1. Persistence. Woman’s Right to Know (the Risks of Abortion) took 30 years from initial passage in the State Senate (1981) until it became law in 2011. The State Abortion Fund took 17 years (1978-1995) to effectively end. The “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule took 23 years from when it was conceived in the eye of the author till it became law in 2011.

But legislation supported by the Speaker and the Senate Pro Tem can come together in an instant.

2. Don’t cheat. In 2005 the state lottery passed by one vote in each chamber. The Speaker of the House broke eight different House rules to get it through. The Senate used scurrilous maneuvers to allow two Senators, who were publicly against but privately for, to vote by their absence. There has been a 20-year stench over the lottery that will never subside.

3. The Exceptions. For sixty years abortionists used exceptions such as a serious physical danger to health of the mother, rape and incest as a rationale that all abortions needed to be legal. These 3 exceptions are less than 1% of the total. The public think these are prevalent. In 1967 the American Law Institute proposed reforms using these and other exceptions worded so broadly that effectively would give us abortion on demand. North Carolina was the 2^nd state to effectively legalize abortion. In 1967!!

I served in 1989 – 1990. Attempts to end the State Abortion Fund by bipartisan amendments had come up short. We called the bluff of the abortionists. After a decade of spending $924,000 or more on medically unnecessary abortions for those on welfare, $424,000 was to be spent yearly from the state abortion fund. Abortionists proposed tax paid abortion on demand that would expire for lack of funds halfway through the year. This would result in no tax paid abortions for the second half of the year, including those endangering the life of the mother and those based on rape or incest.

We proposed an amendment that the fund be limited to situations endangering the life of the mother and those based on rape or incest. The money would last all year, but the actual number of tax paid abortions would decrease 99% to about 60/year instead of 6000/year. The left thought that big numbers of abortion were more important to them than the exceptions they had counted on politically for so long. They defeated the amendment. They were politically impaled on the horns of their own dilemma. By 1995 that Fund was effectively ended.

4. “Everybody’s on board.” There is a way to get stakeholder involvement and accomplish a great deal. Before the 2015 session we obtained “stakeholder buy-in” from every organized group affected by the criminal justice system. 50 different individuals were involved. We asked for suggestions to make the criminal justice process more timely without minimizing constitutional rights. Almost all of our proposals became law in HB 127 or related bills.

The term “everybody is on board” often means that the legislator meets with lobbyists and forgets about the public who are not represented – as when a pirate captures a prize ship. The 2009 “Homebuyer’s Protection Act” was just such a law. It wasn’t too many years before the “other bodies” who weren’t “on board” understood that their interests had been compromised. They took their real position back.

5. To score a run in Baseball the player must advance not only to first base but also to second, third and home before his side is out. Reaching first base may be compared to filing a bill when significant work has been done, necessary research is completed, and supporting groups and members are lined up before filing. Some think that once a bill is filed that success has happened. Newsletters will proclaim: “I filed a bill.” That’s just stepping up to the plate.

Getting it past the House and its committees is equally as arduous  –  second base. The bill must also pass the Senate and obtain the assent of the governor and perhaps a conference committee. A member who passes a bill out of the Assembly and past the Governor but neglects its future course is not successful. Turning a bill into law is only a triple. To score a run it is necessary that the bureaucracy) implement the law. If rulemaking is not required then enforcement of the laws is secured by making sure that police or district attorneys know about and appreciate it. For civil laws, private trade groups and newspapers and netizens must be informed and motivated.

Video poker has been repeatedly criminalized by legislation. It has been upheld by three unanimous and bipartisan decisions of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Why is video poker still so prevalent in certain parts of the state? Citizens don’t demand that law enforcement does its job.

6. “Bend your knees.” “Keep your eye on the ball” when playing tennis. The parallel in legislation is to follow the rules, ethics and customs. Passion for a cause does not excuse improper form, improper ethics or creation of ill will.

Don’t burn bridges. Your opponent today may be your ally tomorrow. In addition to the moral advantages of not vilifying your opponents or impugning their motives, it is extremely unwise to have a group of members who will vote against your bill because they don’t like you. Legislative courtesy pays. Legislative payback is deadly.

7. Good staff and family make you look good. Staff can make you look bad. The NASCAR driver is only the captain. Without technicians in the pit to make the car go fast, the driver will not win. I was blessed with excellent family and staff. Even freshmen members of the minority party have access to excellent staff if they know how. Central professional staff will help any member if asked in the right way and at the right time. The right time is early in the process when staff are not deluged with requests by the “big shots.” The right way includes “please,” “thank you,” and getting necessary information to staff the first time.

