS/CAVEATS? Even if redistricting reform passes there will always be problems:
- There will still be goofy looking maps because of the Voting Rights Act
- No scheme is beyond politics. This year’s bill-HB 92– transfers power to the staff. The original proposal in 1989 would have transferred power to the Chief Justice
- Address of incumbents can change overnight.
- The US Supreme Court changes its mind. In the Pender County case in 2009, the courts required majority/minority districts. But in 2015, the Supreme Court has apparently overruled Pender County in the Alabama Case.
- How do you program the computer when the rules aren’t knowable in advance?
- An independent or non-partisan redistricting is not immune from the constant legal uncertainty.

Compactness and contiguity are in our platform. But these criteria are not necessarily consistent with communities of interest. Some complain that their city or county is placed into more than one district. But others relish having the power of having more than one representative. Apex has three.
Competitiveness – There were 16 pickups in the House in 2010 in about 20 competitive seats. The cost of campaigning will significantly increase when there are more competitive races.
The ultimate irrational districting is the United States Senate. Wyoming has the same number of Senators as California. These “districts” were drawn centuries ago.

Planned Parenthood Revenue

October 2nd, 2015 by Skip

Planned Parenthood’s Claim that only 3% of its services are abortions

By: Paul Stam

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is the largest provider of abortions in the United States, performing 327,653abortions in 2013-2014.[1] According to PPFA’s Annual Report from 2013-2014, only 3% of its total services are for abortion procedures.[2] However, a service is broadly defined by PPFA as “a discrete clinical interaction, such as the administration of a physical exam or STI test or the provision of a birth control method.”[3] If a woman comes to a Planned Parenthood clinic for an abortion, she will be tested for STDs before the procedure and is given aspirin after the procedure.[4] These are counted as three separate services.

But actual abortion accounts for almost 50% of PPFA’s health service revenue.[5] The average abortion price is $451.[6] Multiply that by the number of abortions performed, 327,653 procedures, that equals $147.8 million.[7] That is 48.41% of the total $305.3 million health services revenue reported by PPFA on its annual report.[8]

The 2013-2014 PPFA report also indicates that 41% of Planned Parenthood’s revenue comes from government subsidies.[9] Planned Parenthood reported that its annual revenue for 2013-2014 was $1.303 billion.[10] However, PPFA’s health center income, the amount derived from non-governmental sources for health services, was around $305 million in 2013-2014.[11] Use of government subsidies, such as Medicaid, to pay for abortions is prohibited.[12]

The 3% figure that PPFA has trumpeted for its abortion services is bogus.

If you have any further questions, please contact Rita Dorry at 919.733.2962.

[1] “2013-2014 Annual Report,” Services. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, retrieved September 30, 2015. See pp 17,18. See https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/6714/1996/2641/2013-2014_Annual_Report_FINAL_WEB_VERSION.pdf.

[2] Id. at 17.

[3] Id. at 17.

[4] “Planned Parenthood’s 3% Lie” RedState. Streiff. Published August 6, 2015, http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/06/planned-parenthoods-3-lie/.

[5] (Average abortion price $451 * 327,653 abortions = $147.8 million)/($305.3 million health services revenue) = 48.41% See Jones et al 2008, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/4304111.pdf and PPFA Annual Report 2013?2014.

[6] Cost may vary per state and clinic; according to the Guttmacher Institute, an average abortion costs $468.

[7] PPFA Annual Report 2013-2014.

[8] Id. at 21.

[9] Id. at 20.

[10] Id. at 21.

[11] Id. at 21.

[12] There are several Hyde Amendment exceptions, http://e.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf.

Eugenics in North Carolina

September 11th, 2015 by Skip

Eugenics in North Carolina

By: Rep. Paul Stam and Amy O’Neal

Introduction

Over 45 years North Carolina forcibly sterilized approximately 7,600 men, women, and children—the third highest number of sterilizations of any state in the country. Although an apology was issued to sterilization victims in 2002, an apology alone was not a sufficient response. In 2013, the General Assembly passed the Eugenics Compensation Program to provide monetary compensation to the living victims of forced sterilizations. This Program was the first of its kind in the nation. Virginia followed suit.

The North Carolina Eugenics Compensation Program was appropriated $10 million to be divided between the total number of qualified claimants. Since the Program became effective, 220 claimants have qualified for compensation and 60 more have filed an appeal after being denied compensation after the initial eligibility determination. The focus now is to get the compensation to the victims, all of whom are elderly, as soon as possible.

This article explores North Carolina’s journey towards compensation. Section II gives a brief background on the history of the Eugenics Movement in the United States. Section III and IV provides the history of the Eugenics Movement in North Carolina and how the State began to consider providing compensation to sterilization victims. Section V details how North Carolina’s Eugenics Compensation Program operates and where the State is in providing compensation today….

To continue reading, click here.

Stuart v. Camnitz: Setting the Standard of Care

August 14th, 2015 by Skip

Please click on the below link to learn more about the background, court case, and how the case has set a standard of care for abortion providers in North Carolina.

Stuart v Camnitz – Setting the Standard of Care

Stuart v. Camnitz – Setting the Standard of Care_Sources

NC Supreme Court Declares Opportunity Scholarship Program Constitutional

July 23rd, 2015 by Skip

Raleigh, NC – Today, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion declaring the Opportunity Scholarship Program to be constitutional. Today’s ruling is the final decision in this case. It cannot be appealed to the federal courts. No federal claims were raised.

“Two-hundred and twenty-four schools worked with parents to allow students to attend the school of their choice while awaiting today’s court decision. More families will now have realistic access to educational options for their children,” said Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake).

During the 2014-15 school year Opportunity Scholarships were awarded to 1,200 students attending 224 schools. Over 1,100 of these students have reapplied, joining the 4,800 applicants for the 2015-16 school year. In 2014-15 $10.8 million was appropriated for the program. Scholarships worth a total of $6 million were awarded to students. For 2015-16 the Senate and House Budgets have each allocated $17.6 million for scholarships that would serve about 4,400 students.

A recent study (June 2014) by the Friedman Foundation shows strong support nationally for school choice. Support for Opportunity Scholarships (vouchers) was strong with 63% in favor (33% opposed). The South showed the strongest support with 66% in favor (30% opposed). The study shows significant support across age groups, political affiliation, areas of the country and parental status.

A more recent poll by the Civitas Institute (March 2015) also shows substantial state support for the Opportunity Scholarship program. Participants were asked the following question: “The Opportunity Scholarship Grant program in North Carolina was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor in July of 2013. The legislation provides eligible, low-income students with vouchers of up to $4,200 to attend the school of their choice. Do you favor or oppose the Opportunity Scholarship Program?” Overall 68% supported the program (24% opposed) with strong support across multiple demographics.

North Carolinians want students to be able to attend the school of their choice regardless of address, political affiliation, age, income, or race. Rep. Stam stated, “We will work to expand funding for the Opportunity Scholarship program this legislative session so more parents can choose the right educational setting for their children. I hope that families will take advantage of the program and continue to apply for the upcoming school year.”

Information on the Opportunity Scholarship program is available on the State Education Assistance Authority’s website, as well as at this North Carolina school choice site. Families may also contact the SEAA at 855-330-3955 (toll-free). For a PowerPoint explaining the program, visit this link.

Party Platform Comparisons – Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference?

July 16th, 2015 by Skip

Every year I prepare a comparison of NCGOP and NCDEM Party Platforms. I have provided the key points on the attached document.

2015 Party Platform Comparison

The full platforms can be found at the following places:

http://www.ncgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2015-NCGOP-Platform.pdf

http://www.ncdp.org/sites/ncdems/files/NCDP%20Resolution%20Booklet%20FINAL%202014.pdf

I hope you find this information useful.

Rep. Paul Stam

800th Anniversary of Magna Carta Speech at John Locke

June 30th, 2015 by Skip

Representative Paul Stam

Speaker Pro Tempore

House of Representatives

North Carolina General Assembly

June 25, 2015

(revised October 2015)

Magna Carta was a deal between the nobility and King John. He was a really bad king. He was in deep trouble and barely kept the crown, and perhaps his life, by making 63 campaign promises.

In 1215 the first and last sections of Magna Carta protected the English church from the King.

Section 1

(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church’s elections – a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it – and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

Section 63

(63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever. Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit.

Freedom of the church was guaranteed by the barons as well as by the King. It is no accident that freedom of religion is the First Amendment to our Bill of Rights.

In 2015 when the Little Sisters of the Poor, a charitable order of nuns, is threatened with massive fines by the federal government, we need a restoration of religious freedom.

“You Will Be Assimilated” by Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard, June 22, 2015, recounts how Catholic Charities have been driven out of adoption and foster care in Illinois, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

Tax Exemptions for contributions to (and the property of) most Christian institutions may soon face their greatest test since the Statute of Uses in the 27^th year of the reign of Henry VIII. N.C. Gen. Stat. §41-7. In oral arguments in Obergefell v Hodges, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s “It’s going to be an issue” was ominous. Since same sex marriage has now become nationwide policy by 5-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court, then there is precedent (IRS v Bob Jones University, 1983) to remove tax exemption from religious institutions that do not bow to the newly discovered liberty.

Section 2

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a ‘relief’, the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of ‘relief’. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl’s barony, the heir or heirs of a knight 100s. at most for the entire knight’s ‘fee’, and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of ‘fees’.

After the Norman Conquest (1066) the “death tax,” in an unlimited amount, could be imposed. That is, if William the Conqueror didn’t want to put a new knight in a castle to defend the borders, he would ask the dead knight’s heirs to pay money to remain in the new house to which they had become accustomed. By 1215 the death tax had been quantified. In 2013, the General Assembly finally repealed North Carolina’s death tax. The United States still imposes a death tax at a high rate on estates over $5 million.

Section 12

(12) No ‘scutage’ or ‘aid’ may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied. ‘Aids’ from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

“No taxation without representation”

Regulatory Fees – But administrative bodies regularly impose penalties. In 1215 these “aids” were limited to these important categories.

negotiating with terrorists, and
royal parties for the eldest prince and princess.

Section 13

(13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

“Home Rule” or “Dillon’s Rule?” Every session the General Assembly strikes a new balance on the perennial question: How much big LOCAL government do our citizens want – Who decides?

The Charlotte Airport, Asheville water system, elections in Greensboro, involuntary annexation of Lake Junaluska. All these issues take legislative time and energy.

A fascinating article on this subject by Thomas H. Burwell, “A Story of Privileges and Immunities: From Medieval Concept to the Colonies and United States Constitution” is published at 34 Campbell Law Review (Fall 2011).

Section 14

(14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an ‘aid’ – except in the three cases specified above – or a ‘scutage’, we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

“Due Process” means adequate advance notice to those affected and an opportunity for them to be heard. In the 2015 Session, dozens of bills were introduced that address the question of notice to those affected by government action.

But none of them apply to notice of legislative action which can be extremely short (overnight for proposed committee substitutes or conference reports in the House).

Section 15

(15) In future we will allow no one to levy an ‘aid’ from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable ‘aid’ may be levied.

If Section 12 applies to the King it should also apply to lesser officials so that there is “equal protection of the law.” This principle is imbedded in the U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment and North Carolina Declaration of Rights Sections 1 and 19.

Section 17

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

Superior Court judges ride the circuit within their division to the fixed location of the courts at county seats. The theory is that judges who rotate throughout a division are less likely to serve “home cooking.” Previous to Magna Carta, litigants would follow the King or his judges from place to place, hoping they might be heard after sufficient fees (bribes) had been paid.

Section 20

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a villein the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

Every session the General Assembly determines what fines are reasonable and proportionate to the offense.

Every few years the Assembly adjusts the homestead allowance – that is, what is left to a debtor after an execution or bankruptcy.

May 2015 Newsletter

May 28th, 2015 by Skip

May 28, 2015

Friends,

Much has happened since I last wrote to you on April 17, 2015.

Praise God! The prolife bill HB 465 passed the House 74 to 45. It increases waiting periods after informed consent has been obtained from 24 hours to 72 hours. In contrast a Medicaid sterilization requires a 30 day waiting period. A home refinance requires a 3 day waiting period after every detail has been disclosed and all papers signed. Today the Senate passed the bill on a vote of 31 to 15. Third reading will be Monday night. When this bill becomes law, it will reduce abortions by about 2,000 per year. Legislation over the last 4 years has reduced the number of reported abortions from 31,000/year to 23,000/year.

On May 22 the House passed its appropriations bill for next year by a vote of 94-23. The increase from this year to next depends on how you calculate! The increase in the operating fund is 4.9%. If you include everything like capital and reserves for repairs and renovation the increase is 6.2%. There was no money for the repairs and renovations fund last year. Inflation and population growth account for about 2.7% of the increase. I am advocating to cut more dollars out of the spending plan. After five straight years of real cuts some areas needed another look.

Several initiatives regarding K-12 public education have now passed the House in the budget:

Employee pay: Teachers and State Employees will receive a 2% raise. Some groups will receive more – e.g. first year teachers and prison guards. Total compensation, including the local supplement plus retirement and benefits, for a beginning Wake County teacher would be $54,000 per year.

The budget includes differentiated pay based upon teacher leadership positions, hard to staff subjects and hard to staff schools. The budget establishes a teacher scholarship program for these hard to staff positions and schools.

Several other budget initiatives address school choice:

Increased funding for Opportunity Scholarships from $10.8M to $17.6M. These scholarships provide school choice for low and moderate income families who switch from public to a private school up to $4,200 per year. These scholarships save the taxpayers money. The amount is less than what the state and county spend for students in public schools.

The budget increases funding for Special Needs Scholarships from $6,000 per year to $8,000 per year, and it provides for payment of tuition at the beginning of the semester rather than as a reimbursement. These two changes make these scholarships much more practical for the parents of children with special needs.

HB 108, Building and Site Development, has now been funded by the House at $400k for the first year and $1 million the second year. It provides for site infrastructure, primarily to assist rural and semi rural counties so that they have “pad ready” sites to attract investment. This is a loan from one level of government to another that will be fully secured by a first lien. It is not a giveaway to the business that will ultimately be there.

Today the House passed SB 2, Magistrates Recusal for Civil Ceremonies on a vote of 67 to 43. This is a strong statement for freedom. Last fall magistrates were threatened with loss of their jobs, and even criminal prosecution, for those who wouldn’t participate in marriage ceremonies to which they had sincere religious objection. The Governor has threatened a veto. Please call his office at (919) 814-2000 to register your opinion.

If you have questions about legislation you can always call me or my legislative staff. Anne Murtha handles constituent issues 919-733-2962; Gregg Sinders covers all educational issues 919-715-2644; Jamie Lassiter covers criminal justice issues, court issues, pro life issues and liberty issues 919-733-2614; Don D’Ambrosi covers land use, environment, regulatory reform and local government 919-733-2962.

With best regards, I am sincerely yours,

Rep. Paul Stam

Speaker Pro Tem

Indian Gaming Resources

May 4th, 2015 by Skip

Below you will find the 2011 Tribal-State Compact, the Addendum to the 2011 Compact, and transcriptions of the House and Senate debates of Session Law 2012-6, “An Act to Authorize Additional Class III Gambling on Indian Lands Pursuant to a Tribal-State Gaming Compact, to Create the Indian Gaming Education Revenue Fund, and to Appropriate Funds.” I hope that this legislative history will be helpful to you.

2011 Tribal-State Compact

Addendum to 2011 Compact

SB 582 – House Debate 2nd reading

SB 582 – House Debate 3rd reading

SB 582 – Senate Appropriations Base Budget committee

SB 582 – Senate Debate 2nd reading and Concurrence

NC House Passes 72 Hour Waiting Period 74-45

April 24th, 2015 by Skip

From the Office of Rep. Jacqueline M. Schaffer

House of Representatives

District 105 — Mecklenburg County

PRESS ADVISORY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

— Thursday, April 23^rd, 2015 —

RALEIGH – House Bill 465: 72 Hours Informed Consent by Person or Phone passed the House by a vote of 74 – 45.

While the bill improves data collection on these procedures to ensure proper record keeping, the main provision changes the waiting period for a woman to make her informed decision from 24 to 72 hours. The time period can begin with a telephone call to a qualified person who provides the requisite information.

“This is about respecting women and also saving lives,” said Rep. Susan Martin, a primary sponsor of the bill.

North Carolina will follow Utah, South Dakota and, most recently, Missouri (2014) in lengthening this pivotal time for a woman to process the information she has received regarding her choices. She may receive this information by telephone, online or by a visit depending on her circumstances and preferences.

“Please allow a woman the time to reach out to Pregnancy Support Clinics” stated primary sponsor Rep. Pat McElraft.

Rep. Rena Turner said, “We ought to give as much time for this decision as we do for other important legal matters“.

HB 465 allows the decision-maker time to think through her circumstances. Whether to have an abortion is an irrevocable life or death decision that deserves this time.

Rep. Jacqueline Schaffer, the lead sponsor of the bill, stated, “Providing women with 72 hours versus 24 hours, this is empowering to women, this gives women the ability to make an informed decision.”

The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.

For further information, contact Rep. Jacqueline Schaffer (919) 733-5886.

###

Attachments: HB 465; HB 465 Bill Summary; Required Waiting Periods

Why Religious Freedom is needed in NC

April 20th, 2015 by Skip

Why is NCRFRA needed now

It is fundamentally a legal issue, but not difficult to follow. The PowerPoint show covers it in 2:40.

