As it stands currently municipalities have the ability to annex unincorporated areas without the consent of those who live in the area that is being annexed. Many people feel that this is a breach of property rights and an abuse of government power. Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly, however, are working to restrain the government's ability to exercise forced annexation.
The Annexation Reform Act of 2011 (House Bill 845) would give property owners facing forced annexation a voice in the process. If passed, the bill would give people the ability to stop a proposed annexation by getting 60 percent of property owners to sign a protest petition. It would also require cities to provide water and sewer services to annexed property owners at no cost to the property owner.
This particular bill passed its second reading in the House on Thursday and is expected to pass a final reading on Monday. If it passes the House it will advance to the Senate where it is likely to face minimal opposition.
There is no question that forced annexation is a serious violation of property rights and personal liberty. Fortunately, our leaders in the General Assembly are taking the initiative to address the problems with North Carolina's annexation laws.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
North Carolina Legislators Seek Public Input on Redistricting
Last night I attended a public hearing on redistricting in Guilford County that was hosted by North Carolina Senator Bob Rucho (R- Mecklenburg). The purpose of the hearing was to allow private citizens to voice their opinions about the current redistricting process to members of the General Assembly. Each individual who chose to speak was given five minutes to do so.
Senator Bob Rucho, who presided over the meeting, is chairman of the Redistricting Committee in the NC Senate. Also present were several members of Guilford County's House and Senate delegation, including Representatives John Faircloth, Maggie Jeffus, Alma Adams, and Pricey Harrison. Senators Don Vaughan and Gladys Robinson were also present.
The prevailing sentiment among those who expressed their opinions was that legislative districts should be fair, legal, and apolitical. It was clear that some speakers were liberal and some were conservative, but almost everyone seemed to agree that politics shouldn't play a role in redistricting. Some speakers even made specific recommendations as to how certain districts should be reconfigured.
Due to the importance of the issue I felt compelled to sign up as a speaker. When it was my turn to speak, I contended that gerrymandering has played a role in how current districts are configured and that the General Assembly should cast aside any temptation to reconfigure districts based on partisan politics.
Also, I pointed out that we have six House districts in Guilford County and that not one of them is competitive. Districts 61 and 62 are so heavily Republican that they are uncompetitive. On the other hand, districts 57, 58, 59, and 60 are so heavily Democratic that it is nearly impossible for a Republican to compete in any of those districts.
This, of course, represents a fundamental problem because it takes competition out of the equation and creates "safe seats" for the incumbents. Unfortunately, this leads to a situation where voters have little choice over who they want their representatives to be.
I also pointed out that I ran for public office last year as a Republican in House District 57, which is heavily Democratic. Before attending the meeting last night, I called the Guilford County Board of Elections to confirm the breakdown of voter registration in District 57. I was informed that the district is 51 percent Democratic, 25 percent Republican, 23 percent unaffiliated, and less than two percent Libertarian.
While Republicans only make up 25 percent of voters in District 57, I was able to obtain 44 percent of the vote. This, I contended, indicates that I would have likely won the election if the numbers in the district were competitive.
Furthermore, I appealed to the General Assembly to draw districts that are fair and legal and competitive. I also asked that our elected officials follow state and federal guidelines when implementing the redistricting process.
At the hearing, Senator Rucho stated that the General Assembly is committed to configuring districts that are fair and legal and that all of the necessary guidelines will be followed. He asserted that the process will be done in a way that is efficient and transparent. Senator Rucho also stated that maps will become available for the public to see in late May or early June.
More than likely, the General Assembly will vote on a redistricting plan in June. If the plan passes the House and Senate, it will be submitted to the United States Justice Department for approval.
Senator Bob Rucho, who presided over the meeting, is chairman of the Redistricting Committee in the NC Senate. Also present were several members of Guilford County's House and Senate delegation, including Representatives John Faircloth, Maggie Jeffus, Alma Adams, and Pricey Harrison. Senators Don Vaughan and Gladys Robinson were also present.
The prevailing sentiment among those who expressed their opinions was that legislative districts should be fair, legal, and apolitical. It was clear that some speakers were liberal and some were conservative, but almost everyone seemed to agree that politics shouldn't play a role in redistricting. Some speakers even made specific recommendations as to how certain districts should be reconfigured.
Due to the importance of the issue I felt compelled to sign up as a speaker. When it was my turn to speak, I contended that gerrymandering has played a role in how current districts are configured and that the General Assembly should cast aside any temptation to reconfigure districts based on partisan politics.
Also, I pointed out that we have six House districts in Guilford County and that not one of them is competitive. Districts 61 and 62 are so heavily Republican that they are uncompetitive. On the other hand, districts 57, 58, 59, and 60 are so heavily Democratic that it is nearly impossible for a Republican to compete in any of those districts.
This, of course, represents a fundamental problem because it takes competition out of the equation and creates "safe seats" for the incumbents. Unfortunately, this leads to a situation where voters have little choice over who they want their representatives to be.