8. Speaking out? Not on every issue. If you have the reputation of blasting every bill that goes by for some defect, other members will simply step outside the chamber to talk with lobbyists or each other. If you are well-prepared and speak out regularly on a subject on which you have expertise, even if you lose the vote, there are real benefits.

 Targeted tax incentives and expenditures are controversial. I fought this in 1996 with an amicus brief for the Locke Foundation. Preparation of that brief gave me the ammunition and academic support for opposing incentives. I was rarely successful. One defeat of an “economic development” subsidy occurred at the very end of the 2014 session. We would have lost even then if the Senate had not crammed it with so many extras that a majority of the House could find something to hate. On other occasions we would be temporarily successful, but the advocates of giveaways would rally their lobbyists and come back the next day with a slightly differing proposal that was just as bad.

There was a good result from speaking up through the years. We first obtained the majority in 2011. I was disappointed that we would have another targeted tax incentive giveaway. That year it was only $2 million wasted. In prior years we had seen hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on these schemes.

The ardor of supporters is diminished when they know its economic fallacies will be exposed on the floor and put to a recorded vote. Some of these proposals were not brought up at all because proponents knew they would be embarrassed.

In recent years these giveaways have become bigger and bolder because opponents have not been willing to speak up and expose the fallacies. 2021 “Apple Red” was recently designated as the Worst Deal of the Year by a national think tank. Its billion-dollar price tag was accompanied by the monthly billion-dollar revenue of Apple. It was passed in the same year that Apple’s future corporate income tax rate was cut to zero.

9. Rule of Tens. There are grassroots organizers who generate computer email to supporters. They receive a prewritten message supporting or opposing legislation. The flow of email is so vast that no one has time to read these after the second one. Staff count them. They “count” for something, but not much. It makes a citizen feel good to participate in the process, but one more identical email does not actually influence legislation. When you get more than two identical emails you know it’s a “grassroots” organizing group or an attack of the bots.

On the other hand, if you get an original email, even if it is short, you see that reflecting a real person. That is worth 10 mass emails.

If some one telephones a legislative office, she has to go to the trouble of looking up the number and spending some time with the representative or staff. That is a significant investment of time with the possibility for feedback. That is worth 10 individual personal emails. If Representative Stevens has any time management skills, she will make sure that she has a book, a computer nearby and some letters to sign during the phone call. Some calls come directly to the point. Most wander. Members have other work in hand when they take a telephone call. The telephone call is worth 100 mass emails.

A citizen can handle the member who may take the phone call but has her attention on something else. Show up in the office. Make eye contact. If (s)he is reading a book while (s)he is talking with you, that is obvious. A personal visit in the office is worth 1000 mass emails. But there is a better way yet.

Talk with your representative while he or she is in the district during the off-season (right now). If it is while the Legislature is in session visit on Friday, Saturday or Monday morning. If you vote in her district, your member wants to please you and actually has time. When the Assembly is in session representatives will sometimes eat breakfast or lunch while walking to the next committee meeting. They don’t have time to focus on you. A personal visit in the district is worth 10,000 mass emails.

10. Legislative “hitch hiking”. A bill is not a law. It is a file folder, a vessel for a proposed law. If you are in battle and your horse goes down, stand up and find another. If your bill is in trouble find out what the problem is, take the contents of that bill and either trim it down or reword it to get it past the problem. Or engraft it onto a different bill in a different committee with a more receptive chair.

A criminal procedure bill passed the House in 2015 with several dozen provisions. It looked like the Senate might not take it up because of opposition to two or three provisions. Some non-controversial provisions were added to other related Senate bills as they went through the House. Another started out as “Burt’s Law” but when “Burt” became law in a companion Senate bill, the House bill was available for a higher purpose. Other provisions needed an eligible bill already in committee and ready to go. Provisions of those bills were engrafted onto Burt’s Law and passed the House. If you are determined that the bill you introduce with the contents you propose and that it passes the House and the Senate and becomes law, you will have more signing ceremonies with the Governor and good politics. But you won’t get as much done.

HB 955 started out with revisions to Opportunity Scholarship. By filing the bill, it became accessible online www.ncleg.gov. Organizations which wanted to generate support could do so by referencing that bill. Since it directly affected the state budget the contents of HB 955 were placed into the budget in subcommittee. It survived attacks in subcommittee, full committee and on the floor. There were about nine hours of total debate. On the official records of the Assembly HB 955 died without action. But its provisions are now law. About 104,000 students applied for scholarships for 2025-26. The sponsors of HB 955 were delighted even though the bill with their names on it died.

You have a great idea that runs up against an implacable foe – Jabba the Hut. Neither persuasion, nor any other power, has any affect. What to do? Find out which of your ideas he doesn’t like, put them in other members’ bills and get it done anyway. It does not help if you are wedded to having your name on the law you proposed.

