Capitol Connection May 2014 by Civitas Institute

Capitol Connection

Inside

MAY 2014 VOL. 6, NO. 5

Elections At a Glance — p. 6-8 —

NC Voters Send DC a Message — p. 10 —

TOP 5 IN ’14 CCSS

Re-structure Teacher Salary Scale, Reward Results

BY brian balfour The state legislature is back in session. The consensus around the state capital is that this year’s “short session” will live up to its name. But just because legislators won’t be in town for very long doesn’t mean they shouldn’t address some important issues. Following is a list of priorities the Civitas Institute believes should receive attention this summer:

Teacher Pay

100 S. Harrington St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Vol. 6, No. 5

Civitas Institute

NON-PROFIT ORG. US POSTAGE PAID Permit #231 Winston-Salem, NC

Gov. Pat McCrory has announced a plan to address teacher salaries, focusing on bringing up the average salaries of starting teachers, providing pay increases for all teachers, and creating targeted financial incentives. Such incentives are focused on

Stop Common Core

rewarding teachers who teach “high demand” subjects, earn a master’s degree in the subject they are teaching, and become more involved in leadership roles at their school. McCrory’s plan pushes discretion for these incentives to the local level, which is a step in the right direction. The governor’s plan fails, however, to tie salaries and bonuses to performance and results. The focus remains on inputs rather than rewarding more positive outcomes. Restructuring the teacher salary scale to reward student achievement measures should be the ultimate goal.

Common Core State lawmakers should follow the recommendations of the Legislative Research Committee on Common Core standards. The Committee’s report recommended legislation that would effectively remove Common Core standards from North Carolina’s public schools. The recommendation would be to create a new commission to evaluate the English and math Common Core standards, with an eye toward eliminating and replacing them. The new commission would complete its evaluations by the end of 2015. Civitas supports the elimination of the federally created Common Core standards and their replacement with state-based, high-quality standards.

TAX KS BREA

Reform Medicaid

Medicaid Reform North Carolina needs to reform its Medicaid program, which is growing at an unsustainable pace, crowding out other priorities from the state budget. Gov. McCrory has proposed a reform relying on Accountable Care Organizations, a proposition with several flaws that would at best generate very limited savings. Civitas instead would rather see North Carolina

Fight Extension of Tax Breaks for Film Production

enact a more sweeping “managed care” type reform – similar to the reform seeing success in Florida. State lawmakers also need to address long-term care (LTC) eligibility in Medicaid, as LTC is a main driver in the growth of Medicaid expenses.

Tax Breaks for Film Production North Carolina’s state tax code includes significant

FED FUNDS

What the legislature should be doing this session.

Reduce North Carolina’s Dependency on Federal Funds

breaks for TV and movie production companies filming here in NC. These tax credits are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. But there is substantial support, especially from lawmakers in areas like Wilmington that benefit from the tax breaks, to renew the credits. Civitas opposes crony capitalism that provides preferential treatment for tarCONTINUED on page 3

Does Wake School Board Hate Its Best Teachers? BY francis de luca The top officials in the Wake County schools must hate their best teachers. After all, the Wake County Public School System (WCPSS) is rejecting $1.25 million -- $5 million over four years -- from the state to give their best teachers pay raises. Instead, WCPSS is supporting a plan to give raises to all staff with no regard as to how much time they actually spend in the classroom. These same leaders insist they want to help teachers earn more, but their plans would do little to aid provide effective reforms. Last year the state legislature approved a plan that would eliminate teacher “tenure” over a five-year period and require

that all teachers be employed by contract. The top 25 percent of teachers in each district would get an annual $500 pay raise for four years in exchange for giving up tenure rights. This would mean the best teachers would earn an extra $2,000 over four years and more every year thereafter. The provisions would impact approximately 2,500 teachers in Wake County. This is basic justice in rewarding those who perform the best. It would also improve schools, as teachers, like everyone else, respond to incentives. Plus, the state funding of $1.25 million comes at no additional cost to the county. But the Wake County School Board rejected

the pay plan as “unfair.” Instead, the district is seeking a pay raise of 3.5 percent for all employees, regardless of job performance or actual time spent in the classroom. Is it fair that the highest performing teachers often make the same pay as underperforming teachers thanks to having accumulated the same seniority and credentials? Is it fair that the average teacher in Wake County earns about $45,997 while about 38 percent of teachers earn less than $35, 200? Is it fair that those who actually teach children make significantly less than administrative employees such as senior administrators CONTINUED on page 3