Hope some of you may find it useful.

Beware of the Ides of March… Myth vs. Reality in Raleigh

March 16th, 2015 by Skip

Friends,

Yesterday was the Ides of March. For many years tax returns were due on March 15^th. That had to change when tax preparation became so complicated that nobody could do it by then. This was also the day Julius Caesar was assassinated “Et tu Brute.” Next Sunday is the Vernal Equinox. So this seems an appropriate time to report to you what is happening in the Assembly.

HB3 amends the State Constitution to protect private property from abusive condemnations, limiting them to public uses or public utilities. I am optimistic this may be considered by the voters in a referendum next year.

Two weeks ago the House considered and passed two quite controversial bills:

The House version of Senate Bill 20 stabilizes the gas tax for the rest of the year at $.36 /gallon. This is a temporary tax rate decrease followed by a temporary tax rate increase followed by whatever we are able to agree to going forward in 2016. We have a crisis. With the low price of oil and the improved gasoline efficiency of cars, without taking some action, road construction, maintenance and repair will be drastically curtailed. I voted yes.

House Bill 117 “NC Competes Act,” was a bill I opposed. There were some good features in it (site infrastructure and a change in tax law with regard to the single factor /sales tax apportionment). But the heart of the bill was several hundred million dollars of targeted tax incentives to lure companies to come to North Carolina. I have always opposed that. You can read my basic argument on that at https://paulstam.info/2005/06/targeted-business-incentives-are-not-good-public-policy/.

I am the primary sponsor of an Omnibus Criminal Justice procedure bill, HB 173. We have worked on that with all sides of the criminal justice system, about 50 “stakeholders”. Our goal is to change the culture so that there is not a one or three year wait between arrest and disposition of criminal cases. There is not much deterrence in a system where a guilty defendant can stretch it out for years and not much justice when an innocent defendant has to wait years to clear his or her name. Tomorrow will be the first hearing.

On Wednesday, HB108, Building and Site Development will have its first hearing in Commerce. It provides for site infrastructure, primarily to assist rural and semi rural counties so that they have a “pad ready” site to attract business. This is a loan from one level of government to another that will be fully secured. It is not a giveaway to the business that will ultimately be there.

On Thursday, I hope to have the first hearing on HB201 to repeal the super majority effect of zoning protest petitions. These petitions will still be heard and considered by a Town Council, but will not give them the antidemocratic effect of allowing one or two council members to block the right of the property owner and a majority of the council to determine the appropriate use for property.

I am working on several other measures to protect life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness as set out in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I will report on these to you next time.

If you have questions about legislation you can always call me or my legislative staff. Anne Murtha handles constituent issues 919-733-2962; Gregg Sinders covers all educational issues 919-715-2644; Jamie Lassiter covers criminal justice issues, court issues, pro-life issues and liberty issues 919-733-2614; Don D’Ambrosi covers land use, environment, regulatory reform and local government 919-733-2962.

With best regards, I am

Sincerely yours,

Paul Stam

Speaker Pro Tem

Speaker Pro Tempore Acceptance Speech – Magna Carta in 2015

January 20th, 2015 by Skip

2015 Organizational Session

North Carolina House of Representatives

Rep. Paul Stam – Acceptance Speech

January 14, 2015

(edited for grammar and clarity)

Click HERE to listen to the audio.

Click HERE for a Video of Rep. Stam’s speech on the Magna Carta by Kelly McCullen – Sr. Producer, UNC-TV’s “Legislative Week in Review”

Speaker Pro Tempore Paul Stam acceptance speech (1:08:26):

Members, guests, Justices Edmunds, Newby and Jackson; I am especially pleased that former Speaker Pro Tem Jack Hunt is here today. He and I served together many years ago when I was young and he was distinguished.

I accept your election. Two years ago on this occasion, I thanked my family and I used the examples of my eldest grandsons for some lessons on how we could do legislation better. But they are here today and I am not going to embarrass Aidan and Will.

This is a time to be reminded of first principles.

And 2015 is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. Members of the House would be shocked – shocked if I did not mention it and draft it into the service of the House.

Magna Carta was a deal between the nobility and King John. He was in deep trouble and barely kept the crown and perhaps his life by making 63 campaign promises. In Section 25 he promised “Every county shall remain at its ancient rent without increase.” Some issues never die. Tax increases and unfunded mandates were not invented last year.

Litigation, then and now, requires years to complete. His campaign promise 40 provides “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay, right or justice”. Many of us are working now to realize that promise so that the resolution of criminal charges, at least, may require only months and not years.

In a day when the principles of free trade and free enterprise are attacked from the right and the left King John’s campaign promise number 41 provides – and I should say this is all in Latin so this is translated for all of us – “All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions in accordance with ancient and lawful customs.” Free trade and free enterprise have many friends – except when its friends think it damages their own pocketbooks. 800 years ago the English realized that free trade and free enterprise are powerful engines of economic growth for the state as a whole.

Environmental issues didn’t just surface fifty years ago. 800 years ago there were those advocating locking up of land from use by the public. Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham came to blows over this question. Robin Hood won when campaign promise number 47 provided “All forests” – remember he was exiled to the forests and he was in trouble for shooting the King’s deer – “All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested and a similar course shall be followed with regard to river banks.” I am not advocating today that we literally fulfill this campaign promise by eliminating the parks at Grandfather Mountain and places like that. I’m just saying this is not a new issue.

Religious Liberty is always an issue. In 1215 the first and last sections of Magna Carta protected the church from the government. In 2015 when the Little Sisters of the Poor, a charitable order of nuns, is threatened with massive fines by the federal government, we need a restoration of religious freedom. When we next reconvene on January 28 there will be a legislative briefing on that subject, open to all.

Magna Carta even addresses separation of powers. And I am glad Senator Tillis is here today because he may get an idea here from promise number 61. North Carolina was perhaps the first state to place that principle of separation of powers in its constitution, on instruction from the inhabitants, Rep. Insko, of Orange County to the Provincial Assembly in 1776: But what is the remedy for usurpation of power by an Executive like King John? Is it lawsuits? Magna Carta suggested a unique consequence. This requires not only a translation from Latin to English but a paraphrase so that you may enjoy it. Senator Tillis, take note.

King John made campaign promise number 61: “If we, or our Attorney General, offend in any respect against any man and offense is made known to the Senate (that is the 25 chosen barons) they shall come to us or to the Attorney General – to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or the Attorney General, make no redress within 40 days – 40 days – the Senate may then distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, our lands, our possessions, and anything else, except only our own person and that of the First Lady and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. And having secured that redress the Senate may then resume its normal obedience to us.” That would really turn things around in Washington.

Let us enjoy the session as we address new challenges, new technology, new demographics and the ideas of new representatives. But old principles will often suggest the way forward.

Thank you very much for your election.

Stam’s Bills 2013-2014

November 14th, 2014 by Skip

Updated September 2014

At the end of every session I compile a list of bills that I sponsored (or that I managed) in order to see what happened. Many times a bill that is blocked in one way progresses or becomes law in another measure. That is part of the legislative process. If you have questions about any of these bills or laws, please let me know. There are electronic links to most of them. The General Assembly website, www.ncleg.net, has a tab for related documents which includes committee summaries, with more appropriate use of the English language, and for some, fiscal memoranda that explain the cost.

This is the final list from the 2013-2014 session. Please see the attached document below for the list of bills I sponsored.

Stam’s Bills 2013-2014

Setting the Record Straight on Privilege Taxes

October 30th, 2014 by Skip

October 29, 2014

Leaders of Apex, Holly Springs and Fuquay Varina

Re: Privilege Taxes/Fiscal Impact

You may have read in Monday’s News and Observer the article entitled “Privilege Tax Repeal Could Cause Property-Tax Hike in Raleigh”. The link is attached here.

The General Assembly took several measures in 2013/2014 that affect revenues for cities and towns. For the towns in District 37, Apex, Holly Springs and Fuquay Varina, the results are a positive increase in revenue for 2015-2016 as shown on the attached table by the Fiscal Research Division. The increase in revenue from tax reform (HB 998) which applied the local sales tax to several additional items and the change in taxation on Amazon more than offset the repeal of the privilege license tax. For Apex (which has no privilege license tax) the net increase is $113,395. For Holly Springs the net increase is $33,659 and for Fuquay Varina the net increase is $11,241.

The bulk of the revenue lost from the repeal of the privilege license tax is from Charlotte ($17 million) and Raleigh ($7 million) and similar towns. Charlotte in particular was a major abuser of the system, attempting to tax businesses located in most of the other counties of North Carolina, other states in the nation, and even some in foreign nations.

The article tries to imply that “business taxes” were repealed by the General Assembly, therefore putting the burden on people who own homes. This is nonsense. Business owners still pay property tax, corporate income tax, franchise tax, the employer’s portion of Social Security on their employees, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance and a host of miscellaneous fees. And their owners pay personal income tax on the dividends. If they are an LLC or sole proprietorship, they pay personal income tax on all the net income.

The “privilege tax” was repealed because it is an absurd and irrational way to collect money. Good riddance.

TeenPact Group Photo 2014

October 13th, 2014 by Skip

Rep. Stam with the TeenPact students in April 2014 on the North Carolina General Assembly House of Representatives Chamber floor.

2014 “Short Session” Update

August 28th, 2014 by Skip

Revised August 28, 2014

This was the first session in 144 years that a Republican Governor had a Republican majority in the General Assembly. We had a lot to accomplish before adjourning for the year.

Budget and Taxes: For the fourth straight year we were able to balance the budget without raising tax rates. The state budget for 2013-2014 was $20.631 billion (SB 402). We were able to do the things we said we would with a $21.1 billion budget for 2014-15 (SB 744), an increase of 2.2% which is less than the increase in population plus inflation.

We have provided the largest overall teacher pay raise in nine years by giving public school educators an average 6.92% raise. This investment in education will move our state ahead of fourteen other states in national teacher pay rankings. North Carolina will be more competitive nationally.

Our budget maintains current funding for the state’s university system (while giving the university new flexibility), preserves teacher assistant positions, and allows superintendents broad flexibility in tailoring classroom spending to their districts’ needs.

Our budget retains current Medicaid eligibility, provides most state employees a $1,000 pay raise (plus benefits) and five bankable vacation days. It increases pay by five or six percent for those Highway Patrol Troopers eligible for step increases. With an environment that fosters economic growth, we have been able to provide compensation that, not too long ago, would have only come with a tax hike. There are no tax rate increases in the budget.

Curriculum: (SB 812) establishes an Academic Standards Review Commission to make recommendations to the State Board of Education on changes to the English Language Arts and Mathematics standards. These standards currently incorporate Common Core standards in the Standard Course of Study. The State Board of Education will not enter into any agreement or contracts that cede control to any other government or agency.

New Educational Opportunities: (SB 793), “Charter School Modifications,” allows automatic grade increases as charter schools grow as long as appropriate conditions are met. The law also allows for single-sex charter schools and subjects charter schools to the Open Meetings Law and Public Records Act.

Clarifying changes were made to the Special Education Scholarships for Children with Disabilities (HB 712) and Opportunity Scholarships (SB 744, Section 8.25). Changes made to the Special Education Scholarships made the program easier to understand. It clarified the types of services for which parents can be reimbursed, including educational technology.

Changes to Opportunity Scholarships included a section prohibiting participating nonpublic schools from discriminating on the basis of race, color or national origin. The budget adds $840,000 to the program (now totaling $10,840,000) and allows the State Education Assistance Authority to award scholarships for 2015 Spring Semester.

Higher Education: The budget provided funding to allow both the Community College and University systems to participate in Yellow Ribbon Reserve, a federal matching program that helps reduce tuition costs for non-resident veterans. (SB 719), “Student Organizations/Rights & Recognition,” provides that a religious or political student organization at a community college or university may determine its own core functions. Once an organization is granted recognition, a community college or university may not deny the organization access to programs, funding, facilities, or other privileges.

Economic Development: (HB 1031) will shift many economic development functions of the Department of Commerce to a partnership. This legislation takes an important step in our “Carolina Comeback” by allowing our economic development efforts to be more focused on customer service and efficiency, as well as job retention and creation. The NC Economic Development Partnership will perform duties that previously functioned under Commerce. The partnership’s role will be to help recruit new business and industry to the state.

Regulatory Reform: (SB 734) makes changes to the laws relating to business regulation, State and local government regulation, and health and safety regulations. It provides further relief to the citizens of North Carolina through administrative reforms and updates to regulations and statutes. It protects our resources and those who use them.

Transportation: The Department of Transportation saw various changes that affect its organization. As recommended by the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee and the Department of Transportation, a few of the changes in (HB 1025) and (HB 272) include: improving efficiency in safety inspections, decreasing traffic burden on DOT statisticians, creating the installation and violation of ramp meter traffic devices, addressing DWI interlock violation and the location of DMV hearings, improving the production of state drivers’ licenses, and bringing interrelated work with Dept. of Agriculture and DOT and additional partnership with private developers in state highway system operations.

Natural Gas and Energy: The Energy Modernization Act allows for energy exploration. The law extends the deadline for the Mining and Energy Commission (MEC) to adopt rules for a regulatory program for the management of oil and gas. (SB 786) makes statutory changes to update the current regulations involving shale gas exploration, development, and production. It authorizes the issuance of permits for oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Alternatives to natural gas are coal and oil. Natural gas is much cleaner.

The law expands the requirements for notice to subsurface owners in regards to initiation of exploration, development, and production activities. It places presumptive liability on an oil and gas operator for any contamination of water supplies near a wellhead. It increases the amount of pre-drilling, drilling, and post-drilling water supply tests, all of which is required through an independent third party. These will be public records. Any actions that cause damage require compensation.

Environment: The Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, (SB 729),creates a Commission to oversee the assessment, planning, and clean-up of all coal ash ponds across NC, with an emphasis on the high-risk ponds. High-risk ponds are to close by 2019 and all coal ash ponds are to close by 2029. This law will safeguard our state’s greatest natural resource, our water.

Agriculture: The North Carolina Farm Act of 2014 (HB 366) makes agricultural and environmental changes. It designates the “Got to Be NC” marketing campaign as the official agricultural marketing campaign for the state. It maintains the confidentiality of investigations within agricultural and environmental operations while formalizing a complaint procedure with DENR. The new law clarifies local government’s ability to adopt ordinances related to the environment and agriculture.

Criminal Justice: (HB 369) includes changes to the criminal laws. It increases the penalty for cell phone use and possession in prison. It punishes threats of retaliation and assault on a person in retaliation of the duties performed by any legislative, executive, or court officer. It allows forensic and chemical analyst to provide testimony in trials via videoconferencing to help increase our crime labs’ efficiency.

The Business Court: (SB 853), “Business Court Modernization,” changes procedures for designating complex business cases. This successful court is where businesses may obtain a fair and expert hearing in cases against each other.

Integrity for our elections process: Changes to election laws in (SB 403) include: clarifying length of party affiliation and filing, updating ballot requirements for primary and general election partisan and nonpartisan races, clarifying hours offered for early voting sites, reiterating the photo identification requirements needed when voting, transferring some responsibilities of the local board of elections to the State Ethics Commission, and establishing a new procedure for voters who move between the first and second primaries.

Health Services: “Hope 4 Haley and Friends,” (HB 1220),creates a pilot program for the use of hemp extract for intractable epileptic disorders. We also increased health care options for those needing medical care at their own homes (HB 625). Insurance companies may not set fees for services when those services are not covered under the insurance plan (SB 477).

Please contact me at paul.stam@ncleg.net with any inquiries.

###

What Happened During the 2014 Session?

August 27th, 2014 by Skip

1. Balanced the budget for the fourth straight year without a tax increase (Appropriations Act of 2014,(SB 744)).

2. Provided the largest overall teacher pay raise in nine years by giving public school educators an average 6.92% raise (Appropriations Act of 2014, (SB 744)).

3. Funded a $1000 pay raise (plus benefits and 5 extra vacation days) for most state employees (Appropriations Act of 2014, (SB 744)).

4. Established an Academic Standards Review Commission to make recommendations to the State Board of Education on curriculum (Replace Common Core SS w/NC’s Higher Academ. Standards, (SB 812)).

5. Clarified changes made to the Special Education Scholarships for Children with Disabilities and Opportunity Scholarships, making the program easier to understand and identifying reimbursement services (Clarifying Changes/Special Ed Scholarships, (HB 712) and Appropriations Act of 2014, (SB 744), Section 8.25).

6. Modified charter schools by allowing automatic grade increases as charter schools grow and allowing single-sex schools. Charter schools are subject to the Open Meetings and Public Records Act (Charter School Modifications, (SB 793)).

7. Allowed religious or political student organizations authority to determine their own core functions (Student Organizations/Rights & Recognitions, (SB 719)).

8. Community Colleges and the University systems can participate in the Yellow Ribbon Reserve, federal matching program, that helps reduce tuition costs for non-resident veterans (Appropriations Act of 2014, (SB 744), Section 11.12).

9. Shifted many economic development functions of the Department of Commerce to the NC Economic Development Partnership to better recruit new business and industry to the state through efficiency, job retention and creation (NC Econ. Dev. Partnership Modifications, (HB 1031)).

10. Changed laws relating to regulation by State and local government on health and safety (Regulatory Reform Act of 2014, (SB 734)).

11. Improved the Department of Transportation affecting efficiency, decreasing traffic burden, and improving state drivers’ licenses (DOT/DMV changes, (HB 1025) and DOT/DMV changes #2, (HB 272)).