I also pointed out that I ran for public office last year as a Republican in House District 57, which is heavily Democratic. Before attending the meeting last night, I called the Guilford County Board of Elections to confirm the breakdown of voter registration in District 57. I was informed that the district is 51 percent Democratic, 25 percent Republican, 23 percent unaffiliated, and less than two percent Libertarian.
While Republicans only make up 25 percent of voters in District 57, I was able to obtain 44 percent of the vote. This, I contended, indicates that I would have likely won the election if the numbers in the district were competitive.
Furthermore, I appealed to the General Assembly to draw districts that are fair and legal and competitive. I also asked that our elected officials follow state and federal guidelines when implementing the redistricting process.
At the hearing, Senator Rucho stated that the General Assembly is committed to configuring districts that are fair and legal and that all of the necessary guidelines will be followed. He asserted that the process will be done in a way that is efficient and transparent. Senator Rucho also stated that maps will become available for the public to see in late May or early June.
More than likely, the General Assembly will vote on a redistricting plan in June. If the plan passes the House and Senate, it will be submitted to the United States Justice Department for approval.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Legislators Debate Cell Phone Limits for Drivers
Members of the NC House are debating a bill that would increase restrictions on cell phone use for those behind the wheel. There is already a ban on young drivers from using cell phones and no one is allowed to text while driving. Some legislators, however, feel that current laws are insufficient and are pushing for further restrictions.
House Bill 31, which was introduced by Rep. Garland Pierce (D – Scotland), would make using a cell phone while driving illegal unless the driver is able to talk hands-free. (Using a wireless headset or a voice-activated phone would be permissible.)
Fines of $100 or more would be levied upon those who violate the law, but driver’s license points would not be imposed. Exceptions would be allowed for making emergency 911 calls and for law enforcement officers and rescue workers performing official duties.
House Bill 31, which was introduced by Rep. Garland Pierce (D – Scotland), would make using a cell phone while driving illegal unless the driver is able to talk hands-free. (Using a wireless headset or a voice-activated phone would be permissible.)
Fines of $100 or more would be levied upon those who violate the law, but driver’s license points would not be imposed. Exceptions would be allowed for making emergency 911 calls and for law enforcement officers and rescue workers performing official duties.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Republicans Introduce Voter ID Legislation
In an effort to protect against possible voter fraud, North Carolina Republicans are pushing legislation that would require citizens to present valid photo identification before voting.
The legislation, which was recently filed in the North Carolina House by three Republicans, would require voters to present one of eight valid photo ID cards. Valid forms of identification would include a driver's license, U.S. passport, and a new voter ID card that would be issued for free by county election boards.
Supporters of the legislation contend that voter fraud is a serious concern and requiring voters to show photo ID would protect the democratic process. Opponents argue that fraud is not a serious problem and the requirement will discourage people from voting who may not have a photo ID.
As far as public opinion is concerned, a recent Elon University Poll found that 76 percent of North Carolina citizens support photo ID requirements for voting.
In 2010, Republicans campaigned on promises to implement photo ID requirements for voting, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. There will be plenty of debate on the subject, but the legislation is likely to pass the House and go to the Senate for consideration.
The legislation, which was recently filed in the North Carolina House by three Republicans, would require voters to present one of eight valid photo ID cards. Valid forms of identification would include a driver's license, U.S. passport, and a new voter ID card that would be issued for free by county election boards.
Supporters of the legislation contend that voter fraud is a serious concern and requiring voters to show photo ID would protect the democratic process. Opponents argue that fraud is not a serious problem and the requirement will discourage people from voting who may not have a photo ID.
As far as public opinion is concerned, a recent Elon University Poll found that 76 percent of North Carolina citizens support photo ID requirements for voting.
In 2010, Republicans campaigned on promises to implement photo ID requirements for voting, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. There will be plenty of debate on the subject, but the legislation is likely to pass the House and go to the Senate for consideration.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Republicans Unable to Override Perdue's Veto
Yesterday, North Carolina Republicans attempted to override Governor Perdue's veto of House Bill 2, which would have expressed a firm challenge to federal health care regulations. The Republican majority in the Senate had the votes to override the veto, but they were four votes short in the House.
House Republicans knew that it would be difficult to achieve the three-fifths majority required to override the veto. But given the importance of the issue, they thought that it was worth a try. When it was all said and done, all Republicans and one independent voted in favor of the override, while all Democrats voted against it.
Speaker of the House Thom Tillis (R - Mecklenburg) released the following statement in response to the General Assembly's inability to override the veto:
Friends,
This afternoon, we debated the VETO override for House Bill 2 (Protect Health Care Freedom Act). My House GOP colleagues knew we had an uphill battle, but we strongly believe that the Governor must not have the last word on our efforts to defend North Carolina from the overreach of the Federal Government.