nccivitas.org

May 2014 Capitol Connection

From the Editor

The Five Lamest Alibis from the Left

BY JIM TYNEN A fringe benefit of the last two years in North Carolina is the way events have exposed progressive myths. Trying to defend their ideology, progressives have come up with some lame alibis, including: 1. “There’s no widespread voter fraud in North Carolina.” That was blown up when State Board of Elections officials revealed the results of checking North Carolina’s voter registrations with those of 28 other states. The study found 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number were registered in NC and another state and voted in NC and the other state in the 2012 general election. That’s widespread enough. In Minnesota, Al Franken won election to the U.S. Senate by 312 votes. 2. “Well, yeah, the NC Board of Elections turned up some duplicate voter registrations, but maybe they were just clerical errors.” You mean 35,750 clerical errors? The cross-check also found that many voters with the same matching information except for the Social Security number were registered in NC and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election. One liberal activist claims he’s found four innocent matches. Maybe. But what about the other 35,746? Not to mention … There were also 155,692 voters with the same first and

last name, date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number who were registered in NC and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity took place outside NC. The media haven’t made enough of how votes from people who have moved out of state can be slipped into a ballot box. That’s

the days were cut, the number of hours was was the same. Guess what: 86,618 more people voted this year than in the previous midterm election in 2010. (More on page 9.) We think it’s likely that other fears about voting reform will also turn out to be imaginary.

step and walked away from paying extended unemployment benefits. The state’s unemployment rate began to plunge, immediately and steadily. 5. “Well, it’ll still hurt because we need to stimulate the economy, and the jobless rate dropped because people stopped looking for work. Yeah, that’s it.”

North Carolina Unemployment (2013 -‐ 2014) 10.0%

9.5%

Unemployment Reform Implemented in NC

9.0%

8.5%

8.0%

7.5%

7.0%

6.5%

6.0%

Jan-‐13

Feb-‐13

Mar-‐13

Apr-‐13

May-‐13

Jun-‐13

Jul-‐13

United States

Aug-‐13

Sep-‐13

Oct-‐13

Nov-‐13

Dec-‐13

Jan-‐14

Feb-‐14

North Carolina

Unemployment has fallen steadily in NC after jobless benefits were reduced.

like having 155,000 blank ballots that can be cast whenever dishonest people think they can get away with it. And the above findings don’t include cross-checking of registrations in 22 states, including the four most populous. 3. “Cutting early voting will suppress the vote.” That’s just flat wrong. First, though

Capitol Connection PUBLISHER Francis X. De Luca francis.deluca@nccivitas.org

4. “Cutting unemployment benefits will leave people starving in the streets.” Last July, the North Carolina legislature took a much-needed

But instead the state economy added jobs and grew. Consider a paper updated in March by economists from the University of Oslo, the

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, and the University of Pennsylvania. After the usual academic caveats, they noted, “We discuss whether available evidence is supportive of the arguments that (1) the dominant macroeconomic effect of unemployment benefit extensions is to stimulate the economy by increasing the level of aggregate demand, and (2) the reduction in unemployment is mainly due to unemployed individuals stopping the job search and dropping out of the labor force. The observed sizable employment growth in North Carolina over the past six months seems to contradict both arguments. Further, we provide evidence that the reduction of unemployment benefits in North Carolina increases employment, job openings and labor force and decreases unemployment relative to her neighbors.” There’s plenty of room for debate, of course. But our progressive friends should pay attention to the way some of their pet ideas are being refuted. Instead of making alibis, they should be learning from what NC’s conservative reforms can teach them. 

Monthly Petition

NC Voter Petition

to support More Pay For the Best Teachers Providing added pay to the best 25 percent of teachers will reward outstanding effort. I urge the NC legislature to support the current $500 bonuses and work to provide teacher pay incentives that will improve our schools. I also urge local school boards to support this important reform.