12. Required mopeds to be registered (Registration for Mopeds, (HB 1145)).

13. Updated regulations of the Mining and Energy Commission and its work on rules for oil and gas (Energy Modernization Act, (SB 786)).

14. Created a commission to oversee the assessment, planning and clean-up of coal ash ponds in order to safeguard our state’s greatest natural resource, our water (Coal Ash Management Act of 2014, (SB 729)).

15. Updated agricultural and environmental laws (Farm Act of 2014, (HB 366)).

16. Punished threats to legislative, executive, or court officers. Increased penalties for cell phones in prison. Allowed remote testimony by forensic analysts in criminal trials (Criminal Law Changes, (HB 369)).

17. Changed procedures for business cases (Business Court Modernization, (SB 853)).

18. Changed election laws by clarifying filing and hours of operation, establishing procedures for primary voters who have moved and updating ballot requirements (Omnibus Election Clarifications, (SB 403)).

19. Created a pilot program for the use of hemp extract for intractable epileptic disorder (Hope 4 Haley and Friends, (HB 1220)).

20. Increased health care options for at home medical care (Zoning/Health Care Structure, (HB 625)).

###

Please contact me at paul.stam@ncleg.net with any inquiries.

The 2014 Dispute over Lottery Advertising Raises Some Eyebrows

August 26th, 2014 by Skip

The 2014 Dispute over Lottery Advertising Raises Some Eyebrows

Representative Paul Stam[1]

During the budget development process, the Senate proposed to double the quantity of Lottery advertising (from 1% to 2% of revenue), but add the restrictions the House had passed 99-12 in the Honest Lottery Act (HB 156)[2]. The Senate Appropriations Committee met on June 12, 2014 to discuss lottery advertising. A transcript is attached.

Executive Director, Alice Garland, stated (page 16) that the Lottery Commission was not consulted when the fiscal note for HB 156 (Honest Lottery Act) was put together. On page 3 of the attached fiscal note the Fiscal Research Division (FRD) states, “The Lottery Commission does not anticipate any costs from incorporating the changes to statistical probability disclaimers provided in lottery advertisements. No fiscal impact is anticipated.”

A fiscal memorandum dated June 20, 2014 states that the Lottery Commission claimed that $3.6 million would be needed to fix billboards. But the spokeswoman for the NC Lottery ”told Dylan Finch on March 13, 2013 that the onetime cost would be $300,000. His memo is attached.

Would restrictions on the contents of advertising restrict sales? The Commission’s position on this has been twofold. 1) That bettors are so attuned to the odds that they know where to look it up on the website and that restrictions would have no impact, or 2) that bettors care nothing about the odds and thus the truth about the odds would have no impact (page 13). Attached is an email from the General Counsel of the Lottery in September 2013 in which he states that “we really do not know what the impact on sales would be.” Most of the discussion by the Commission and others about supposed loss of sales is due to the “confusion” associated with having two numbers on billboards for PowerBall and Mega Millions (first, the nominal payment if taken over 20 years and second, the real present value of a lump sum payment. But ad restrictions in the Honest Lottery Act do not require that two numbers be posted, only the true number. The bill does not prohibit the Lottery Commission from putting the higher fanciful number on the billboard. There is no reason to confuse the public with the higher but deceptive number.

Some Senators argued that the House was “gambling on gambling” to pay teachers. The lottery produces about 4% of the education budget for the State (about 2% of the general fund budget and less than 1% of the total State budget). Without raising the advertising rate and without the advertising restrictions, the estimate from the FRD was that $520 million would come in next year (14-15) for education. FRD estimates that raising the advertising rate to 2% in conjunction with the advertising restrictions would bring in $550 million for education. So the question is not whether you are “gambling on gambling” to pay teachers. The state has used lottery money to pay teachers for almost a decade. The question is whether you will have more but accurate ads, or instead, have fewer ads that are false and deceptive.

The lottery is the only operation of State government that puts out false and deceptive information on a daily basis to its own citizens. As Senator Tillman said:

Fools will play the lottery and now if we can attract more fools to play the lottery and they choose that, I’m not sticking a gun to their head. We’re talking about will it produce enough revenue to put something like teacher raises…(page 8).[3]

Senator Robinson asked Ms. Garland (page 12), “do you have statistics on that in terms of who, you know, what segment of the population, or what area…but can you tell us who plays the most?” Ms. Garland’s ans;wer was “I don’t have statistics.” I would be shocked if she does not have statistics since they are voluminous and easily accessible. The report attached that is entitled, “State Lotteries at the Turn of the Century: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission,” provides the statistics that Ms. Garland says the Lottery Commission does not have. It shows without a doubt that the people who play the most are poor and uneducated. Government should not have them in their sights to exploit.

Recently a lottery winner was praised for donating $25,000 to Shaw University after she won $2,000,000. Her contribution was only 1.25% of her winnings and it went to her own employer. What about all the losers that created the prize Ms. Fields won? Other lottery participants lost $2,000,000 to establish a $25,000 scholarship and provide money in the bank for Ms. Fields.[4] The July 11, 2014 News and Observer article quoted her, “I talk to people in line and tell them that the lottery is my fun because I’m helping education while I play.” If the lottery were not in place today, the same amount of funds that the lottery produces would be available for education. Studies show that lotteries provide no net new money for education. [5] Using the term “education” to sell lottery tickets is an advertising ploy. It is not true.

There is a huge discrepancy between the gambling habits of eastern North Carolina and western North Carolina. Eastern gamblers are heavily subsidizing the rest of the state. I estimate that on a yearly basis several hundreds of millions of dollars of wealth are transferred from the East to the West by the Lottery. Attached is a chart that shows the figures for each county. The counties in bold in the chart are donor counties. Some are extreme donor counties such as Nash, Halifax, Vance, Edgecombe, Wilson and Lenoir counties, which all have lottery sales per capita that more than double the State average. Eastern legislators could spend some time calculating for themselves the losses to the East occasioned by this scheme to redistribute wealth.

We will continue to debate the lottery for years. It is important that we know the facts.

[1] Dylan Finch, intern for Representative Paul Stam, contributed to research for this article. He is a student at North Carolina State University in its Economics program.

[2] See http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H156v3.pdf

[3] This article does not address the deceptive nature of NC lottery advertising. For a full report on this topic, please see the attached summary and the corresponding advertisements.

[4] For more information on how the NC Lottery uses lottery scholarship recipients to deceive players, please see https://paulstam.info/2014/02/lottery-newsletter-spreads-irrelevant-information/.

[5] See http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/spotlights/Spotlight405LotteryNotWorthGamble.pdf

Attachments: Lottery Article, SB 744 – Appropriations Act of 2014_Senate Appropriations_Lottery Transcipt, HB 156 Honest Lottery Act Fiscal Note, Memo regarding Jamie King phone call, Quan t. Kirk email, Clotfelter et al. Report to National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Memo_Comparison of Lottery Funding and Sales By County, Fiscal Memo by Barry Boardman

Lottery Newsletter Spreads Irrelevant Information

June 11th, 2014 by Skip

The North Carolina Lottery Commission announced on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, record breaking lottery sales: such sales contribute to State education funding. However, the release provides no context. This continues the lottery commission’s attempt to burnish its image despite the facts. An example of such an attempt is the commission’s October 2013 newsletter. The headline boasts of the significant impact the NCLC has on education funding in North Carolina. This is a gross exaggeration. Second, the newsletter provides a story of a college student who received a scholarship from the NCEL. A scholarship from the NCLC accounts for a small percentage of the overall subsidy a student receives from State of North Carolina. This press release illustrates the NCLC’s image control through articles that provide irrelevant information.

The headline states, “Lottery funds to boost education funding this year by $481 million”. This statement is deceptive on two grounds. First, some of the money the NCLC provides for the Education Budget (as well as the Health and Human Services budget for NC Pre-K) for FY 2013-14, which is roughly $481 million, would be appropriated if the NCLC were not in place. State residents, without the NCLC, would spend their money on goods and services in which their transactions would be subject to the state and local sales tax of 6.75%. Not only would the additional sales tax revenue supplant part of the current revenue from the lottery, but the money saved or spent on useful goods and services would also reduce crime rates and the level of welfare spending. Jean Baljean would not have stolen that local bread in Les Misérables to feed his family if he had not lost all of his money playing the French lottery.

Second, the amount the NCLC allocates to the overall education budget is almost trivial. Below you will find a table illustrating the Education budget for FY 2013-14 broken into its various components with lottery funds equaling 4.20 percent of the overall education budget. But lottery proceeds accounted for 2.34 percent of the total State budget ($20,630,767,645) and only .96 percent of the overall State general fund ($50 billion which includes federal government pass-throughs). While proceeds from the lottery make up very little of the overall budget, the hype created by the NCLC causes voters to disregard or vote against local education bond issues because they think that their financial contributions through the lottery have alleviated the need for real education spending.

On the next to last page of the lottery newsletter is an article about an N.C. State student who received a scholarship from the NCLC. The article does not disclose the amount of the student’s scholarship, but it does include information about the great things the student is doing as well as the number of scholarships the NCLC has given to students. The title for the article states, “Scholarship student at N.C. State aims to help veterans.” The student appears to be a well-rounded and academically gifted student, but the NCLC is using her to improve its public image so as to encourage people to think that when they play the lottery they have done something significant and praiseworthy.

For the 2013 fall semester, the SEAA (State Education Assistance Authority) reported that the average lottery scholarship was $1,105. To put this in context, in-state tuition at N.C. State for the same academic year was $8,055.15. However, the most important fact is that for the average full-time North Carolina resident enrolled at a UNC system school for FY 2012-13, the State of North Carolina spent $13,000 in public funds. And for this student at N.C. State, the tuition subsidy from the taxpayer is $15,707. In sum, all full-time North Carolina students at N.C. State receive a subsidy from the State well in excess of the tuition each student has to pay as well as many times over the average scholarship the NCLC has to offer. Despite this the NCLC only promotes the scholarships it offers to students as a way to increase its public image.

¹NC Pre-K is a part of the Health and Human Services portion of the budget for FY 2013-14. It is not included in the education portion.
^*This total does not include the allocations for NC Pre-K from the General Fund.
^{^}This total does include the allocations the lottery provides for NC Pre-K.

The Logic of Toll Roads

May 24th, 2014 by Skip

“Good tax policy decrees that wherever possible a fee for a service should be assessed against those who directly benefit from that service.”[1]
Ronald Reagan

The Toll Road program is an important tool to be included in the measures for building public infrastructure.

Use of Toll Roads can greatly accelerate the implementation of crucial projects. In the case of 540 in western Wake County it has been estimated that this project was able to be constructed some 20-25 years earlier than it would have been if it followed traditional funding/construction processes.

With the 540 Toll Road in place existing motorists have been provided with an excellent alternative for reaching the RTP, Durham, RDU Airport and eastern NC in far less time and with much greater ease. Future residents will also be able to enjoy the benefits of this facility immediately upon their arrival.

Traditionally roads have been provided or improved on the basis of existing traffic volumes following the axiom of “Once we have a clear need through severely over loaded facilities we will either widen existing facilities or construct new ones.”

In the 1940’s Governor Kerr Scott implemented his “farm to market” road improvement program to get farmers out of the mud with paved roads allowing them to move their products to market more quickly and safely. North Carolina quickly became a national leader in paved roads networking across the state. As a result North Carolina became nationally known as “The Good Roads State.”

Toll Roads give us the flexibility of following a new axiom which is “ Since we can clearly project the unquestionable need for improvements let’s go ahead and get it in place so it is there before we have a catastrophic failure of the existing , limited, facilities.”

Along with improving mobility (the ability to move safely and efficiently from point A to Point B and back again) having alternative routes in place also helps to meet our requirements to reduce air pollution from vehicle emissions.

Our region has long been under an air quality improvement mandate from the EPA. Air quality monitoring stations were installed by the federal /and or state agencies at some of the longest standing, highly congested intersections or stretches of roadway, in the region (Crabtree Valley to name one). At these locations during rush hours or heavy shopping times, motorists would sit with the engines idling as they inched their way through multiple cycles of signals to eventually clear the intersection or congested stretch of roadway. With all of these idling engines and no viable alternative routes for those who were simply trying to get through the area to some other destination, air quality would drop drastically as the localized air mass became saturated with engine exhaust. Even with the addition of buses to reduce the number of idling vehicles there was no significant improvement as few people chose to use the bus. Further, the region’s steady population growth added new drivers to the mix at a rate that far outstripped any advantage gained by the limited number of people who chose the transit option.

The only reliable fallback that we could take has been to expand and add new roadway facilities to provide much needed alternatives and keep vehicles moving so that no single area would be subjected to the long periods of inching vehicles with idling engines that would severely impair the air quality at that given location. Given limited state and federal funding that might provide for a few improvements over a 7 to 10 year time period, local governments have been confronted with having to build new roads completely on their own. This has required approval of bonds by the voters within the respective community, or a tax increase, or both. Even so, our communities still find themselves with the need to improve or construct even more roads.

Even with paying the tolls, most motorists’ save both money and time. For example, prior to the connection of 540 from the NC 55 Holly Springs By-pass to NC 55 at Research Triangle Park (RTP) residents in the Holly Springs, Fuquay Varina, Southwesternmost Wake County and from neighboring areas like Angier or Lillington had the choice of either following NC 55 Bypass and NC 55 through downtown Apex and continuing on NC 55 to reach RTP at NC 55; or, working their way through back roads (Holly Springs New Hill Road to New Hill Olive Chapel Road) out of Holly Springs to reach NC 751 then O’Kelly Chapel Road and eventually NC 55 at the RTP.

Their first choice through downtown Apex could require usually at least 30 minutes, and sometimes an hour, just to negotiate the roughly 4 miles from the intersection of the NC 55 By-pass and old NC 55 north of Holly Springs to the intersection of NC 55 and US 64 north of Apex. From there they still needed to negotiate another 6.5 miles and 9 traffic signals at a maximum speed limit of 50 miles per hour (mph) to reach the intersection of NC 55 and 540 at the RTP. It could take 15 minutes or more to negotiate this last 6.5 miles. Following this route one could have a total commuting time of anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes!!

Now, by getting on 540 at the interchange with the NC 55 By-pass in Holly Springs one can reach the same location at RTP on NC 55 (540 NC 55 intersection) by travelling 13 miles at 70 mph in about 12 minutes. There is a huge fuel savings by negotiating essentially the same distance with the engine running time reduced by anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour or more!!

The back road route is over 24 miles in length (one way) and in the best of times it would require at least 35 minutes. In rush hour traffic it would take between 45 minutes and an hour. People who used this route said they knew it was significantly longer but they seemed to continuously move (a big psychological plus) and they reached their ultimate destination often in the same, or less, time than it would take to follow NC 55 back through downtown Apex.

If the logic of the 540 toll road saving both time and money even with the payment of the tolls is proven, then the facility is not punitive to those who use it. If the logic is proven that the toll road saves money by reducing fuel costs even after the tolls are accounted for then the facility cannot be discriminatory as the benefit is there for all. Further, if one’s personal time were valued at $10 an hour a reduction in commute time by at least 15 minutes each way is a $5 benefit. If the commute is reduced by 30 minutes each way there is a $10 realization in time. That is much more than the toll.

Responses to Specific Points
Recently Raised by
North Carolina Citizens Against Toll Roads
(NCCATR)

Are Toll roads punitive:

At 18.4 cents per gallon, the federal gas tax was last raised in 1993. Since then, it has lost nearly 40 percent of its purchasing power. The gas tax would need to be raised to nearly 30 cents per gallon to give it the purchasing power it had in 1993.

Similarly, while the North Carolina state gas tax is a combination of a flat rate plus a variable rate based on wholesale prices (capped since 2012), North Carolina has seen the power of its highway construction dollars decline 52% between 2002-2013. This reduction of purchasing power at both the federal and state levels creates challenges to funding our infrastructure systems now and in the future.

The use of tolls is a central component to this nation’s transportation funding system. Tolls establish a direct connection between the use of the road and payment for that use. For too long, motorists have falsely believed our roads are free. Our highways are not free nor have they ever been. However, it’s easy to see why that misperception persists. There is no direct link between paying the fuel tax and using the roads it funds. Tolling re-establishes that connection.

There are no free roads. There are only toll roads and tax supported roads. A toll is a user fee, not a tax. You only pay for a toll road when you use it. Every road needs maintenance and reconstruction, and that costs money. No road is ever fully paid for. A road, just like a home, requires ongoing upkeep and maintenance. Tolls provide a sustainable source of revenue for ongoing road maintenance and improvement.

It is a common misconception that the Interstates are “already paid for.” Infrastructure of all kinds needs routine maintenance, upgrading and eventual replacement. Though it cost $129 billion to construct, it will cost nearly $2.5 trillion over the next 50 years to rebuild the interstate system, largely at state expense. States are looking for new, sustainable revenue streams to support their highways, especially the Interstate highways. A growing number of states are exploring (or revisiting) the benefits of tolling as part of the options for renovating and upgrading their roadways.

Tolls are voluntary user fees. Drivers can choose to pay tolls or take alternative routes, whereas taxes are mandatory and charged to everyone. Yes, customers of toll facilities also pay taxes, but the taxes are used to fund non-toll roads. Since toll roads are primarily self-financed and do not rely on taxes, the customer is not paying twice for the facility. In fact, without tolls, taxes would be higher.