Contrary to the contrived/official name, we believe the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" will NOT protect more patients and we are absolutely convinced that it will NOT be affordable. In fact, we strongly believe OBAMAcare will create another fiscal crisis for our Great State. It is a job killing bill that is opposed by pro-business (read: job creating) organizations across North Carolina and the United States.
To say that I am disappointed with the loss of the override vote is an understatement. However, I am proud of my GOP colleagues who fought the good fight. We may have lost this battle but the war continues. We must educate the citizens of North Carolina, and we need your help. I hope you will continue to join us in future battles to protect the future of North Carolina.
Good Night and God Bless, Thom T.
House Republicans knew that it would be difficult to achieve the three-fifths majority required to override the veto. But given the importance of the issue, they thought that it was worth a try. When it was all said and done, all Republicans and one independent voted in favor of the override, while all Democrats voted against it.
Speaker of the House Thom Tillis (R - Mecklenburg) released the following statement in response to the General Assembly's inability to override the veto:
Friends,
This afternoon, we debated the VETO override for House Bill 2 (Protect Health Care Freedom Act). My House GOP colleagues knew we had an uphill battle, but we strongly believe that the Governor must not have the last word on our efforts to defend North Carolina from the overreach of the Federal Government.
Contrary to the contrived/official name, we believe the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" will NOT protect more patients and we are absolutely convinced that it will NOT be affordable. In fact, we strongly believe OBAMAcare will create another fiscal crisis for our Great State. It is a job killing bill that is opposed by pro-business (read: job creating) organizations across North Carolina and the United States.
To say that I am disappointed with the loss of the override vote is an understatement. However, I am proud of my GOP colleagues who fought the good fight. We may have lost this battle but the war continues. We must educate the citizens of North Carolina, and we need your help. I hope you will continue to join us in future battles to protect the future of North Carolina.
Good Night and God Bless, Thom T.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Governor Perdue Vetoes Challenge to Health Care Law
On Saturday, March 5, Governor Bev Perdue vetoed House Bill 2, which would have set forth a firm challenge to federal health care regulations.
If House Bill 2 were enacted into law, it would have exempted North Carolina citizens from the federal mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance. It also would have directed North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper to join other states in lawsuits challenging the federal health care law.
In an attempt to explain her veto, Perdue called the legislation "unconstitutional" and "ill-conceived." She went on to say that the General Assembly should not enact laws that conflict with federal law.
The Republican majority in the General Assembly will more than likely attempt to override Perdue's veto. Republicans on the Senate side have a veto-proof majority, so they will have no trouble overriding the veto. Republicans on the House side, however, will need to pick up at least four Democratic votes.
If House Bill 2 were enacted into law, it would have exempted North Carolina citizens from the federal mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance. It also would have directed North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper to join other states in lawsuits challenging the federal health care law.
In an attempt to explain her veto, Perdue called the legislation "unconstitutional" and "ill-conceived." She went on to say that the General Assembly should not enact laws that conflict with federal law.
The Republican majority in the General Assembly will more than likely attempt to override Perdue's veto. Republicans on the Senate side have a veto-proof majority, so they will have no trouble overriding the veto. Republicans on the House side, however, will need to pick up at least four Democratic votes.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Spending Cap Legislation Introduced in North Carolina House
Representative John Blust (R - Guilford) recently introduced a bill in the North Carolina House that would tie budget growth to inflation and population. The legislation (House Bill 188) is widely known as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR.
Blust, a Republican, has pushed for this kind of legislation for the better part of 10 years. But because Blust has been in the legislative minority, he was not able to get the legislation through the Democrat-controlled legislature. Now that Republicans are in the majority, however, Blust will likely have more success in getting the legislation to pass.
TABOR would limit the growth of the state budget by tying allowable spending to changes in inflation and population. This is a good thing, because it will help to keep the state budget under control and force politicians to be more accountable with taxpayer dollars.
If the bill ends up passing the General Assembly, it will go before the voters as a constitutional amendment. If approved by the voters, the amendment would require a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly in order for lawmaker's to exceed the spending limits.
If TABOR ends up becoming law, it will help to stabilize the financial future of North Carolina.
Blust, a Republican, has pushed for this kind of legislation for the better part of 10 years. But because Blust has been in the legislative minority, he was not able to get the legislation through the Democrat-controlled legislature. Now that Republicans are in the majority, however, Blust will likely have more success in getting the legislation to pass.
TABOR would limit the growth of the state budget by tying allowable spending to changes in inflation and population. This is a good thing, because it will help to keep the state budget under control and force politicians to be more accountable with taxpayer dollars.
If the bill ends up passing the General Assembly, it will go before the voters as a constitutional amendment. If approved by the voters, the amendment would require a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly in order for lawmaker's to exceed the spending limits.
If TABOR ends up becoming law, it will help to stabilize the financial future of North Carolina.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)