MANAGING EDITOR Jim Tynen jim.tynen@nccivitas.org GRAPHIC DESIGNER Tiffany Taylor Editorial & Advertising 100 S. Harrington St. Raleigh, NC 27603 phone: 919.834.2099 | fax: 919.834.2350

Name (First, M.I., Last)

Street Address

Capitol Connection is a publication of the Civitas Institute

City State, Zip County The Civitas Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit dedicated to advancing conservative and free-market principles in the state of North Carolina. All non-advertising content published in Capitol Connection may be republished as long as appropriate credit is given and it is published in its entirety. © 2014 by John W. Pope Civitas Institute

nccivitas.org

Phone Email

Signature Date

Cut out and mail to: Civitas Institute, 100 S. Harrington St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Please make copies of this form for others to sign

May 2014 Capitol Connection

Does WCPSS Board Civitas Sets Session Agenda Hate Its Top Teachers? CONTINUED from page 1

geted industries, and wants to see these credits expire.

Reduce North Carolina’s Dependency on Federal Funds North Carolina’s reliance on federal funds has been growing at a dramatic pace. Of the total state budget (which includes the General Fund, transportation, federal receipts, etc.), North Carolina has relied on federal funds for roughly 45 percent of its total expenditures over the last decade. Given the huge national debt, relying on the federal government for continued support is highly risky. The risks of more federal government sequestrations or

across-the-board cuts in state support are very real threats to North Carolina’s state budget. Moreover, federal funds always come with strings attached, many of which require state funds to comply. In that vein, state lawmakers should pass legislation that would thoroughly conduct an agency-by-agency inventory of federal funds the state receives, the strings attached, and the costs imposed by these strings. The bill would also require a contingency plan of how the state could weather a significant cutback in federal support in the event of a future federal government crisis, as well as develop a long-term plan to reduce North Carolina’s reliance on federal funds. 

CONTINUED from page 1

($73,005), principals ($92,267), and area superintendents ($123,863). Remember, census

ing, managing a pool and selling athletic equipment. He said they “are having to leave just to make ends meet.”

WCPSS Employee Pay Averages* High School Secretary

$24, 975

Teacher

$46, 117

Technology Facilitator

$51, 578

Media Specialist

$53,262

Counselors

$53,299

Social Worker

$54,192

Administrator

$61,397

Assistant Principal

$62,071

Senior Administrator

$73,005

Principal

$92,267

Senior Director

$100,224

Area Superintendent

$123,863 *Assuming full-time employment

regularly engages in exercises that evaluate or rate teachers, such as a Teacher of the Year contest. The district has also said it is one of four school districts where 90 percent of the teachers met or exceeded academic growth standards. In other words, the district is quite able to measure teachers’ effectiveness – until it comes time to reward the best among them. In light of all this, how can Wake school officials plead for higher teacher pay and then decline raises when offered? WCPSS’s actions show an administration more concerned with trying to maintain organizational harmony than ensuring schools are staffed with highquality teachers who are rewarded for excellence and good teach-

Good News for Opportunity Scholarships BY bob luebke School choice supporters got some good news recently when the North Carolina Supreme Court stayed a judge’s injunction that prevented state officials from holding a lottery to move forward with awarding state-funded vouchers for low-income families who want their students to enroll in religious or private schools. In a press release, Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina President Darrell Allison said, “We commend the court for allowing the Opportunity Scholarship Program to proceed and listening to the true voices of this debate, the parentplaintiffs, who chose to stand up for their child’s fundamental right to a ‘sound, basic education’ and refused to be defined by their income level or ZIP code. These parents applied for this program, qualified for this program and now have the op-

portunity for their child to attend the participating private school of their choice this fall.” The ruling means that applicants can continue to be screened to determine who meets eligibility requirements. Schools can also continue to sign up for the program. However, a case that will decide whether the program should go forward on the merits is yet to be heard. Numerous legal experts remain confident that parents have a good chance of prevailing. The Opportunity Scholarship Program was approved by the General Assembly in 2013. The legislation provides vouchers of up to $4,200 to eligible lowincome families to allow a child to attend a school of their choice. The program allocates about 2,400 spaces. To date, about 5,500 applications have already been made to the program. 