Do Toll roads discriminate:

Tolls are a fair and precise way to pay for transportation facilities because there is a clear and direct link between use of the facility and payment for that use.

A toll is a user fee, not a tax. If you don’t use the facility, you don’t pay for it. You only pay a toll when you choose to drive on a toll road for a higher level of convenience, reliability or safety.

Many surveys have shown that drivers of all income levels use tolled facilities and support having the option to use high-quality toll roads. A well-designed pricing plan can be less burdensome to low-income citizens than systems that are based on regressive taxes, such as car registration fees, sales taxes and the gasoline tax.

Do Toll roads alleviate traffic congestion:

Tolls provide money today for projects that can be built in the near future and meet demand for decades to come.

Tolls provide a dedicated and predictable revenue stream that allows toll operators to program capacity improvements as they are needed.

Today, most toll roads, bridges, and tunnels collect tolls electronically, which eliminates the need to stop and pay tolls at a traditional toll plaza.

Toll roads are generally safer than non-tolled roads due to better maintenance, pavement, and technology. Toll operators employ state-of-the-art technology to monitor road conditions and have a financial incentive to keep their roads running as safely and smoothly as possible.

Toll roads tend to be less congested than tax-funded roads, where unrestricted access often leads to congestion. Toll roads also lead to time savings and congestion relief on nearby roadways by increasing the total road capacity available. Moreover, most toll operators are eliminating toll plazas and expanding their high-speed, automated tolling options. Most new facilities are being built as cashless systems, with no stopping or slowing down to pay a toll.

Do Toll roads cost $1.9 million more per mile to build:

Capital costs for the Triangle Expressway included:

Roadside Toll Collection System (RTCS) – $11.98M
Electronic Toll Collection System (ETCS) – $2.77M
Initial Transponder Purchase – $3.59M
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) – $6.05M
Back Office System (BOS) – $3.57M
Consultants – $7.61M

Including only the RTCS, ETCS,and 60% of the Consultant Labor ($19.32M) which accounts for roadside toll equipment costs specific to the Triangle Expressway (18.8 miles), the roadside toll technology cost is $1.03M/Mile. These project costs were included in the overall project cost and plan of finance.

As of March 31, 2014, the Triangle Expressway has delivered $24,180,503.56 in actual revenue. This is 22% above projections, project to date

[1] Radio Address to the Nation on Proposed Legislation for a Highway and Bridge Repair Program
November 27, 1982 (The President spoke at 9:06 a.m. from Rancho del Cielo, his ranch near Santa Barbara, Calif.)

Who Really Put a Heavy Tax Burden on the Poor?

April 17th, 2014 by Skip

Raleigh – Harry Reid’s PAC ads claim that Republicans raised taxes for most North Carolinians. I attribute that nonsense to his poor research team. But I then get somewhat confused when I hear Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue, Senate Minority Whip Josh Stein or Senator Floyd McKissick, Black Caucus Leader claim that Republican Tax Reform advantages the rich to the detriment of the poor.

Attached is the voting record of this trio for their 2009 votes to increase the state portion of the sales tax from 4.75% to 5.75% – a 16% increase amounting to almost $1 billion per year. See SB 202, 3rd reading, Section 27.A2. The disabled, the unemployed, the retired and even homeless veterans pay sales tax. This was the answer of these Senators to the 2009 budget.

The same strange phenomenon has occurred in the House. Attached is the voting record of House Democratic Leader Representative Larry Hall, House Deputy Democratic Leader, Representative Michael Wray and Representative Garland Pierce, Black Caucus Leader for their 2009 votes to increase the state portion of the sales tax from 4.75% to 5.75% – a 16% increase amounting to almost $1 billion per year. See SB 202, 3rd reading, Section 27.A2. They also know that high sales tax rates disproportionally are paid by the poor.

In 2011 these same voices called on Republicans to keep this “temporary sales tax increase.” “It’s only a penny” they claimed. Your readers will recall that Democratic leaders demanded this extra 16% increase in the sales tax rate. Our refusal to do so was the reason Gov. Beverly Perdue tried to veto the 2011-2013 budget.

The refusal by the Republican General Assembly to increase the sales tax rate to the high levels of the Democrats and to continue that policy from 2011 into 2013 is part of the total tax reform package. Poor people do better under the Republican plan than under the Democrats’ actions. That is true at every income level.

But these Democrats think we have a very short memory. Senator Harry Reid will waste his money on ads that prove only a demonstrable lie.

Jane Levring Stam Miner

February 5th, 2014 by Skip

JANE LEVRING STAM MINER
March 11, 1925 – February 3, 2014

I am sad to tell you that my mother, Jane Levring Stam Miner, died yesterday at her home in Chatham County at the age of 88. She was a devoted servant of Jesus Christ. Those interested in her many exploits can click on the links shown below. All of her children thank the hundreds of her friends who cared for her and visited her in her last year.

A memorial service will be held on Saturday, February 15, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. at Chapel Hill Bible Church, 206 Erwin Road, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 followed by a reception. An interment will follow later at Arlington National Cemetery.

Letters of sympathy may be sent to Karen Stam, 451 University Street, St. Lake City, UT 84102 or by email at karenstam@aol.com.

Articles from website (www.carlstam.org/familyheritage): http://www.carlstam.org/familyheritage/janestam.html; http://www.carlstam.org/familyheritage/rubies.html; http://www.carlstam.org/JaneEasterTestimony.mp3

98 Supporters Attend Rep. Stam’s 2014 Election Kickoff

February 2nd, 2014 by Skip

Photos courtesy of Ben Herrmann

North Carolina Education Expenditures

February 2nd, 2014 by Skip

Attached is a chart the Fiscal Research Division at the General Assembly put together tracking North Carolina’s Public School and Higher Education Expenditures over the past 8-10 years. For the public schools, it breakdowns the total spent by state, federal, and county funds and uses both current and constant dollars on a per pupil basis. Expenditures track actual money spent while budgets are a plan.

North Carolina Education Expenditures

More Crazy Attacks on Opportunity Scholarships

December 19th, 2013 by Skip

Raleigh – Last week saw three attacks on North Carolina’s Opportunity Scholarships. These scholarships provide $4,200 for low-income parents who choose private over public education. For a complete description of that program please see my PowerPoint and Misconceptions.

First, on December 9, 2013 the NCAE and the left-wing NC Justice Center filed suit to stop the scholarships. The suit itself is a long essay on the perceived virtues of public education over private education. The entire legal argument is that under Article IX, Section 6 of the State Constitution money appropriated to the public schools (K-12) cannot be diverted to private schools. Yet the money for these Opportunity Scholarships was never appropriated to the public schools in the first place but to the State Education Assistance Authority. It has been in business for decades and primarily administers college loans and grants.

Then came NC Policy Watch and its Chris Fitzsimon, aghast that a private school might have its own admission policy. Fitzsimon’s column was broadcast all over North Carolina and argued that state tax money should never go to schools that discriminate. That is curious. For the last 38 years the state has been providing legislative tuition grants and need-based scholarships to 35 private 4-year colleges. These colleges discriminate in their admission policies for all sorts of reasons. But one stands out. Three of these schools have always blatantly discriminated against men. Meredith College, Bennett College and Salem College do not admit men at all. Two other colleges received these funds for decades before admitting men – Queens College and Peace College. We have not heard a peep out of Fitzsimon and NC Policy Watch claiming that this discrimination based on sex was immoral, illegal or unconstitutional. Most of us are rather proud that our tax money furthers the education of tens of thousands of young women.

And then the Superintendent of Public Instruction, June Atkinson, spoke to the State School Board Association’s Public Policy Conference in Wilmington. Local NBC affiliate, WECT reported that she stated,

“with the voucher legislation that we have we could be in dangerous territory as far as taxpayer’s dollars going to private schools….There is nothing in the legislation that would prevent someone from establishing a school of terror”.

What would allow and inspire private schools to run schools of terror? There are hundreds of state and federal laws that prohibit terrorist acts, terrorist training and material support to terrorists. All of these laws apply to private schools as well as public schools. There are 700 private schools in North Carolina today. Does she have information that any one of them is promoting terror, teaching terror or engaging in terror?

Apparently she thinks it is taxpayer funding that will enable some of the 700 private schools to begin classes on suicide bombing for North Carolina’s private schools. But if it is public funding that enables this kind of training there are thousands of public schools, (including 700 high schools) that get complete funding right now from the taxpayer. If funding is the missing ingredient does she find terrorist training camps in the public schools? I cannot find them. Some schools have gangs that terrorize other students but in no case is this the policy or the action of the public school itself. Quite to the contrary. Public schools make every effort to fight terrorism and gang activity. As do private schools, of course.

Expect more wild claims in the days to come.

Whopper Tales from the “Shutdown”

November 25th, 2013 by Skip

Raleigh – Now that some time has passed since the early October “shutdown”/debt limit crisis of the federal government it is time for facts to emerge. Why? The next time this crisis occurs we will know better how to deal with it and how to understand it.

Here are some commons myths:

MYTH ONE: The government “shutdown” in early October 2013.

Not really. State and local governments, with which most citizens have the most direct contact, were humming along at 99%. A few cases of federally funded programs were interrupted briefly.
The federal government was humming along at about 70%. The expenditures that consume most the budget are on automatic pilot. By statute they continue even in the absence of a new appropriations bill. There are some limitations on this. For example, the Constitution specifies that no appropriations for the military may extend more than 2 years. Within that 70% of programs that continued on automatic pilot the matters that affected the people the most are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. . . .

MYTH TWO: During the “shutdown” essential services were shutdown.

The President acting under 31 US code 1341 and 1342, the Antideficiency Act, designated essential services and those persons continued their work unabated. Even those deemed nonessential were protected. When the continuing resolution was approved, which they all knew it would be, the workers were guaranteed to be paid in full. There was a disruption in cash flow to these workers but not to their balance sheet. Federal workers are at the top of the pay scale generally so their ability to handle this was enhanced.

MYTH THREE: October 17th deadline for extending the debt ceiling – that after that day the U.S. would have defaulted on its debt service and payment of treasury bonds.

Not really. The ability to borrow after October 17th would not have been repealed – only a statutory limit at $17 trillion (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the “Borrowing Clause”.) After that date revenues were still coming in at the annual rate of $2.7 trillion a year since there was no moratorium on citizens paying taxes. The “debt ceiling” is a statutory statement that the total amount of debt will not exceed that figure. Annual debt service this year is $415 billion. Only if the President had violated the law and not paid debt service first would those treasury transactions have been interrupted.

MYTH FOUR: The President wisely chose which government services to halt while continuing essential services.

No. It is widely observed that President Obama chose on the basis of the services that would cause the most pain, disruption and publicity in order to create the atmosphere of crisis. For example, no one is required to monitor the World War II Memorial on the National Mall. It is an open-air exhibit without moving parts. Only President Obama would think to spend money to close it down during the “shutdown”.

MYTH FIVE: The “shutdown” was caused by the irrational opposition of Republicans to the Affordable Care Act.

See the attached October 14, 2013, statement. The shurtdown was in fact caused by th eirational stubborness of President Obama and Senators like Harry Reid and Kay Hagan who refused to allow even a single vote on the slightest change to the Affordable Care Act.

Attachments:

10-14-13 The Federal Government Shutdown Separating Fact from Fiction

CRS_Debt Limit

CRS_Economic Effects of Shutdown

CRS_Shutdown Causes and Effects

Article: The Removal of Special Superior Court Judges

October 30th, 2013 by Skip

Below is the introduction to my 2013 article, “Removal of Special Superior Court Judges: An Assault on Separation of Powers.” For the full article please click here.

_____

I. Introduction

A recent proposal to remove nearly all of the sitting Special Superior Court Judges inspired debate on the constitutionality of the move. Removing judges during the middle of their terms violates the separation of powers clause of the North Carolina Constitution. By removing a judge midterm, the legislature would impede judicial independence and expose judges and the judicial branch to retaliatory legislation. In addition to the separation of powers question, removing a judge from office during his or her term may also violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even though judges do not have a property right in the office, they may have a property interest in the term of office. This paper provides a brief historical overview of these issues.

What Happened During the 2013 Session?

August 20th, 2013 by Skip

Balanced the budget for the third straight year without a tax increase.
Enacted historic tax reform that provides tax relief to almost everybody.
The education budget is a slight increase over last year. It gives flexibility to local school districts in spending state funds.
Overhauled our election laws to require a photo ID to vote. Other significant changes include an end to straight ticket voting.
Opportunity Scholarships of $4,200 per year for low-income families who choose to send their children to a private school in 2014-15.
Replaced the Tax Credit for Children with Disabilities with a scholarship grant to reimburse tuition and special education services.
Reformed our regulatory climate to ease the burden on small businesses.
Conscience protection for health care providers who object to abortion on moral, ethical or religious grounds; required a doctor to be physically present during an abortion; protected women’s health by requiring DHHS to amend its rules for abortion clinics, prohibited sex-selective abortions, and ended taxpayer funding of abortions.
Required Sex Ed to include instruction on the preventable causes of preterm birth, including induced abortion, smoking, alcohol consumption, the use of illicit drugs and inadequate prenatal care.
Repealed the “Racial Justice Act”. The last legislative roadblock to execution of first degree murderers is now history.
Enacted serious punishment for human trafficking.
The Strategic Transportation Initiative focused on the critical needs of transportation infrastructure. Funding decisions will be based on objective data rather than the arbitrary “equity formula”.
Corrected the failed unemployment insurance program by repaying the record debt of $2.8 billion to the federal government and providing for a solvent insurance fund.
Protected the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Rights of the NC Constitution by strengthening and clarifying rights and responsibilities of concealed carry permit holders while increasing the punishment of criminals who use guns.
Hospital billing reformed to reduce costs and provide transparency for consumers.
The Domestic Energy Jobs Act will spur job creation with onshore and offshore energy exploration in North Carolina.
$10 million fund to compensate living victims of the eugenics program.
Private employers may give preference to disabled veterans.
Streamlined process for handling disciplinary matters with state employees.
Tightened punishment for repeat offenders who drive while impaired. More convicted drunk drivers must install ignition locks.
Farmers will no longer be required to use only unionized labor on their farms.

Health and Safety Law Changes Passes NC House

July 11th, 2013 by Skip

Raleigh, N.C. – Senate Bill 353, “Health and Safety Law Changes,” passed the House by a vote of 74-41. The bill modifies laws pertaining to abortion. The abortion provisions were added to SB 353 from HB 695 and amended to address the concerns of Secretary Wos of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Let’s go over the pro-life provisions of the bill.

Part I. Health Care Conscience Protection

This part of the bill extends conscience protection to all health care providers who object to abortion on moral, ethical, or religious grounds. “Health care provider” means any person who is licensed or certified to practice a health profession or occupation, a licensed health care facility, and a representative or agent of a health care provider.

In May 2011, The Polling Company found that 77% of American adults surveyed said it is either “very” or “somewhat” important to them “that healthcare professionals in the U.S. are not forced to participate in procedures or practices to which they have moral objections.” 16% said it is not important.

Part II. Limits on Abortion Funding Under Health Insurance Plans Offered Through A Health Insurance Exchange or by Local Governments

Section 2(a) of the bill exercises North Carolina’s right under the Affordable Care Act (signed by President Obama) to opt out of covering abortion services under a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange pursuant to the Affordable Care Act. Coverage is allowed for abortions performed when the life of the mother is endangered, or in the cases of rape or incest. Twenty-two other states have already opted-out of this provision of the Affordable Care Act. In 2009, a Civitas poll found that 69 percent of respondents opposed providing coverage for abortion in a health reform plan.

Sections 2(b) and 2(c) prohibit counties and cities from providing abortion coverage for their employees greater than that provided by the State Health Plan. The State Health Plan does not cover abortion, except when the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape or incest. The federal government does not allow any funds appropriated to be available to pay for an abortion for its employees, except in the cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother (H.R. 1105, 111^th Congress – signed by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden).

Part III. Clarify Law/Prohibit Sex-Selective Abortion

Prohibits abortion when a significant factor for the decision of the pregnant woman seeking the abortion is related to the sex of the unborn child. It specifically states that there is no “affirmative duty on the physician to inquire as to whether the sex of the unborn child is a significant factor in the pregnant woman seeking the abortion.” Five other states have already passed similar legislation.

A significant majority of people disagree with sex-selective abortion. Most recently, an April 2013 Civitas poll found that 76 percent of North Carolinians disagreed with the statement, “women in NC should be allowed to have an abortion when their primary reason for the abortion is the sex of the unborn child.”

Part IV. Amend Women’s Right to Know Act

Requires that a physician performing a surgical abortion shall be physically present during the performance of the entire abortion procedure. Ten states require the doctor to be present for a surgical abortion.

For a medical abortion, the physician prescribing the inducing abortion drug shall be physically present in the same room when the first drug or chemical is administered to the patient. This is supported by the label of MIFEPREX®, a drug commonly used to induce abortion. It says, “Mifeprex should be prescribed only in a clinic, medical office, or hospital, by or under the supervision of a physician, able to assess the gestational age of an embryo and to diagnose ectopic pregnancies.”

It requires that DHHS have documents available on its website for women who have received a poor prenatal diagnosis. Due to advances in technology, parents today are able to know whether their child has a birth defect long before the child is actually born. Several organizations across the state serve parents facing these diagnoses. These organizations can give parents more information on their baby’s particular disorder and provide further counseling.