11. Strip and Replace. Use redundant or stranded bills for a higher purpose. In the 1989-90 session I discovered that possession of child pornography was not an offense in North Carolina, just manufacturing and distribution. Manufacturing / distribution is much harder to prove than possession.

Two companion bills related to immunity for donated food crossed over. The House bill became law. The Senate bill had passed the Senate but was in a House committee. It could be converted to a higher purpose. After the crossover deadline, the chairs let it to be considered. They knew that the Senate would claim that it was not eligible to be received in the Senate. But they needed to pacify an outspoken freshman of the minority party. Under those circumstances it easily passed the House. The Senate Rules Chair ruled that it was ineligible.

In 1990 Connie Wilson, a 30-year-old recently appointed freshman Senator, (a lame-duck when the session opened) had nothing to lose. She spoke to every Senator and obtained consent to a suspension of the rules. Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader and Rules Chair, Tony Rand, refused to bring it forward. Senator Wilson went to Lt. Gov. Jim Gardner and explained how important this bill was. Lt. Governor Gardner called in Senator Rand and said he was willing to make a political issue out of it if Senator Rand didn’t schedule it. It was on the calendar the next day and easily passed the Senate.

It has been the law since 1990. It is the reason why child porn prosecutions are more successful. These criminals may be guilty of 1^st or 2^nd degree child porn, but they have committed so many acts of possession in the 3^rd degree that they can get just as much jail time when sentenced on several counts of child porn in possession. The child does not have to testify.

12. You can’t do it alone. Nurture your allies.

“Let no one despise your youth” says Paul to Timothy. Don’t talk down to young or inexperienced members. They may be committee chairs next year. Listen to the gray heads. Don’t talk down to old men. They know lots of history that you do not. They have friends in high places that you did not realize.

13. Realistic goals or “shoot the moon?” For almost forty years after Roe vs. Wade (1973) there were state constitutional amendments proposed to stop abortion. These went nowhere. If passed they would not accomplish the goal since there was then no chance of the U.S. Supreme Court upholding them.

In 2011, we finally had a majority of pro-life members. We pursued a different strategy – actually stop as many abortions as possible. Although these might be challenged, we could continue on with the process because each proposal was relatively popular with voters and actually stopped many abortions. From 2011 through 2015 there were 9 pro-life measures passed. Only two were challenged in court. Of those the challenge to the “choose life” license plates was overruled after five years of litigation. The challenge to “Women’s Right to Know” was only partially successful, enjoining only one small section of a much longer law. The larger parts not enjoined probably saved the lives of 20% of all those who would otherwise have been terminated from 2012-2022. By starting with the easiest votes, members _____________ accustomed to voting pro-life.

14. Not all incremental steps are wise.  Some are self-limiting. While in the minority the  “Unborn Victims of Violence” act had been introduced many times, requiring that in a non-abortion case an unborn child would be treated as a separate victim. If an armed robber shot and injured a pregnant woman and the injury also killed her unborn child, that would not only be assault inflicting serious injury of the mother but also would be murder of  the unborn child. It easily passed in 2011 and has never been challenged.

Some had proposed that we limit the unborn victims to those past 20 weeks of gestation. That would bring in enough votes from Democrats to pass. This would have been self-defeating. It introduced an artificial distinction that had no basis in biology. If we later put forward a 12-week gestational limit, the 20-week precedent could be used by abortion apologists as a rationale for not protecting younger human lives. The number of post 20-week abortions is less than 1%. The compromise we avoided allowed us to pass 9 pro-life laws in 2011-2015 without this artificial distinction. In 2023 a law was passed with a 12-week artificial cut off. We’ll see  the effect in the future.

15. Pick your enemies as carefully as you pick your friends.

Pick your enemies carefully. There are some that make a big show but by defeating them you improve your own credibility.

16. Obtaining recorded votes is helpful but not if the bill has not been worked. Legislative tuition grants at the college level are an example. There were 11 votes in opposition the last time it was actually opposed on the floor. After that vote legislative opposition disappeared because the weakness of the opposition was clear.

17.  You can wait until your bill’s opponent leaves office. I left office at the end of 2016. Several bills became law in 2017 that would never have seen the light of day if I had been there. I had not sufficiently explained the rationale for my opposition to my colleagues before I left.

18. Don’t just do something, Stand There!! Is that backwards? We see a problem and we want a solution now, but some tactics are nonproductive. In a high school basketball game of 1995 between Apex and its archrival, Cary, Apex was down 3 points with the ball and 5 seconds to go. A guard saw an opening, drove in for an easy layup at the buzzer.

Oh, wait!! I wonder why that basket was so easy. Maybe a time out would have been more productive.