Want to send a letter to the editor? Contact us at:

Civitas Institute 100 S. Harrington St. Raleigh, NC 27603 919.834.2099 james.tynen@nccivitas.org

figures say the per capita income in Wake County is $33,135. These incongruities were on full display last month when WCPSS administrators and teachers got together to complain about low salaries. Superintendent James Merrill was leading the discussion. His annual salary – not including benefits and perks – is $278,000. Doug Thilman, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, said “good teachers were having to make hard decisions to leave our classrooms for a better future somewhere else.” Thilman’s salary – $121,000 a year. Two teachers at this media event, Tracy and Britt Morgan, said they couldn’t afford to stay in North Carolina. Britt said they juggle extra jobs such as landscap-

Last year the Morgans’ combined salary from WCPSS was nearly $92,000. Remember, WCPSS’s rigid commitment to uniform pay raises does little to help the neediest teachers. Under the district’s proposal, an administrator will get the same percentage raise as a beginning teacher – and thus will get a bigger raise in dollar terms. At 3.5 percent, a teacher earning $36,000 would get $1,260. But on average a senior administrator would get $2,555, a principal $3,227, and an area superintendent $4,333. Does a district that supports and respects its teachers send such a message? WCPSS officials also oppose tenure legislation because they say it’s too difficult to judge teacher quality. Really? WCPSS

ing. This rigid egalitarianism shows the district is not willing to resolve the teacher pay problem in the fairest way possible: by providing incentives to those who do the most to help children succeed. The district’s policies reveal a district more concerned about the impacts of inequity than in recognizing and rewarding superior performance. This approach won’t fix the teacher pay problem or please teachers, students or taxpayers. Wake County residents should call on their school district to accept the teacher pay plan, then move on to ways to incentivize excellence and superior job performance. That would be the best way to support and reward those who work hard to truly help our children succeed. 

nccivitas.org

May 2014 Capitol Connection

Will Beasley Recuse Herself in Vote Cases? BY Hans Von Spakovsky Remarks made by an associate justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court at a Democratic Party fundraising dinner, as well as her membership in a

Dinner. Beasley was appointed to the Supreme Court in December 2012 by lame duck Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue. The justice is up for elec-

tion. She has apparently already made up her mind about this law. Her remarks imply strongly that she may believe the unproven claims of opponents that the law was designed to suppress minority voters. It is hard to draw any other conclusion from Justice Beasley’s claim that the law was designed to be confusing. Her statements at a Democratic Party dinner raise serious problems under the ethics rules that apply to judges. Although there is not yet a case before the state high court about the voter ID law, there is one on its way there. In August 2013, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute (an AFL-CIO affiliate) filed a state lawsuit claiming the voter ID law violates North Carolina’s constitution. While that case is currently in the Orange County Superior Court,

there is no question that the case will be appealed (no matter what the outcome is in the trial court) and will eventually end up before Justice Beasley. Under Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Judicial Conduct of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, a “judge should abstain from public comment about the merits of a pending proceeding in any state or federal court dealing with a case or controversy arising in North Carolina or addressing North Carolina law.” Further, under Canon 3C, a judge should disqualify herself “in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned.” Not only has Justice Beasley made statements casting doubts on her impartiality toward the voter ID law at issue in the state lawsuit, she is a member of an organization that has filed another lawsuit directly challenging the voter ID law. In August 2013, the North Carolina state