It requires that DHHS amend its rules pertaining to abortion clinics. The Department is authorized to apply any requirement for the licensure of ambulatory surgical centers to the standards applicable to abortion clinics. The new rules must address the on-site recovery phase of patient care, protecting patient privacy, providing quality assurance, and ensuring that patients with complications receive necessary medical attention.

The rules for abortion clinics have not been updated since 1994. There have been several instances of DHHS closing clinics for violations of the rules. Most recently the Baker Clinic for Women in Durham was closed based on the finding that the clinic presented an “imminent danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the clients.” Updating the rules will ensure that abortion clinics are held to modern standards. These provisions are common sense provisions that protect the health and safety of women seeking abortions in North Carolina.

For additional information on these issues, the following documents are attached:

SB 353 “Health and Safety Law Changes”

H.R. 1105 signed by President Obama

Provision of the Affordable Care Act

States that Have Opted-Out of Abortion Coverage in Exchange (National Right to Life)

Fact Sheet on Sex-Selection

Talking Points on the Doctor Being Physically Present

MIFEPREX Label

Letter from DHHS to the Baker Clinic

Abortion Clinic Rules (10A NCAC 14E)

Pro-Life Polling Data

Press Advisory: SB 132 – Health Curriculum/Preterm Birth

July 1st, 2013 by Skip

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In addition to the press release sent out Thursday on SB 132: Health Curriculum/Preterm Birth, I have included links to the final votes for the House and Senate. In regards to the argument that there is no scientific evidence that abortions are a risk factor for preterm birth, I have also included the statements of three well-respected doctors on the issue and a bibliography of 122 studies citing a link between the two. If you would like a copy of the bill as passed by the House it should be available on Monday at: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2013&BillID=sb132&submitButton=Go.

Please note: Some news accounts have stated that this bill teaches about the causes of miscarriage. This is not the case. The bill teaches about the risks for preterm birth, a completely different issue.

For further information, please call (919) 733-2962.

Sincerely,

Representative Paul Stam

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SB 132- House Vote

SB 132- Senate Vote

Bibliography of 122 Studies

Biographical Information- Dr. McCaffrey, Dr. Thorp, and Dr. Bowes

Dr. Thorp’s May 2013 Letter

Presentations at the Perinatal Health Committee Meeting

Honest Lottery Act: Improving Advertising Standards for the North Carolina Education Lottery

April 9th, 2013 by Skip

House Bill 156 requires the North Carolina State Lottery Commission to adhere to the following advertising requirements:

Advertising that states a total of payments to be paid over a period of time must also state the present value of the prize.
Advertising that states the probability of winning a prize must not omit the value of the lowest prize to be won.
When stating the odds of winning a prize the advertisement, at a minimum, must include the odds of winning the prize with the largest value.
Advertising or sponsorship of the NCEL in connection with any high school or collegiate sport or sporting event is prohibited.
Advertisements must not refer to the role of accountants or auditors.

Lastly the bill asks that the University of North Carolina develop material and teaching methods that explain the probabilities and other mathematical aspects of a lottery game. This information will be available as a component of high school courses in mathematics and civics.

How is the North Carolina Education Lottery Currently Advertising?

The North Carolina State Lottery Act did little to regulate the tactics used to advertise the lottery. It did not ensure completely honest advertising.
Although advertisements were required to include the overall odds of winning a prize, there was no requirement that advertisements match the odds to the prize. For example, the disclaimer in a NCEL ad just last year read, “Approximate odds of winning are 1 in 3.9,” but, only advertised the top prize of 200,000. While the overall probably of winning any amount of money, from $5 to $200,000, may be 1 in 3.90, the probability of winning the top prize may only be 1 in 800,000.
The Lottery Act also did not require advertisements to include the lowest prize to be won. For instance, the same TV advertisement clearly omitted the lowest prize to be won by only including the top prize of $200,000 in the ad. As a result of the leniency regarding advertising standards, the NCEL is inducing people to engage in the lottery by advertising the largest prize amount along with the overall odds of winning (the smallest ratio) in order to smokescreen the near impossible odds of becoming a big winner.
The Lottery Act did not require advertisements to include the present value of a prize that is paid out over a period of time. For example, the headline of a recent 2012 TV advertisement read, “Jackpots Start at $40 MILLION,” which is the amount received if the winner chooses to take the prize received over twenty years instead of the lump sum. There is no mention of the amount the player receives if the player chooses to take the lump sum; the lump sum being a significantly lower amount and the true value of the prize.
For examples of advertisements click here.

Why Should the General Assembly Improve the Advertising Standards for the North Carolina Education Lottery?

Lottery advertisements overstate the true value of winning a jackpot by failing to communicate that if winners choose to receive their winnings over a twenty year period then their earnings are subject to inflation and lost interest.[i]
The state of New Jersey compiled a study in 1988 and found, “[an annuity system of lottery payment] would be considered fair if it were not for the fact that only one person in twenty even has the remotest idea of what an annuity is.”[ii]
Lottery advertisements do not point out that the winnings a jackpot winner receives are subject to income taxation, thus, overstating the true value of the prize.[iii]
State Lotteries are not held to the same advertising standards that private gambling institutions must adhere to. For example, the Federal Trade Commission mandates that commercial sweepstakes provide the probabilities of winning various prizes for a game.[iv]
James M. Stearns and Shaheen Borna found that omitting objective information about the actual value of a lottery ticket is deceptive and that more complete information would allow lottery players to make more informed decisions.[v]
Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook found that in lottery advertising the absence of information regarding the odds of winning a top prize can distort consumers’ perception of winning.[vi]

Academic Support for Lottery Advertising Requirements

“What are the Consequences of this kind of advertising? While no one can be sure, it seems likely that all attention to prizes and winning at the expense of information on the odds…increases players’ ‘subjective probability’ of winning. [T]he virtual absence of information on the probability of winning a grand prize-these are the essential ingredients in lottery promotion…One possible if unproven effect of this lottery advertising policy is that consumers’ perception of the chance of winning might be systematically distorted. Another possible effect is an undermining of the credibility of the state government in general.”[vii]
“The results of this research demonstrate that the value of a lottery ticket is relevant to lottery players because their intentions to buy changed when such information was present…Based on the behavioral intentions results of this research, the omission is ‘serious’ in that fewer tickets would be sold under most conditions if expected values were known…This research presents some evidence that more understandable, complete information might allow those who play the lottery to make more informed decisions. Lotteries, therefore, should publish expected value information for a reasonable sampling of payoff level…”[viii]
“Whether or not elaborate statements of odds are feasible, it is instructive to note that in the case of sweepstakes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission advertising must disclose the odds of winning all prizes as well as other facts about the game. Applying these standards to lottery advertising would necessitate a dramatic shift in current industry practice.”[ix]
Research shows “that simply providing information may reduce the effects of error on decision making (Fischoff 1984, 1995). For example, Arkes, Dawes, and Christensen (1986) find that merely providing people about probability information improves performance in a prediction task. Fong, Krantz, and Nisbett (1986) show that training decision makers about expected values and simple statistics also leads to more accurate predictions. Therefore, providing information that counters misconceptions regarding lottery play decisions may reduce or eliminate those misconceptions and their associated effects on intended or actual lottery play.”[x]
“Assume once again that $2 million dollars are wagered in order to create an alleged million-dollar jackpot. The state, instead of paying out the million dollars, must make installments of fifty thousand per year…If the winner were to receive the actual jackpot, steps could be taken by the winner to protect their winnings from further tax obligations by investment in exempt bonds…[A]t the end of the twenty years, the winner would have the redemption value of the bonds…[T]he effects of inflation is never mentioned by states…The cost of an annuity that will pay its owner $50,000 per year for the next twenty years was, in spring of 1988, less than $500,000. The winning player prevailed over odds that were indeed one in a million, yet the real value of his win is substantially less than what the odds warranted. The annual payment method lost its justification years ago, but the cynicism that pervades the lottery system continues to triumph, and again, it is a matter of what the market will bear.”[xi]

[i] Joshua Wolf Shenk, “Everyone’s A Loser,” Washington Monthly, 1995.

[ii] Alan J. Karcher, Lotteries (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1989), 44.

[iii] Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook, Selling Lotteries: State Lotteries in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989) , 209.

[iv] Charles T. Clotfelter, Philip J. Cook, Julie A. Edell, and Marian Moore, “State Lotteries at the Turn of the Century: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission,” (1999): 8, accessed March 25, 2013, http://www3.nd.edu/~jstiver/FIN360/lottery.pdf.

[v] James M. Stearns and Shaheen Borna, “The Ethics of Lottery Advertising: Issues and Evidence,” Journal of Business Ethics 14, no. 1 (1995): 50, accessed March 25, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25072621.

[vi]Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook, Selling Lotteries: State Lotteries in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 211-12.

[vii] Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook, Selling Lotteries: State Lotteries in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 210-12.

[viii] James M. Stearns and Shaheen Borna, “The Ethics of Lottery Advertising: Issues and Evidence,” Journal of Business Ethics 14, no. 1 (1995): 49-50, accessed March 25, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25072621.

[ix] Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook, Selling Lotteries: State Lotteries in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 209.

[x] Anthony D. Miyazaki, Anne M. Brumbaugh, and David E. Sprott, “Promoting and Countering Consumer Misconceptions of Random Events: The Case of Perceived Control and State-Sponsored Lotteries 20, no. 2 (2001): 255, accessed March 25, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000592.

[xi] Alan J. Karcher, Lotteries (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1989), 44-5.

Comparison between The Bill of Rights of The United States Constitution and The North Carolina Declaration of Rights

March 18th, 2013 by Skip

HR 286 Honor Recovery of North Carolina Bill of Rights

Old State Capitol – Raleigh, North Carolina

March 18, 2013

United States Constitution

Bill of Rights

Ratified December 15, 1791

North Carolina

Declaration of Rights

Ratified December 18, 1776

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Section 15, “That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty; and therefore ought never to be restrained.” Section 18, “That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.”Section 19, “That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience.”

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Section 17, “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State…”

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Section 17, “and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 11, “That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the act committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offenses are not particularly described, and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be granted.”

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.	Section 8, “That no freeman shall be put to answer any criminal charge, but by indictment, presentment, or impeachment.” Section 12, “That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the law of the land.”
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.	Section 7, “That in all criminal prosecutions, every man has a right to be informed of the accusation against him, and to confront the accusers and witnesses with other testimony, and shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.” Section 9, “That no freeman shall be convicted of any crime, but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men, in open court, as heretofore used.” Section 13, “That every freeman restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy, to inquire in to the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the same, if unlawful; and that such remedy ought not to be denied or delayed.”
Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.	Section 14, “That in all controversies at law, respecting property, the ancient mode of trial by jury is one of the best securities of the rights of the people, and ought to remain sacred and inviolable.”
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.	Section 10, “That excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted.”
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.	Section 1, “That all political power is vested in, and derived from, the people only.” Section 2, “That the people of this State ought to have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof.”
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.	Amendment X may be the most important amendment of the Bill of Rights. There is no comparison. It reserves rights to the state.

A Usable Summary of Parliamentary Procedure

January 10th, 2013 by Skip

A Usable Summary of Parliamentary Procedure
by Paul Stam
Revised January 2013

The purpose of parliamentary procedure is to facilitate the accomplishment of an organization’s purposes while protecting the right of each member to participate.

AUTHORITY

Most civic groups, political organizations, churches and denominations have organizational documents such as constitutions, bylaws, articles of incorporation or books of order. To the extent that procedure is not governed by these documents it is covered by parliamentary law. These principles, judiciously used, can help avoid unnecessary conflict.

Most organizations recognize Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised.(2010 – 11^th Edition) If they generally refer to parliamentary law or to “Roberts Rules” the reference should be taken to mean the latest edition. All references in this paper are to the 11th edition. It is a codification of existing practice. Not all these rules apply to small boards and committees. Most legislative bodies have a different set of rules. For more information I recommend a superb website, www.jimslaughter.com.

PRINCIPLES

The rules can be thought of as ways to protect the following:

Absentee members
A single member
Any two members
A substantial minority (more than one third and almost 50%)
A bare majority (more than 50% to less than two-thirds)
Two-thirds of members
All the members present at a meeting

The author practices law with Stam & Danchi, PLLC. in Apex, NC (www.paulstam.info). He has served as Parliamentarian for the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina from 1996 – 2007. He taught parliamentary procedure and legislative process at the Foreign Trade Institute of Tianjin, China in June, 1992 and at Xi Ke Da University in Mianyang, China in September, 2005. He is a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives (1989-1990 and 2003-present) and, beginning in 2013, is Speaker Pro Tempore.

ABSENTEE MEMBER

An absent member has a right not to have the nature of the organization changed without prior notice. Constitutions or Bylaws normally give the process for notice. If they do not then the minimum requirement is prior notice and a two-thirds vote for a change in the constitution or bylaws. Notice should fairly inform the members of the changes contemplated. The actual change may be no greater than the notice given. (Section 57) An absent member has a right not to be disciplined or expelled without previous notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Section 61)

A SINGLE MEMBER

Each member has the right to have his or her vote counted accurately. Each member has the right to speak to every debatable motion before it is finally acted upon. This right cannot be interfered with except by two-thirds vote. A member who has obtained recognition may both speak and conclude by offering motions. A member recognized for any legitimate purpose has the floor for all legitimate purposes. (Section 42)

There is no such thing as “gavelling through” a measure. Even if the chair has announced the result of a vote the vote should be declared void if it was taken after a member had properly and timely sought recognition.

A member having obtained the floor can speak no longer than 10 minutes unless given additional time. He does not have the right to be recognized to speak a second time if anyone else who has not yet spoken is seeking recognition. He does not have the right to speak a third time without permission. (Section 43)

ANY TWO MEMBERS

The way business is brought before an assembly is by motion. The rule against discussion without a motion is a tool for keeping business “on track”. (Section 4) A brief discussion can occur before the making of a motion. But soon a specific proposal needs to be presented. Until then further debate is out of order. The chair can require a motion to be in writing.

To insure that a motion has some support before taking up the assembly’s time it is seconded by another member. The seconder is not required to vote for a motion. A second is not required in small boards or committees or for a motion recommended by a committee of the assembly that has at least two members.

Time is wasted determining whether a seconder agrees to a suggested amendment. If it is truly an amendment it does not need the seconder’s consent. If the maker of the motion is asked to modify the motion before it is put out for debate it can be presumed that the person who asked for the modification seconds it.

A SUBSTANTIAL MINORITY

The minority has a right to prevent hasty action by the assembly. Motions to suspend the rules or to proceed quickly require a two-thirds vote. That means that (just over) one third of the assembly can prevent hasty actions.

A BARE MAJORITY

The (almost) definition of democracy is that the acts of a majority are the acts of the group. Hill v. Ponder, 221 NC 58, 19 S.E. 2d 5 (1942) cites Jefferson’s Manual (1801), for the proposition that “The voice of the majority decides; for the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc., where not otherwise expressly provided.” An action taken by a bare majority has just as much legal effect as an action taken unanimously. The 1993 tax bill passed by two votes in the U.S. House and one vote in the U.S. Senate. The IRS will collect those taxes as vigorously as taxes which were passed unanimously.

Close votes are often determined by who attends and votes. It is important to count correctly. A tie vote loses. (A chair may vote to break a tie or make a tie – but not both.) To prevail it is not necessary to have one half of the votes plus one. For example, a vote of 39 to 38 wins. The question is whether, of those present and voting, more than half voted in the affirmative. Since 1604 A.D. it has been the rule that the chair must always call for the negative (those voting “no”) even if it is obvious that the affirmative (those voting “yes”) has a majority.

ABSENTEE VOTING: DON’T ALLOW IT!

“It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members who are actually present at the time the vote is taken. (Section 45, page 423) Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws. Such exceptions include: (a) voting by mail; and (b) proxy voting. Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless laws of the state require it, or the charter or bylaws of the organization provide for it. It should not be allowed because proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly. Personal presence and participation by members in meetings is a fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure. Therefore, if a law under which an organization is incorporated allows proxy voting to be prohibited by a provision of the bylaws, the adoption of Roberts as parliamentary authority in the bylaws is sufficient to prohibit proxy voting. (Section 45, page 414-429)

TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY

A substantial majority should have the right to proceed quickly. (Section 25) This includes the motions to adopt standing rules, to limit or extend debate, to refuse to consider a question (Section 26), or to close debate (Section 16). Consider two of these:

A successful motion to call the “previous question” immediately ends debate. It is not allowed in committees and should be rarely used in small boards. This motion is commonly misused as follows: An impatient soul calls out from the back of the room: “call the question”. The chair then presumes to put the main motion to a vote. The impatient soul’s outburst should have been politely ignored because: (1) the impatient soul did not have the floor and did not seek recognition to obtain it; (2) the motion must be seconded; and (3) the motion requires a two-thirds vote to prevail, before a second vote is taken on the main motion. Because the previous question cuts off the rights of the minority it is extremely important for the chair to apply it correctly. I consider it an obnoxious motion to use in a church setting until everyone has had a chance to speak at least once. But if the “previous question” passes the chair must enforce it. It does not allow the chair to allow one last round of debate in the guise of “explaining the question.”