Life Member” of the NAACP from “1997 – present.” (In an odd discrepancy, her membership in the NAACP is not listed on her official biography at the North Carolina court website.) Thus, Justice Beasley is a member of an organization that has filed a federal lawsuit against the same voter ID that is also at issue in a state lawsuit that will reach her court on appeal. Even if she had not criticized the voter ID law at issue in North Carolina state and federal courts at a political fundraiser, she ought to recuse herself because of her continuing membership in the NAACP, which is a party in the federal lawsuit. Justice Beasley, who lectures other state judges on the rules of conduct at the New District Court Judges’ School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government, is surely aware of the Associate Supreme Court Justice Cheri Beasley requirements of the Code of private organization, raise seri- tion for a new term on Nov. 4 Judicial Conduct. Her stateous questions about her pos- of this year. ments and sible bias against the state’s new At the Democratic Party dinN A A C P voter ID law. Under applicable ner, according to the Carteret membership judicial ethics rules, she should County News-Times, Justice make it clear remove herself from the con- Beasley said that “a lot of folks that her “imtroversial litigation challenging are confused about [voter ID] partiality may the law before it reaches the and the confusion is by design.” reasonably be state Supreme Court. Justice Beasley seems to believe questioned.” –Justice Cheri Beasley On Saturday, March 22, before she has even reviewed any Accordingly, North Carolina Supreme of the facts or evidence presentshe should Court Associate Justice Cheri ed in the case that she knows chapter of the NAACP filed a announce her recusal from any Beasley spoke at the Cart- what the intent of the state legisfederal lawsuit in the Middle involvement in the pending eret County Jefferson Jackson lature was in passing this legislaDistrict of North Carolina state lawsuit over North Caroclaiming that lina’s voter ID law. the voter ID While it is true that the case law violates the is not yet directly before her, it Voting Rights is still pending before the trial Act and the court. Moreover, she is up for F o u r t e e n t h election for a new term on the Check the address label. If the word “subscriber” is not included on the and Fifteenth Supreme Court on Nov. 4. address label of this issue, you must subscribe to ensure you continue Amendments She has a moral obligation to to receive Civitas Capitol Connection each month. of the U.S. inform the public whether or Constitution. not she intends to comply with This case has the ethics rules governing state NA M E been consoli- judges in North Carolina. If dated with a she refuses to comply with the similar lawsuit rules and remove herself from A D D R ES S filed by Attor- this case, voters have a right to ney General know that before they enter the Eric Holder’s voting booth. C I T Y STAT E Z I P Justice DepartHans A. von Spakovsky is a ment, as well as senior legal fellow at The HeriPH O N E the League of tage Foundation (heritage.org). Women Voters. Along with John Fund, he is the Keep me up to date! Sign me up to receive: * Yet accord- co-author of “Who’s Counting? Civitas Weekly Newsletter Press Releases Poll Results Events & Training ing to Justice How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Beasley’s bi- Put Your Vote at Risk” (Encoun* E M AI L (required for items listed above) ography on ter, 2012) and the upcoming her campaign “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s website, she is Justice Department” (Broadside, Mail to: 100 S. Harrington St. Raleigh, NC 27603 | web: nccivitas.org/getnews | phone: 919.747.8052 a “Subscribing June 2014). 

FREE SUBSCRIPTION!

“ ... a lot of folks are confused about [voter ID] and the confusion is by design.”

Subscribe today...it’s FREE!

nccivitas.org

May 2014 Capitol Connection

McCrory Budget Focuses on Teacher Pay BY brian balfour North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory recently unveiled his recommended budget adjustments for the 2014-15 fiscal year. The governor’s plan would make changes to the second year of the two-year state budget plan passed last year. McCrory’s adjustments would result in a reduction of roughly $8.5 million to the state’s General Fund spending for FY 2014-15 compared with the total expenditures approved last year. The spending total of $20.99 billion is 1.7 percent (about $360 million) more than the amount budgeted for the current fiscal year. It is important to note, however, that the General Fund is just one component of total state expenditures. Other appropriations that make up the total state budget include transportation, the spending of federal receipts and other miscellaneous expenditures. Total state spending for FY 201415 comes to $51.3 billion. The most noteworthy budget change McCrory proposes is funding for the governor’s plan to increase teacher pay as well as provide a raise to all state employees. On average, state employees would expect a 2 percent salary increase under McCrory’s plan, with many non-teachers receiving a $1,000 increase in salary and benefits. Below are some of the most significant budget adjustments in the governor’s proposal:

Public Education Increase in total K-12 spending: McCrory’s plan

adds another $46 million to K-12 education spending compared with the appropriation approved last year, and would increase public education spending by $227 million over the current year’s allotment. Raise teacher pay: Base pay for teachers with up to seven years’ experience would be increased from $30,800 to $33,000 annually in the coming year. This refers to statepaid salary and excludes local supplements. For teachers with more than seven years of experience, the budget includes pay increases ranging from 2 to 4.3 percent. This measure is projected to cost $102 million next year. Other school personnel, such as principals and administrators, will also receive pay raises in the governor’s plan. Most personnel would receive a $1,000 increase. The cost for this is estimated at $59 million. Career Pathways for Teachers: This budget plan includes a framework for McCrory’s “Career Pathways for Teachers” initiative. The initiative includes supplemental pay for teachers teaching high-demand subjects, earning a master’s degree in the subject in which they teach, and taking leadership roles in their school. The cost next year of this initiative is estimated at $28 million, with $18.7 million of that devoted to the master’s degree salary supplement. No additional teacher assistants: School districts receive the same amount of funding for K-3 teacher assistants as they did last year, not

allowing for any growth in assistants. According to McCrory, “I believe that giving our current teachers and public school employees a pay increase is a higher priority than hiring additional assistants at this time.”

UNC System Management flexibility reduction: A 2 percent reduction relative to the UNC system appropriation approved last year is included in McCrory’s budget. This amounts to $44 million, and the governor’s budget suggests the savings be found through greater efficiencies and reduction of little-used or redundant programs. Reduction to centers and institutes: McCrory stated that he has “asked the Board of Governors to reduce spending on centers and institutes that are not essential for the awarding of degrees and the educational mission of the University.” The budget recommends a reduction of $13 million in funding to these non-essential centers, a 20 percent reduction. Scholarships for returning vets: $5 million of state lottery funds is set aside to establish a scholarship fund for out-of-state vets nearing the end of their service and planning to live in NC.

Community College Closing the “skills gap”: $16.8 million in additional funding to the Community College System is directed for higher cost courses and training workers in “high demand fields such as health sciences, engineering, con-

struction, manufacturing, transportation, chemical and biotechnology.” In-state tuition for vets: In-state tuition will be offered to military veterans hailing from out of state.

Natural and Economic Resources Energy exploration and production: McCrory’s budget increases funding for the Oil and Gas Regulatory and Mining and Energy Commission by 35 percent. Presumably, this additional funding has the intent to expedite the rulemaking and approval process for hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. Coal ash clean up: Funds for an additional 19 positions is provided in this proposal. The new positions would focus on inspection and enforcement of environmental regulations – largely in response to the Duke Energy coal ash spill. McCrory has also drafted a proposal to convert or close coal ash ponds in the state, a proposal that has been introduced as Senate Bill 729 to the legislature.

Health and Human Services Medicaid funding: Proposes a $50 million Medicaid Risk Reserve fund to set aside money in the event Medicaid expenditures once again exceed projections. State savings: McCrory claims to have “aggressively identified $40 million in federal funds and other receipts to finance existing health and human services.” Those funds combined with asking hospitals to contrib-

ute more to the current assessment program would replace nearly $75 million in state funding for Medicaid, according to the governor’s budget document. Medicaid reform: The governor’s budget plan would allocate $1 million to begin the implementation of his Medicaid reform initiative. The reform proposal will be submitted in separate legislation and is expected to be focused on the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) model McCrory has publicly supported in recent months. Critics have claimed the ACO model introduces unintended consequences and would not generate any noticeable savings. Increase funding for preK: North Carolina’s “NC PreK” (formerly More at Four) program would receive an additional $3.6 million.

Division of Motor Vehicles Customer service upgrades: Proposal includes funding for “substantial technology upgrades” at DMV offices, including self-service kiosks, tablet computers and additional call centers.

Set Asides $100 million to reserves: The governor’s budget would add $50 million each to the Repair & Renovations fund and Savings Reserve Account. These funds are in addition to the $50 million set aside in the Medicaid Risk Reserve mentioned above. Another $100 million is set aside as "unappropriated" to provide for unknown needs that may arise. 

Ominous Poll Figure for Sen. Hagan BY civitas staff Now that House Speaker Thom Tillis has triumphed in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate candidates, attention in the political world is turning to his face-off with Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan. In our April poll, we asked 600 likely NC voters, “Has Kay Hagan performed her job as U.S. Senator well enough to deserve re-election, or is it time to give someone new a chance to do a better job?” Thirty-eight percent of the voters said she should be re-elected; 51 percent said it was time to give another person a chance at the post. 

Has Kay Hagan performed her job as U.S. Senator well enough to deserve re-election, or is it time to give someone new a chance to do a better job?