A corollary of the motion for the previous question is the right of the same substantial majority not to waste its time with motions it does not want to consider. Therefore, as soon as a motion is made and seconded but before there has been any debate on it any member can “Object to Consideration”. A two-thirds vote against consideration is required to sustain the objection. (Section 26) This should be used sparingly. I have seen it used successfully when a small minority tried to interfere with the pressing business of a group which had completed lengthy deliberations but had a time deadline to act with planes ready to take off immediately thereafter (with or without the members).

ALL THE MEMBERS PRESENT

All the members present can act by unanimous consent to do almost anything. (Section 25) What all the members cannot do is violate the rights of an absent member or act beyond the legal authority of the articles of incorporation, constitution or bylaws. A skillful chair can use unanimous consent to cut through time-consuming procedures to accomplish what the organization wants to do. But it may only be used when consent is unanimous. So a motion to elect someone by acclamation (which is really a request for unanimous consent) is defeated if anyone objects. And all the members can act only if there is a quorum present. (Section 40)

ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES RELATED TO COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS

A skilled leader will try to obtain a consensus on important proposals before the meeting. This requires listening to all points of view and incorporating valid suggestions into the proposal. If members are asked to consider and approve written documents these should be printed and distributed well in advance of the meeting. Majority rule and the desirability of consensus led the original Roberts to state “The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give to the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal.” Intro at Page XLIX. But this is balanced by the recognition that “a requirement of unanimity or near unanimity can become a form of tyranny in itself. In an assembly which tries to make such a requirement the norm, a variety of misguided feelings – reluctance to be seen as opposing the leadership, a notion that causing controversy will be frowned upon, fear of seeming an obstacle to unity – can easily lead to decisions being taken with a pseudo-consensus which in reality implies elements of default, which satisfies no one, and for which no one really assumes responsibility.” Roberts Introduction at L.
Many organizations invite trouble by having frequent business meetings and by not properly delegating decision making to staff and to committees with specific job descriptions. My recommendation is that an organization have a regular business meeting no more frequently than quarterly (or even annually) with special called meetings when necessary for a particular purpose.
If the purpose of a meeting is to approve bonds or other financing for real estate the attorney who will close the loan should be engaged before the notices of the meeting go out in order to ensure that the notice provisions of the by-laws are followed.
Voting eligibility in a congregational setting is governed by the principles stated in Atkins v. Walker, 284 NC 306 at 319, 200 S.E. 2d 641 (1973).

Rep. Stam’s Bills 2011 – 2012 with Updates

August 7th, 2012 by Skip

HB 2: Protect Health Care Freedom

(Stam, Barnhart, Hollo, Murry)

House passed by a vote of 69 to 49: 2/22/2011
Senate passed by a vote of 30 to 18: 2/16/2011
Vetoed by the Governor: 3/5/2011
House failed to override veto by a vote of 68 to 51: 3/9/11
- Amicus brief from NC Republican Leaders submitted to the Court of Appeals

HB 3: Exclusionary Rule/Good Faith Exception (Stam, Ingle, Faircloth)

SL 2011-6: 3/21/11

HB 8: Eminent Domain (Stam, Lewis, McGrady)

House passed by a vote of 98 to 18: 4/28/2011
Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 5/2/11
Not considered by the Senate

HB 27: Forensic Sciences Act

(Glazier, Stam, Michaux, Jackson)

SL 2011-19: 3/31/11

HB 40: Honor John Weatherly

(Hastings, T. Moore, Hager, Stam)

Adopted: 2/21/11

HB 41: Tax Fairness in Education

(Stam, Hager, Collins, Brawley)

Referred to Education: 2/7/11

HB 112: Realign Wake Superior Court Districts (Dollar, Stam, Avila, Murry)

SL 2011-203: 6/23/11

HB 139: Limit Contributions by State Vendors (Stam, Ross, Glazier, McGee)

House passed by a vote of 114 to 2: 5/24/11
Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 5/25/11
Not considered by the Senate

HB 226: Prohibit Sweepstakes Devices

(Rapp, Sanderson, Glazier, Stam)

Referred to Commerce: 3/3/2011

HB 312: Register of Deeds

(Haire, Stevens, Stam, Spear)

SL 2011-246: 6/23/2011

HB 325: Judicial Appointment/Voter Confirmation (Rhyne, M. Alexander, Stam, Glazier)

Referred to Rules: 3/14/2011

HB 344: Tax Credits for Children with Disabilities

(Stam, Randleman, Jordan, Jones)

SL 2011-395: 7/1/2011

HB 358: Apex/Cary Annexation Into Chatham Restricted (Hackney, Stam)

SL 2011-151: 6/16/2011

HB 472: City/County Electronic Notice

(McGrady, Stam, Owens, Jackson)

Referred to Rules: 5/24/2011

HB 489: Mechanics Lien and Bond Law Changes (Pridgen, Stam, Martin)

House passed by a vote of 116 to 0: 5/31/2011
Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 6/1/2011
- Became Section 2.6 of HB 773 – Studies Act of 2011
- Also see Mechanics Liens/Payment Bond Reforms (SL 2012-175) and Mech. Liens/PVT Lien Agent (SL 2012-158)

HB 494: Continuous Alcohol Monitoring Law Changes (M. Alexander, Guice, T. Moore, Stam)

SL 2012-146: 7/12/2012

Portions of this bill were also implemented as part of HB 49 –SL 2011-191

HB 502: Preserve Biological Evidence/Custodial Agency

(Glazier, Stam, Jackson, Michaux)

Judiciary B: 3/30/2011

Became Sections 1 & 2 of HB 778 – Amend Innocence Commission Laws (SL 2012-7)

HB 596: Transfer Surplus Prop. to Retirement System (Hastings, Stam, Crawford)

SL 2011-373: 6/27/2011

HB 609: Promote Water Supply Development (McGrady, Stam, Gillespie, Carney)

SL 2011-374: 6/27/2011

HB 615: No Discriminatory Purpose in Death Penalty (Burr, Stevens, Ingle, Stam)

Judiciary B: 4/5/2011

Passed the House as SB 9 – No Discriminatory Purpose in Death Penalty. Passed the Senate and vetoed by the Governor.
A version became law as SB 416: Amend Death Penalty Procedures (SL 2012-136), after the House overrode the Governor’s veto by a vote of 72 to 48.

HB 638: Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act (Jordan, Stam)

House passed by a vote of 112 to 1: 5/19/2011
Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 5/23/11
Not considered by the Senate

HB 658: Change Early Voting Period

(Jones, Stam, Collins, Sager)

House passed by a vote of 60 to 58: 5/18/2011
Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 5/23/2011
Not considered by the Senate

HB 713: Public Contracts/Multiple Awards

(Stam, Lewis, Murry)

SL 2011-360: 6/27/2011

HB 741: Law Enforcement/Emergency Vehicle Length (Barnhart, Stam)

SL 2012-33: 6/20/2012

Original bill, “Amend Lab Accreditation Effective Date,” became law as Section 9 of SL 2011-307

HB 779: Electronic Recording/Custodial Interrogations (Glazier, Stam, Faircloth, Hackney)

Senate Judiciary II: 5/2/2011

Became law as Section 2 of SL 2011-329

HB 787: NC Water Efficiency Act

(McGrady, Samuelson, Stam, Harrison)

Sen. Agriculture/ENR: 6/8/2011

Became law as Sections 3.1-3.5 of HB 609 – SL 2011-374

HB 805: Additional Name Change Requirements

(Stam, Spear, Randleman)

SL 2011-303: 6/24/2011

HB 806: Zoning St. of Limit./Ag. Dist. Change

(Jordan, Stam, Moffitt, Stevens)

SL 2011-384: 6/27/2011

HB 814: Fair Compensation for Mortgage Broker/Lender (Collins, Stam, Faircloth)

Rules: 5/10/11

Became Section 2.26 of HB 773 – Studies Act of 2011

HB 833: Honor State Capitol

(Starnes, Stam, Dollar, Torbett)

Adopted: 4/12/11

HB 886: Increase Charitable Contribution Deduction (Moffitt, Brawley, Stam, Setzer)

House passed by a vote of 110 to 7: 6/14/11
Referred to Senate Finance: 6/15/11
Not considered by the Senate

HB 947: Eugenics Compensation Program (Womble, Tillis, Parmon, Stam)

House passed by a vote of 86 to 31: 6/5/12
Referred to Senate Judiciary II: 6/6/12
Not considered by the Senate

HB 1021: Justice Reinvestment Clarifications (Stam)

SL 2012-188: 7/16/12

HB 1104: Scholarship Funding Corporate Tax Credit (Stam, Brisson, Hager, Brandon)

Failed in House Finance as a PCS for SB 599 by a tie vote of 11 to 11: 6/28/12

Republican Accomplishments – 2012 Short Session

July 12th, 2012 by Skip

Fiscal

Balanced Budget: On July 2, 2012 Republicans in the House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto of the $20.17 billion budget adjusted for 2012-2013 (HB 950). This budget increased spending by 2.5% (-0.5% after inflation). No tax rates were increased.

The budget provides state employees and teachers a 1.2% raise. It gives retirees a 1% cost of living adjustment. This is the first raise for state employees and first cost of living adjustment for retirees since 2008.

Regulatory Reform: HB 237 requires the Rate Bureau to share information with the Industrial Commission on the status of employers’ workers’ compensation insurance coverage. It became law on July 1, 2012.

SB 810 “Regulatory Reform Act of 2012” loosens regulatory requirements on citizens. It was presented to the Governor on June 28, 2012.

Licensures: HB 799 accelerates the process by which military personnel and their spouses can be licensed to lawfully practice their occupation once they have moved to North Carolina. It allows the State Board of Education to issue teacher licenses to military spouses who are teachers in their home state. It was presented to the Governor on July 3, 2012.

Audits: HB 462 prohibits the use of contingency based contracts for tax assessment audit purposes. State audits will no longer be able to use
contingency based contracts beginning October 1, 2012. Local governments may continue existing contracts until July 1, 2013. This prohibition will sunset for local governments on July 1, 2015. This allows time to study the impact of contingency contracts versus flat fee contracts for audits. This bill brings fairness to the property tax system in North Carolina. It was presented to the Governor July 3, 2012.

Education

Funding: The 2012-2013 adjusted budget restores $251 million to public education. It provides $27 million for an education reform program that focuses on student literacy, improving graduation rates, and rewarding effective teachers. The budget fully funds enrollment growth in K-12, community colleges, and the university system.

Community colleges and the university system are given funds for a 1.2% raise for recruiting, retaining, or rewarding excellent instructors.

Policy: HB 7 allows community colleges to opt out of the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program. The House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto on June 18, 2012 at the request of the Trustees of many community colleges.

Environment

Natural Gas: SB 820 “Clean Energy and Economic Security Act” creates the Mining and Energy Commission, which will develop regulations for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Licenses will not be issued until further legislative action. It became law on July 2, 2012 after the House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto.

Property Rights

Protections: HB 925 requires that residents of an area have the opportunity to vote prior to that area being annexed by a municipality. It became law on June 11, 2012.

Gun Rights

Protections: HB 843 repealed G.S. §14-288.7, which prohibited transporting any dangerous weapon or substance in an area where there is a declared state of emergency. The act prohibits local governments from restricting lawfully possessed firearms within an emergency area. It became law on June 11, 2012.

Transportation

Gas Tax: The budget freezes the gas tax at 37.5 cents per gallon. This is 1.4 cents less than the previous rate.

Criminal Justice

Human Trafficking: SB 910 is a bipartisan bill that increases penalties for the unlawful sale or purchase of a child to suppress human trafficking. It was presented to the Governor on July 3, 2012.

Absconders: HB 1173 provides that a probation violator who absconds after the issuance of a warrant forfeits any public assistance benefits, such as Medicaid, until surrendering to the court. It does not affect the benefits of any of the violator’s family members. It was presented to the Governor on July 3, 2012.

Murder: SB 105 increases the penalties for second degree murder and death by motor vehicle. It was presented to the Governor on June 28, 2012.

SB 635 amends state sentencing laws to comply with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. Minors who are convicted of felony murder will be sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 25 years. In all other circumstances where minors are convicted of first degree murder, the court will conduct a hearing to determine whether the minor will be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole or life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 25 years. It was passed by the House and Senate on July 3, 2012.

Death Penalty: SB 416 amends death penalty procedures. Major changes detail the use of evidence to prove racial discrimination. It eliminates the defendant’s ability to use statewide statistical evidence. Statistical evidence alone will not determine racial discrimination. It limits the use of statistical data to approximately a 15 year window around the time the death sentence was sought or imposed. It ends the moratorium on the death penalty. It became law on July 2, 2012 after the House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto.

Update on Death Penalty Procedures (SB 416)

June 14th, 2012 by Skip

On Wednesday, Senate Bill 416 “Amend Death Penalty Procedures” passed the House on a final vote of 73 to 47. It has now gone to the Senate for concurrence. The bill alleviates the effects of The Racial Justice Act, which essentially imposed a five to six year moratorium on the death penalty in North Carolina when it passed in 2009. It allowed all inmates on death row at the time to claim they were racially discriminated against during their trial. By 2011, 152 of 156 prisoners made claim, putting their cases on indefinite hold.

The major changes detail the use of evidence to prove racial discrimination. First, it limits the definition of “at the time the death sentence was sought or imposed” to 10 years prior to the offense and two years after the sentence when determining if racial discrimination occurred. Previously, that phrase was undefined. This limits the use of statistical data to approximately a 15 year window, which is most relevant to the question.

The bill eliminates the defendant’s ability to prove race was a significant factor in his or her conviction by using statewide statistical evidence. Statistical evidence is limited to the county or prosecutorial district the defendant was tried at the time the death sentence was imposed.

The bill outlines what types of evidence may be used by the defendant. Statistical evidence alone is not enough by itself to determine racial discrimination. But relevant evidence may include statistics that show the race of the defendant was a significant factor, or evidence that shows race was a significant factor in jury selection. Specific evidence may include, but is not limited to, sworn testimony of attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and judges.

This action is necessary to end the moratorium on the death penalty. The death penalty acts as a deterrent only if it is used. The death penalty will obviously not deter if the state only pretends to have a death penalty and never carries out the sentence.

2011 GOP Accomplishments by Policy Issue

June 7th, 2012 by Skip

Fiscal

Balanced Budget: On June 15^th, 2011, the House voted 73 – 46 to override the veto of Governor Bev Perdue to balance the state’s budget.

Lowered Tax Rates: The budget contained the largest tax rate cut in the history of North Carolina. It makes our state more competitive with our neighbors. It puts almost $1.5 billion each year back into the hands of North Carolinians.

Cuts taxes for EVERY North Carolinian by allowing temporary sales and personal income taxes to expire, reducing the state’s sales tax from 7.75% to 6.75%. Part of this tax goes to counties. The State’s share was reduced 20 percent – from 5.75% to 4.75%.

Regulatory Reform: Legislation to limit the burden of regulation on businesses became law.

Senate Bill 22 – An act to limit new agency regulatory requirements that result in substantial additional costs.

House Bill 542 – An act to provide tort reform for North Carolina.

House Bill 709 – An act to Protect and Put NC Back to Work by reforming the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Senate Bill 781 – The Regulatory Reform act to increase regulatory efficiency in order to balance job creation and environmental protection.

Jobs

Small Business: A $50,000 personal income tax deduction for active business income. The deduction provides tax relief to 450,000 business owners in 2012 and 2013.

Education

Funding: The budget fully funds the teachers in the classroom, not the bureaucracy.

Policy: Education legislation that became law:

Senate Bill 8, “No Cap on Number of Charter Schools”. Already new charter schools have been authorized. More enrollment growth is allowed in existing charters.

House Bill 344 allows individual income tax credit for children with disabilities who desire private education and creates a new fund for special education in the public schools.

House Bill 48 – Eliminates some end of grade testing in the public schools, except as required by Federal law or as a condition of a Federal grant.

House Bill 588 – Requires public schools to teach a semester in high school entitled, “American History I – The Founding Principles.” The course will include a study on the Creator – endowed inalienable rights of the people, rule of law, equal justice under law, private property rights, federalism, due process, individual responsibility.

Senate Bill 727—Ended the State’s collection of union dues in education.

Healthcare

Protect Freedom: House Bill 2 protects North Carolinians from the “individual mandate” in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). The Governor vetoed it. Republican leaders filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of the states. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide by June 2012.

Property Rights

Protections: House Bill 92 – Repeal the land transfer tax.

House Bill 762 – Protect landowner’s rights.

House Bill 845 – Reform the involuntary annexation laws.

The House passed a Constitutional Amendment that will protect private property rights. House Bill 8 titled, “Eminent Domain” passed the full House on a vote of 98 to 18. The Senate will vote in May 2012.

Illegal Immigration

Protection: House Bill 744 – The “Safe Schools Act”. A principal of any public school shall require the parent or guardian of any child presented for admission for the first time to that school to furnish a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate or other satisfactory evidence of date of birth.

House Bill 36 – Requires government and larger employers to use the Federal E-Verify program to verify newly hired employees.

Family

Marriage: A referendum on a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between one man and one woman will be held May 8, 2012.

Pro-Life

Legislation: House Bill 854 – An act to require a 24-hour waiting period and the informed consent of a pregnant woman before an abortion may be performed became law after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto. One section only (ultrasound) has been enjoined by a federal court while another federal court has approved the Texas version.

House Bill 289 – Authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue various special registration plates including North Carolina Zoological Society, ARTS NC, North Carolina State Flag and Donate Life. A federal court has preliminarily enjoined only the “Choose Life” plate.

Permanently ended state funding of abortion in Medicaid and in the State Health Plan, except in cases of rape or incest or when the mother’s life would be in danger.

House Bill 215 – Unborn Victims of Violence Act allows the murderer of a pregnant woman to be charged with the crime of also killing the unborn child.

Election Law

Photo ID: House Bill 351, “Restore Confidence in Government” requires voters to provide photo ID and allows more flexibility when applying for absentee ballots. It was vetoed by the Governor on June 23, 2011. The House was unable to override the Governor’s veto. Because of a parliamentary procedure it is eligible for reconsideration in May 2012.

Criminal Justice

Senate Bill 9 – Restores the death penalty for first degree murder. The Senate has overridden the Governor’s veto. The House will vote in May.

House Bill 642, the Justice Reinvestment Act, restores balance in the criminal justice system. While treating more serious crimes even more seriously it saves valuable prison space by releasing less violent criminals earlier. It strengthens the probation system.

Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton Recklessly Attacks Gov. Bev Perdue’s K-12 Education Budget for this Year

May 15th, 2012 by Skip

Raleigh- Well, not by name. But in his victory speech Tuesday night he said this concerning the Republican budget’s “extreme cuts” to public education:

“But with Pat McCrory and the Republican leadership in the legislature, North Carolina has lost its vision and the people have lost opportunities and our present and our future have been damaged. This legislature, with Pat McCrory’s encouragement, has limited opportunity by cutting education unduly…

…

I don’t believe our classrooms are full of fraud and waste. I think about that second-grade teacher who has not had a raise in the past three years – but who continues to spend a good chunk of her salary on classroom supplies. She’s seen her class sizes grow larger and, thanks to the Republican budget this year, no longer has a teacher assistant to help her educate tomorrow’s workers and leaders. I say to all of North Carolina, we can do better.”

However, Governor Perdue’s proposed budget for K-12 public education was only about $15 million (2 tenths of one percent) more than the 2011- 12 K-12 education budget the legislature actually adopted over her veto. So, why would Lt. Governor Walter Dalton not blast Governor Perdue over her budget as well? Here are the facts on the K-12 Education Budget for 2011-12.

There is less than 1 percent difference between the direct appropriations for K-12 public education budget than the Governor proposed. The nominal difference is 1.43 percent directly appropriated in the ratified budget. But after taking into account that the More at Four Program was shifted to the Department of Health and Human Services ($65,011,651 was taken from the Department of Public Instruction and used by the Department Health and Human Services) for prekindergarten programs the adjusted difference is 0.57 percent.

But another adjustment needs to be made: The General Assembly provided $28,261,830 more to counties in lottery money for a final difference of $14, 947,374. This is 0.19 percent out of a total appropriation of $7,707,586,791 for the Governor and $7,692,639,417 for the General Assembly. The General Assembly appropriated 99.8 percent of what the Governor asked for K-12 education for 2011-12.

In providing a balanced budget during an extraordinary difficult economy, the Assembly provided only about $15 million less than the Governor even requested. That is less than a rounding error.

What will the Marriage Amendment do?

February 7th, 2012 by Skip

On May 8, 2012 the voters will decide whether this provision should be added to the State Constitution:

“Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This Section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts.”

This Marriage Amendment would recognize only domestic legal unions between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships or civil unions, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, would not be valid or recognized here. The Amendment would prohibit the government from creating “same sex marriage”

The meaning of “legal union” as a judicially recognized status is concrete and clear in the context of family relationships. In federal law, “’marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife…” 1 U.S.C. §7 (2005). This definition of marriage in federal law is consistent with the long-standing definition: marriage is the “[l]egal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 876 (5^th ed. 1979). The word “domestic” was added to the words “legal union” to clarify that other legal arrangements, such as business partnerships, would not be affected by this amendment.

Any benefits extended by government to a person based on a domestic legal union other than marriage would be prohibited. But Government could still extend employment benefits that impact or benefit non-married domestic households. The extension of such benefits, however, could not be predicated only upon the status of a domestic relationship other than marriage. For example, a city could still allow an employee to pick one other person of his or her choice to be the beneficiary for health insurance.

The second sentence of the Amendment makes clear that the Amendment would not prohibit private companies from entering into private contracts based on relationships chosen by the company. Private employers, for example, could continue to offer domestic partnership or civil union benefits to an employee’s same sex or opposite sex partner. The Amendment would prohibit the government from forcing a company to provide such benefit.

During the debate I was amazed at the baseless claims made by opponents. Several continue to be repeated by the media. Let’s set the record straight:

1. The Marriage Amendment will not adversely affect North Carolina’s economy. A 2011report by the American Legislative Exchange Council ranked states by economic performance between 1999 and 2009 and by economic outlook. 8 of the top 10 economically performing states have marriage amendments. None have legalized same sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships. 9 of the 10 states forecasted to have the poorest economic growth have legalized same sex marriage, civil unions and/or domestic partnerships.

2. The Marriage Amendment Will Not Affect The Enforcement Of Domestic Violence Laws. Opponents would have you think the Amendment obliterates our domestic violence law. The cases they use as authority are Ohio appellate cases later overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court which found the domestic violence statutes consistent with the state’s marriage amendment. In Kansas the outcome was the same. Marriage amendments have had no effect on the enforcement of domestic violence statutes. 30 other states have marriage amendments. In all 30 states domestic violence laws continue to be enforced. I have read and reread our domestic violence statutes. I am unable to even comprehend the logic of this objection.

3. Legally Recognizing Only Heterosexual Marriage Isn’t Discrimination Against Homosexuals Wanting To Marry. Marriage between a man and a woman has existed in virtually every known society. It has served the purpose of channeling procreative sexual activity into an institution which will provide a stable environment for children produced from the sexual union of the partners in marriage. Recognizing that heterosexual marriage has provided the best environment for the rearing of future citizens North Carolina has regulated marriage for at least 340 years. Same sex marriage is an entirely different relationship with a completely different purpose. Expanding the marital institution to other relationships which serve completely different purposes ultimately undermines the institution which has proven to be the best and safest environment for children.

4. The Amendment Will Not Nullify Medical Powers of Attorney (MPOAs), Wills and Trusts if the parties are homosexual partners.

Under G.S. 32A-18 “any competent person who is not engaged in providing health care to the principal for renumeration, and who is 18 years of age or older, may act as a health care agent.” The relationship between the patient and the designated agent does not matter. The intent of the testator and trustor is the “gold standard” in NC for interpreting wills and trusts. The Amendment does not change the intent of the testator in either type of these instruments. The Amendment explicitly states that it will not affect the rights of parties to enter into private contractual agreements.

5. The Marriage Amendment Will Not Determine the Custody and Visitation Rights of Unmarried Parents Unless Their Behavior Affects the Child. Custody orders are based on the “parent”/child relationship, not on the domestic relationship between the “parents”. Courts have based custody and visitation on the “best interest of the child.” NCGS 50-13.2(2007) The sexual behavior of the party petitioning for custody or visitation is not determinative except as it affects the child.

The “de facto parenting doctrine” was applied in 2010 in Boseman v. Jarrell. The Supreme Court refused to allow adoption to an unmarried same sex partner but did award joint custody and visitation rights to that non-biological same sex partner who had become a de facto parent to the child.

There is a real threat to the institution of marriage. In several states same sex marriage has been imposed upon the people by courts that have engaged in tortured judicial reasoning – Massachusetts and Iowa for example. These courts have used the state constitutions to reverse the very pro marriage policies that were in effect when the state constitution was adopted.

Now it’s happening in North Carolina. Same sex couples in Asheville went to the Courthouse for two weeks last fall seeking to obtain marriage licenses. A lawsuit was filed by the Register of Deeds of Guilford County in December challenging our state’s marriage laws and asking the Court to declare them unconstitutional because they don’t allow same-sex partners to “marry”.

This Marriage Amendment will ensure that marriage between one man and one woman will be protected from result-oriented judges.

Voters will decide on May 8th.

For more information please visit www.VoteFORMarriageNC.com

100 Day Legislative Update

November 2nd, 2011 by Skip

1. Balanced Budget and Reduced Tax Rates

With bipartisan support, the House voted 73 – 46 to override the veto of Governor Bev Perdue. The House and Senate achieved this historic milestone on June 15, 2011.
This fulfills our first two promises to the people of North Carolina: A balanced budget and a budget that does not raise tax rates. Our budget contains the largest tax rate cut in the history of North Carolina. It makes our state more competitive with our neighbors again. It puts almost $1.5 billion back in to the hands of hard working North Carolinians. It is balanced. The business school at UNC Chapel Hill estimates that the Republican budget will create up to 14,900 new private sector jobs in North Carolina.

2. Protect Health Care Freedom Act

HB 2, protects North Carolinians from the “individual mandate” in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), passed the House and Senate and was sent to the Governor. She Vetoed the bill. Republican leaders filed an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief on May 11, 2011 to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. The Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of the states.

3. North Carolina is a Right-to-Work state. Republicans will continue to support laws that secure the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union. We will stop any legislation that allows collective bargaining.

4. Reducing regulatory burden on small business.

Both House and Senate members have proposed legislation to limit the financial burden of regulation on businesses.

Senate Bill 22 – An act to limit new agency regulatory requirements that result in substantial additional costs. SB 22 passed both chambers and was signed into law by the Governor on March 25, 2011.
House Bill 162 – An act to exempt certain activities related to small-scale processing of agricultural products from waste water permit requirements. The bill passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on April 19, 2011.
House Bill 200 – The Appropriations Act of 2011 limits the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Labor and Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services from imposing standards or limitations that are more restrictive than the Federal government. The Act became law on June 15, 2011.
House Bill 542 – An act to provide tort reform for North Carolina citizens and businesses was signed by the Governor and became law on June 24, 2011.
House Bill 619 – An act to specify the Secretary of Revenue’s authority to adjust net income of a corporation or to require a corporation to file a combined return was signed by the Governor and became law on June 30, 2011.
House Bill 709 – An act to Protect and Put NC Back to Work by reforming the Workers’ Compensation Act passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on June 24, 2011.
Senate Bill 781 – An act to increase regulatory efficiency in order to balance job creation and environmental protection was vetoed by the Governor. The House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto on July 25, 2011 and the bill became law.

5. The balanced budget passed by the House and Senate fully funds the teachers in the classroom, not the bureaucracy.

6. Senate Bill 8 entitled, “No Cap on Number of Charter Schools” passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support and has been signed by the Governor. The bill became law on June 17, 2011.

7. HB 351, titled “Restore Confidence in Government” requires voters to provide photo ID before voting and allows more flexibility when applying for absentee ballots. HB 351 was ratified by the House and Senate but vetoed by the Governor on June 23, 2011. The House was unable to override the Governor’s veto but because of a parliamentary procedure it is eligible for reconsideration.

8. The House and Senate have each introduced bills proposing a Constitutional Amendment that will protect private property rights. House Bill 8 titled, “Eminent Domain” passed the full House on a vote of 98 to 18 and now moves to the Senate.

9. HB 139 entitled, “Limit Contributions by State Vendors” discourages pay-to-play politics in North Carolina. The bill seeks to limit the campaign contributions of state vendors to Council of State offices with which they hold contracts. HB 139 passed the House on May 24^th and has been sent to the Senate.

House, Senate Approve Marriage Amendment Referendum

September 14th, 2011 by Skip

Raleigh – During a special session, the North Carolina House passed a constitutional amendment, 75 – 42, to let voters decide whether or not marriage should be defined as solely between one man and one woman. Ten House Democrats joined Republicans to support the measure. The Senate voted 30 – 16 to concur.

The state’s first attempt to amend the constitution to define marriage was proposed in 2003 by Democrats and Republicans. Subsequent amendments have received bi-partisan support for more than eight years but were held in committee by former House and Senate leaders.

North Carolina is the only state in the southeast that does not have a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Other states have acted because activist judges in other states have overturned state statutes that define marriage. Today, legislators decided to give voters the ability to define marriage at the ballot box.

According to Forbes Magazine ranking of best business climates, eight out of the top ten states have defined marriage in their state constitution.

As business communities look for government to provide stable economic environments, protecting marriage from re-definition by the courts safeguards the freedom and flexibility to offer employee benefits based on business decisions. It protects business from additional government-imposed benefit packages.

The measure will now be put before voters in a statewide referendum to be held during the May primary.

Democratic Leader Accuses Perdue, Cooper of Hate Speech

September 7th, 2011 by Skip

Democratic Legislative Leader Accuses Governor Bev Perdue And Attorney General Roy Cooper of a form of “Hate Speech”

Raleigh – Former Speaker of the House (and now Minority Leader) Joe Hackney (D-Orange) continues to accuse the membership and leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties of engaging in a “form of hate speech.”

On August 30, 2011, Speaker Hackney responded to a press conference held by Republican legislative leaders on the proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage. He stated, “This proposed constitutional amendment runs against the tide of history, and has become a form of hate speech.”

While there are major procedural differences between the “No Same Sex Marriage” statute of 1996 (SB 1487) and the proposed constitutional amendment, the policy is exactly the same: North Carolina will not recognize same sex marriages – whether performed in-state or out of state. On this point the “marriage amendment” is identical with the law that Gov. Bev Perdue and Attorney General Roy Cooper voted for as Senators in 1996.

But if Speaker Hackney claims that only a constitutional amendment (but not a statute) can be considered a “form of hate speech,” it would be well for him to remember the ten current Democratic members of the House who have sponsored this constitutional amendment, which was first proposed jointly by Democrats and Republicans during the 2003-2004 legislative sessions. Their names are:

Rep. Larry Bell Rep. Bill Owens Rep. Timothy Spear

Rep. William Brisson Rep. Annie Mobley Rep. Michael Wray

Rep. James Crawford* Rep. Earline Parmon*

Rep. Dewey Hill* Rep. Garland Pierce

*Denotes Primary Sponsorship

Speaker Hackney is now accusing them of having engaged in a “form of hate speech.”

Since Speaker Hackney voted for the same policy in 1996, should he apologize now to everyone for having engaged in a “form hate speech” himself?

To view the legislation from 1996, Speaker Hackney’s vote and the votes from Governor Perdue and Attorney General Roy Cooper, click the links below:

Senate Bill 1487 – “No Same Sex Marriages”

Senate Vote on SB 1487

House Vote on SB 1487

2011 Republican Legislative Accomplishments

August 15th, 2011 by Skip

Notable Republican Bills Signed Into Law

House Bill 36 – An act to require counties, cities and employers to use the Federal E-Verify program to verify the work authorization of newly hired employees was signed by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 92 – An act to repeal the land transfer tax was signed into law by the Governor on March 31, 2011.

House Bill 112 – An act to realign the Districts for Wake County Superior Court Judge seats to provide for single member districts and equal representation in those districts was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 542 – An act to provide tort reform for North Carolina citizens and businesses was signed into law by the Governor on June 24, 2011.

House Bill 588 – An act requiring local boards of education to teach a semester long course in high school entitled, “American History I – The Founding Principles.” The course will include a study on The Creator – endowed inalienable rights of the people, rule of law, equal justice under law, private property rights, federalism, due process, individual responsibility, etc. The Governor made this act law on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 596 – An act to require that proceeds of certain dispositions of state-owned real property be used in part to support the general fund, in part to support the teachers’ and state employees’ retirement system of North Carolina, and in part to support the agencies to which the property was allocated; and to appropriate funds for these purposes. The bill became law by the Governor’s hand on June 27, 2011.

House Bill 642 – The Justice Reinvestment Act was signed into law on June 23, 2011 by the Governor. The act is a major reform of the North Carolina Justice system.

House Bill 650 – An act to provide when a person may use defensive force and to amend various gun laws regarding the right to own, possess, or carry a firearm in North Carolina was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 762 – An act to protect landowner’s rights was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 927 – An act to make changes to the statutes governing the teachers’ and state employees’ retirement system and the consolidated judicial retirement system to ensure the future solvency of those systems was signed into law by the Governor on June 23, 2011.

House Bill 289 – An act to authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue various special registration plates including North Carolina Zoological Society, ARTS NC, North Carolina State Flag and Donate Life was signed by the Governor and became law on June 30, 2011.

House Bill 619 – An act to specify the Secretary of Revenue’s authority to adjust net income of a corporation or to require a corporation to file a combined return was signed by the Governor and became law on June 30, 2011.

Notable Republican Bills That Became Law without the Governor’s Signature

House Bill 48 – An act to reduce spending by eliminating statewide standardized testing in the public schools, except as required by Federal law or as a condition of a Federal grant. The bill became law on March 21, 2011.

House Bill 119 – An act to amend certain environmental and natural resources laws was presented to the Governor on June 20, 2011 and became law without her signature on July 1, 2011.

House Bill 744 – The “Safe Schools Act” states that a principal of any public school may shall require the parent or guardian of any child presented for admission for the first time to that school to furnish (i) a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate, which shall be furnished by the register of deeds of the county having on file the record of the birth of the child, or other satisfactory evidence of date of birth, as provided in Article 4 of Chapter 130A. The act became law on June 28, 2011.

House Bill 344 – An act to allow individual income tax credit for children with disabilities who require special education and to create a fund for special education and related services became law on July 1, 2011.

House Bill 845 – An act to reform the involuntary annexation laws of North Carolina became law on July 1, 2011.

Veto Overrides

Senate Bill 33 – An act to reform the laws relating to money judgment appeal bonds, bifurcation of trials in civil cases and medical liability became law on July 25, 2011 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto.