38% Total Re-elect 26% Definitely

12% Probably

51% Total New Person 42% Definitely

9% Prob.

nccivitas.org

May 2014 Capitol Connection

Check Election Results, Prospects at a Glance BY susan myrick The 2014 Primary Election is over and only one legislative race remains undecided. In the N.C. House District 23 Democratic primary, where four candidates were vying for the open seat, no candidate received more than 40 percent of the total vote. As a result, the candidate in second place may request a second primary. (NCGS

163-111). News reports indicate the second-place finisher, R.B. “Rusty” Holderness, will challenge the top vote-getter in the May 6 voting, Shelly Willingham, in the second primary. Like many of the primary contests though, the election will be won when a clear winner is named in the second primary, because only Democrats filed for this seat.

Out of 50 seats in the state Senate, 21 have already been determined either in the Primary or at the time of candidate filing, leaving 29 contests for the General Election. In the state House, 63 contests will appear on the ballot with more than one candidate as a choice. Fifty-seven of the House’s 120 seats have already been decided.

The charts below provide an assortment of information on each of the legislative contests. They include the districts where election outcomes have already been decided and districts that will feature real contests – where there will be more than one candidate on the ballot. In the chart, we have added the names of all the candidates who will appear

on the General Election ballot and the percentage of the vote the 2012 winner garnered in order to win that election. In addition, we have included the Civitas Partisan Index (CPI) value of each district to help you better understand the district’s voting tendencies. The CPI compares votes cast in each N.C. legislative CONTINUED on page 8

2012 CPI 2012 Winner

2012 Party 2012 Vote % General Election Candidates

R+6

Bob Steinburg

56.3%

Steinburg (Rep) - Garry W Meiggs (Dem)

D+0

W A (Winkie) Wilkins (did not seek re-election) D

56.7%

Ray Jeffers (Dem) - Larry Yarborough (Rep)

R+8

Michael Speciale

59.2%

Speciale (Rep) - Whit Whitley (Dem)

R+11

Jimmy Dixon

65.0%

Dixon (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+21

Annie Ward Mobley (LOST)

100.0%

Howard Hunter (Dem) - Sidney Pierce (Rep)

R+4

Paul Tine

50.6%

Tine (Dem) - Mattie Lawson (Rep)

D+15

Bobbie Richardson (replaced Angela R Bryant)

100.0%

Richardson (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+1

Susan Martin

57.2%

Martin (Rep) - Bobi Gregory (Dem)

R+4

Brian Brown

51.5%

Brown B (Rep) - Uriah Ward (Dem)

R+12

John Bell

66.6%

Bell J (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+12

Duane Hall

100.0%

Hall D (Dem) - Ray Martin (Rep)

D+10

George Graham

65.8%

Graham G (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+16

Patricia (Pat) McElraft

88.3%

McElraft (Rep) - Jim Nolan (Dem)

R+8

George G Cleveland

100.0%

Cleveland (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+12

Phillip Shepard

100.0%

Shepard (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+11

Chris Millis

100.0%

Millis (Rep) - Steve Unger (Dem)

R+12

Frank Iler

66.2%

Iler (Rep) - Charles Warren (Dem)

D+12

Susi Hamilton

66.5%

Hamilton (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+9

Ted Davis Jr

60.3%

Davis (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+10

Rick Catlin

64.1%

Catlin (Rep) - Betsy Jordan (Dem)

D+18

Larry M Bell

100.0%

Bell L (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+1

William Brisson

100.0%

Brisson (Dem) - Ken Smith (Rep)

D+18

Joe Tolson (did not seek re-election)

100.0%

No clear primary winner as of press time

D+26

Jean Farmer-Butterfield

100.0%

Farmer-Butterfield (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+7

Jeffrey L (Jeff) Collins

63.3%

Collins (Rep) - Joe Hester (Dem)

R+8

Leo Daughtry

59.7%

Daughtry (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+20

Michael H Wray

90.9%

Wray (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+12

James H (JH) Langdon Jr

100.0%

Langdon (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+34

Larry D Hall

100.0%

Hall L (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+21

Paul Luebke

100.0%

Luebke (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+32

H M (Mickey) Michaux Jr

100.0%

Michaux (Dem) - Todd Conrad (Rep)

D+19

Nathan Baskerville

70.8%

Baskerville (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+30

Rosa U Gill

100.0%

Gill (Dem) - Perry Whitlock (Rep)

D+14

Grier Martin (replaced Deborah K Ross)

97.4%

Martin (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+4

Chris Malone

50.8%

Malone (Rep) - Brian Mountcastle (Dem)