Senate Bill 496 – An act to provide requirements of Medicaid and health choice providers became law on July 25, 2011 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto.

Senate Bill 532 (HB 813) – An act to reform employment security laws by creating the Division of Employment Security within the Department of Commerce became law on July 26, 2011 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto.

Senate Bill 781 – An act to increase regulatory efficiency in order to balance job creation and environmental protection was vetoed by the Governor. The House and Senate overrode the Governor’s veto on July 25, 2011 and the bill became law.

House Bill 200 – The Appropriations Act of 2011, otherwise known as the state budget, which was balanced and did not raise tax rates.

House Bill 854 – An act to require a 24-hour waiting period and the informed consent of a pregnant woman before an abortion may be performed became law on July 28, 2011 after the House and Senate voted to override the Governor’s veto.

Attorney General Roy Cooper and Governor Bev Perdue Will Not Defend Health Care Freedom

March 9th, 2011 by Skip

Raleigh – On March 9, 2011 the NC House of Representatives failed to override the Governor’s veto of HB 2, “An Act to Protect the Freedom to Choose Health Care and Health Insurance.” The vote was 68-51 (with a vote of 3/5 being required to pass).

In a February 23, 2011 letter to the Governor, sent after the Health Care Freedom Protection Act was enacted by the General Assembly, Attorney General Cooper made several claims. Only the highlights are mentioned here.

First he makes the obvious, but irrelevant point that the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that State Legislators cannot enact laws that directly violate Federal law. But he fails to note that the Supremacy Clause itself limits those Federal laws which have supremacy to those which are enacted “pursuant to the (U.S.) Constitution.” Twenty-seven states have already received declarations by Federal judges that the provision in question is not “pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.” If Attorney General Cooper had joined those states when we asked him to (last year) North Carolina would already have that declaration.

Attorney General Cooper was asked what the bill would cost by Fiscal Research before it was enacted. His response did not mention any of the fiscal horrors he now claims but suggested that the Department of Justice might have to represent 800,000 individual clients in North Carolina at a cost of 8 million hours of attorney staff time. Our Fiscal Research Division respectfully called these claims “excessive” and noted that North Carolina could join the Florida litigation (involving 26 other states – so far successful) by simply requesting to be included.

The individual mandate (which is the federal law that Attorney General Cooper claims the bill conflicts with) is not even effective until 2014 giving him plenty of time to join the challenge to this unconstitutional usurpation of federal power.

Here is a link to a February 28, 2011 memorandum from our nonpartisan Legislative Research Division which addresses all of the claims of the Attorney General. We hope that you will read it. It concludes, “Given the individual mandate found within the ACA does not take effect until 2014, any arguments that House Bill 2 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause are pre-mature. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Attorney General pursue a defense of the General Assembly’s position if House Bill 2 becomes law.”

We are disappointed that the Attorney General, the Governor and 51 members of the House of Representatives have put themselves on the side of big government and against the citizens of this state.

###

Analysis of the “Health Care Protection Act” in Response to Attorney General Roy Cooper

March 9th, 2011 by Skip

NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Legislative Services Office

George R. Hall, Legislative Services Officer

To: The Honorable Paul Stam, Majority Leader, N.C. House of Representatives

From: Tim Hovis, Shawn Parker, Amy Jo Johnson, Staff Attorneys, Research Division, N.C. General Assembly

Date: February 28, 2011

Re: Analysis of House Bill 2 in response to Letter/Memo from the Office of the Attorney General

On February 23, 2011, House Bill 2- An Act to Protect the Freedom to Choose Health Care and Health Insurance was ratified by the General Assembly. On that same date Attorney General Roy Cooper sent a letter to Governor Beverly Perdue, copying the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the House Majority Leader, indicating the law is unenforceable as to the provisions that directly contradict federal law and including a memorandum drafted by the Solicitor General identifying specific issues of concern. The Research Division has received a request to analyze the issues raised in the Attorney General’s letter. This memorandum examines (1) the General Assembly’s position, as provided in House Bill 2, that no law or rule shall compel a person to provide for their health care services or contract with a health care system or insurance plan, (2) the General Assembly’s direction to the Attorney General in House Bill 2 to bring or defend a suit in State or federal court to enforce its position, and (3) alternate interpretations of certain public policy concerns raised by the Solicitor General.

I. Application of Supremacy Clause to House Bill 2

House Bill 2 prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to provide for health care services or medical treatments for that person. The Act also prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to participate, contract with, or enroll in a public or private insurance plan or health care system. Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (March 23, 2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 111-1152, 124 Stat. 1029 (March 30, 2010) (collectively “the ACA”) creates an affirmative obligation on individuals to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 or face the payment of a penalty. As noted by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress has “never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” Cong. Budget Office,The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance, at 1 (Aug. 1994). The non-partisan Congressional Research Service reached the same conclusion indicating that “it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the Commerce Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.” Congressional Research Service, Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis, July 24, 2009, at 3.

As legitimate arguments exist on both sides of the issue, this Division cannot speak to whether the individual mandate is or is not constitutional. Nevertheless, strong arguments support the position of the General Assembly, as stated in House Bill 2, that Congress acted outside its Commerce Clause powers when creating the individual mandate. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution (the Commerce Clause) gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and this includes the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624). The Supreme Court has recognized limits to Congress’s Commerce Clause authority by noting “[e]ven [our] modern-era of precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits.” (U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 at 608, 120 S. Ct. at 1740 at 1748-9) (quoting Lopez, 514 U.S. at 556-57, 115 S. Ct at 1628). In both Morrison and Lopez the bounds of the Commerce Clause were constrained. In Lopez, the Court found that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. This Act made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm in a school zone. The Court found that the statute itself had nothing to do with commerce and that it did not fall “under our cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.”Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561, 115 S. Ct. at 1631. Additionally, the Court rejected the notion that the Violence Against Women Act was a proper exercise of Commerce Clause powers despite finding by Congress that there is a serious impact of domestic violence on victims and their families. Congress was not found to possess the power to regulate noneconomic activities solely on the basis of its aggregated effect on interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 617, 120 S. Ct. at 1754.

The right of a state to challenge the constitutionality of a Congressional action is not denied simply because Congress chose to act. If this were true, no state could ever challenge an act of Congress. In fact, with regards to the ACA 3 specifically, several court cases are currently underway to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. Two federal district courts, one in Virginia and one in Florida, have found the individual mandate in the ACA to be an improper exercise of the Commerce Clause.See Virginia ex. rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 728 F.Supp.2d 768, 771 (E.D. Va., 2010) and Florida ex. rel Bondi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2011 WL 285683, 40 (N.D. Fla., 2011). In the Florida case, 26 state plaintiffs are involved in challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision, as well as of the ACA itself. As the position of 27 states is clear regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate, House Bill 2 clarifies North Carolina’s position as well.

Moreover, House Bill 2 does not stand in contradiction to the ACA. House Bill 2 will be effective when it becomes law. The individual mandate within the ACA will not take effect until 2014. A Supremacy Clause argument against House Bill 2 is premature. At this time, House Bill 2 stands as good, constitutional law without current conflict for federal law. “Every presumption favors validity of statute, and it will not be declared invalid unless its unconstitutionality is determined beyond a reasonable doubt.” Baker v. Martin, 410 S.E.2d 887, NC 1991. Additionally, should House Bill 2 be examined by a state court, “[a] reviewing court confronting this question begins its analysis with a presumption against federal preemption”. State ex rel. Utilities Com’n v. Carolina Power & Light Co. 359 N.C. 516, 525, 614 S.E.2d 281, 287 (N.C.,2005) citing also to Hillsborough Cty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 85 L.Ed.2d 714, 722-23 (1985) (“Where … the field that Congress is said to have pre-empted has been traditionally occupied by the States we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Therefore, the Supremacy Clause as an argument for federal preemption does not apply with regards to House Bill 2 at this time.

II. Attorney General Duties Under House Bill 2.

House Bill 2’s directive that the Attorney General of North Carolina “shall have to duty and standing to bring or defend a State or federal action” with regards to the matter of the individual mandate is a proper assertion of North Carolina’s legislative policy power and a proper defense of the State’s law that its citizens will not be compelled to purchase insurance nor be penalized for failure to do so. The North Carolina Constitution provides the policy power may be exercised in the form of state legislation and all legislative power in this State rests in the General Assembly. The Courts have noted “‘The legislative branch of government is without question the policy-making agency of our government….McCracken and Amick, Inc. v. Perdue, 687 S.E.2d 690, 694 (N.C.App.,2009) (quoting Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp, 358 N.C. 160, 169, 594 S.E.2d 1, 8 (2004) (quoting McMichael v. Proctor, 243 N.C. 479, 483, 91 S.E.2d 231, 234 (1956). The North Carolina General Assembly by enacting House Bill 2 on February 23, 2011, has established that it is the position of the General Assembly that no person shall be compelled to (i) provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contract with, or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan; no law or rule shall interfere with a person’s right to pay directly for lawful health care services or medical treatment to preserve or enhance that person’s life or health; nor shall any law or rule impose a penalty, tax, fee or fine on a person for (i) providing for, or failing to provide for, health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contracting with, or enrolling in, or failing to contract with or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan.

Additionally the bill explicitly directs the Attorney General “to bring or defend a State or federal action or proceeding on behalf of the residents of this State to enforce the provisions” of the Act. The North Carolina Constitution provides that the duties of the Attorney General shall be prescribed by law. Article III §7(2). If House Bill 2 becomes law, the duties of the Attorney to enforce its provisions will be prescribed by law in subsection (c) of G.S. 58-49A-1. In addition, the general duties assigned to the Attorney General are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §114-2. It is the duty of the Attorney General “to appear for the State in any other court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested. G.S. 114-2. The Attorney General also has a common law duty to prosecute all actions necessary for the protection and defense of property and revenue of the sovereign people of North Carolina. Martin v. Thornburg, 320 N.C. 533, 545, 359 S.E.2d 472, 479 (N.C., 1987). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. §114-1.1.

III. Solicitor General’s Concerns Regarding State Law Under House Bill 2

The Attorney General’s office has highlighted areas of concern with regards to the effects of House Bill 2 on existing State law. The contention that certain provisions of the act may have unintended financial or public policy consequences has little bearing on the legislative direction provided to the Attorney General; however there are alternative interpretations of the act and these will be addressed briefly:

Anti-fraud Provisions in Medicaid: House Bill 2 provides that no fee may be imposed on a person for “contracting with…a public or private health care system.” As referenced in the Solicitor General’s memo, the ACA directs states who participate in the federal Medicaid program to collect a fee to offset the cost of increased enrollment and verification requirements. The fee is imposed to fight fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system. It is collected from providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, etc. House Bill 2 is aimed at preventing fees charged to a person for “contracting with, or enrolling in, or failing to contract with or enroll in” some sort of private or public health care system/insurance plan. It can be argued that a fee for the purposes of combatting fraud and that is not placed upon a person with regards to the choice to obtain or not obtain health insurance/participate in a health care system is not within the scope of House Bill 2.

Over-the-counter Drugs: House Bill 2 states that “a law or rule shall not…[i]mpose a…tax…on a person for providing for…health care services or medical treatment for that person…” The Solicitor General expresses concern for sales taxes on over-the-counter drugs under House Bill 2. Such a tax is levied as a sales tax for purchasing a good (over-the-counter medication) that is not exempted through statute in the State of North Carolina. Again, in contrast to the Attorney General’s position, it can be argued that the tax is on the purchase of a good and is not found within the scope of providing health care services or medical treatment under House Bill 2. In his memo, the Solicitor General specifically cites the case of Robison v. Walser, as an interpretation of the term “medical treatment”. However an argument can be made that the interpretation is not analogous to the purchase of over the counter medications. In Robinson, the medical treatment involved medication that could be obtained over-the-counter but was administered to a prison inmate by a health care professional. 2009 WL 6669324, 2 (E.D.N.C.). First, House Bill 2 excludes this population in contemplation of circumstances that would require medical treatment without consent of the individual. Additionally, the administering of over-the-counter medication by a healthcare professional is an act that must be distinguished from purchasing over-the-counter medication for oneself. The terms “health care services” and “medical treatment” given their ordinary meaning would imply these services and treatments are either furnished by a health care provider or in a health care setting. “Where a literal reading of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed, the reason and purpose of the law shall control…Taylor v. Crisp, 286 N.C. 488, 496, 212 S.E.2d 381, 386 (N.C. 1975). (quoting Freeland v. Orange County, 273 N.C. 452, 456, 160 S.E.2d 282, 286 (1968)). The purchasing of an over-the-counter medication for oneself would not be construed as providing for health care services or medical treatments as regulated in House Bill 2.

Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP): Deductibles, copayment and various cost-sharing devices are not “fees…on a person for providing for…health care services or medical treatment for that person…” as outlined in House Bill 2. A deductible or copayment is a payment for services made to the provider based on a contractual agreement between the health care provider, insurer, and consumer. It can be argued that a deductible or a copayment is not a “penalty, tax, fee, or fine” paid to the government within the scope of House Bill 2.

Uninsured Motorist Coverage: House Bill 2 provides that “a law or rule shall not [c]ompel a person to…provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person.” Although State law requires drivers to carry uninsured motorist coverage, this requirement does not fall under the prohibitions of House Bill 2. The State does not compel someone to drive a motor vehicle. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and if one choses to engage in the activity, the insurance must be purchased. Given the lack of a law or rule creating a compulsion upon an individual, uninsured motor coverage is outside of the scope of House Bill 2.

IV. Conclusion

House Bill 2 creates an affirmative duty for the Attorney General to defend the General Assembly’s position regarding individual insurance mandates. The General Assembly’s position as provided House Bill 2 is that the a law or rule shall not compel a person to provide for their health care services or contract with a health care system or insurance plan and that there shall be no penalty for failing to contract with a health care system or insurance plan. By enacting House Bill 2, the General Assembly believes that the federal law is unconstitutional and provides legislative direction to the Attorney General to challenge the ACA. Given the individual mandate found within the ACA does not take effect until 2014, any arguments that House Bill 2 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause are pre-mature. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Attorney General pursue a defense of the General Assembly’s position if House Bill 2 becomes law.

A Historic Day Will Lead to a Better North Carolina

November 3rd, 2010 by Skip

On November 2, 2010, voters sent a clear message. The number one issue in North Carolina is the economy – jobs, jobs, jobs. Years of overspending by Democrats have given North Carolina the highest tax rates in the Southeast and an estimated budget deficit of at least $3 billion for next year. High tax rates inhibit hiring.

Republican members of the House and Senate have united against legislation which limited our freedoms and stifled small business growth. Republican candidates across the state campaigned against excessive spending, tax rate increases and the job-killing, liberty-restricting mandates of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care). And for the first time in 112 years, Republicans have gained majorities in both the state House and Senate.

The people of North Carolina have entrusted us with the responsibility to govern the State by reducing costs and regulation on business, large and small, so that they can create jobs and prosperity. Voters have spoken and Republicans are committed to:

Balancing the State budget without raising tax rates.

And within the first 100 days:

Passing The Healthcare Freedom Protection Act, exempting North Carolinians from the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care).
Fighting to protect jobs by keeping our Right to Work laws.
Reducing the regulatory burden on small business.
Funding education in the classroom, not the bureaucracy.
Eliminating the cap on charter schools.
Passing the Honest Election Act, requiring a valid photo ID to vote.
Passing the Eminent Domain constitutional amendment to protect private property rights.
Ending pay-to-play politics and restore honesty and integrity to state government.

“Family Policy Matters” Transcript: Stam Reflects On His Career, Part 1

[1] “2013-2014 Annual Report,” Services. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, retrieved September 30, 2015. See pp 17,18. See https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/6714/1996/2641/2013-2014_Annual_Report_FINAL_WEB_VERSION.pdf.

[2] Id. at 17.

[3] Id. at 17.

[4] “Planned Parenthood’s 3% Lie” RedState. Streiff. Published August 6, 2015, http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/06/planned-parenthoods-3-lie/.

[5] (Average abortion price $451 * 327,653 abortions = $147.8 million)/($305.3 million health services revenue) = 48.41% See Jones et al 2008, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/4304111.pdf and PPFA Annual Report 2013?2014.

[6] Cost may vary per state and clinic; according to the Guttmacher Institute, an average abortion costs $468.

[7] PPFA Annual Report 2013-2014.

[8] Id. at 21.

[9] Id. at 20.

[10] Id. at 21.

[11] Id. at 21.

[12] There are several Hyde Amendment exceptions, http://e.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf.

Photos courtesy of Ben Herrmann

HR 286 Honor Recovery of North Carolina Bill of Rights

Old State Capitol – Raleigh, North Carolina

Fiscal

Education

Environment

Property Rights

Gun Rights

Transportation

Criminal Justice

Fiscal

Jobs

Education

Healthcare

Property Rights

Illegal Immigration

Family

Pro-Life

Election Law

Criminal Justice

Raleigh- Well, not by name. But in his victory speech Tuesday night he said this concerning the Republican budget’s “extreme cuts” to public education:

…

In providing a balanced budget during an extraordinary difficult economy, the Assembly provided only about $15 million less than the Governor even requested. That is less than a rounding error.

Democratic Legislative Leader Accuses Governor Bev Perdue And Attorney General Roy Cooper of a form of “Hate Speech”

“Family Policy Matters”
Transcript: Stam Reflects On His Career, Part 1