R+4

Nelson Dollar

55.0%

Dollar (Rep) - Lisa Baker (Dem)

R+6

Paul Stam

57.0%

Stam (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+28

Yvonne Lewis Holley

87.7%

Holley (Dem) - Joe Thompson (Rep)

D+9

Darren Jackson

100.0%

Jackson (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+3

Marilyn Avila

53.9%

Avila (Rep) - Margaret E Broadwell (Dem)

R+0

Tom Murry

51.8%

Murry (Rep) - Gale Adcock (Dem)

D+23

Marvin W Lucas

77.5%

Lucas (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+19

Elmer Floyd

69.6%

Floyd (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+5

Rick Glazier

56.3%

Glazier (Dem) - Richard Button (Rep)

R+3

John Szoka

56.4%

Szoka (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+4

Ken Waddell

54.1%

Waddell (Dem) - Brenden Jones (Rep)

D+19

Charles Graham

100.0%

Graham C (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+22

Garland E Pierce

100.0%

Pierce (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+1

Jim Fulghum (did not seek re-election)

54.0%

Gary Pendleton (Rep) - Kim Hanchette (Dem)

D+8

Graig R. Meyer (replaced Valerie Foushee)

55.0%

Meyer (Dem) - Rod Chaney (Rep)

R+5

Michael (Mike) Stone

52.0%

Stone (Rep) - Brad Salmon (Dem)

R+12

James L (Jamie) Boles Jr

100.0%

Boles (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

nccivitas.org

May 2014 Capitol Connection 53

R+5

David Lewis

56.5%

Lewis (Rep) - Susan Byerly (Dem)

D+5

Deb McManus (did not seek re-election)

56.1%

Robert T Reives (Dem) Andy Wilkie (Rep)

R+7

Mark Brody

56.6%

Brody (Rep) - Kim Hargett (Dem)

D+26

Verla C Insko

77.4%

Insko (Dem) - David Pratt Carter (Rep)

D+23

Mary Price (Pricey) Harrison

100.0%

Harrison (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+27

Alma Adams (did not seek re-election)

79.9%

Winner - Ralph Johnson (Dem)

R+9

Jon Hardister

100.0%

Hardister (Rep) - Scott Jones (Dem) - Paul Meinhart (Lib)

D+28

Marcus Brandon (did not seek re-election)

100.0%

Winner - Cecil Brockman (Dem)

R+8

John Faircloth

63.8%

Faircloth (Rep) - Ron Weatherford (Dem)

R+8

John M Blust

76.3%

Blust (Rep) - Sal Leone (Dem)

R+5

Stephen M Ross

56.7%

Ross (Rep) - Ian Baltutis (Dem)

R+7

Dennis Riddell

59.0%

Riddell (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+7

Bert Jones

59.5%

Jones (Rep) - Elretha Perkins (Dem)

D+7

Ken Goodman

100.0%

Goodman (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+14

Justin P Burr

62.6%

Burr (Rep) - Nalin Mehta (Dem)

R+15

Craig Horn

65.2%

Horn (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+13

Dean Arp

100.0%

Arp (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+22

Pat B Hurley

100.0%

Hurley (Rep) - Wesley Fennnell (Dem)

D+22

Evelyn Terry

77.9%

Terry (Dem) - Kris McCann (Rep)

D+21

Edward (Ed) Hanes Jr

74.4%

Hanes (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+21

Mark W Hollo (did not seek re-election)

71.4%

Winner - Lee Zachary

R+10

Debra Conrad

64.4%

Conrad (Rep) - Mary Dickinson (Dem)

R+8

Donny C Lambeth

100.0%

Lambeth (Rep) - David Gordon (Dem)

R+15

Carl Ford

100.0%

Ford (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+11

Harry Warren

61.8%

Warren (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+23

Allen Ray McNeill

75.0%

McNeill (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+16

Julia Craven Howard

70.1%

Howard (Rep) - Cristina Vazquez (Dem)

R+22

Roger Younts (replaced Jerry C Dockham) (LOST) R

68.6%

Winner - Sam Watford (Rep)

R+15

Rayne Brown

100.0%

Brown R (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+8

Larry G Pittman

100.0%

Pittman (Rep) - Earle H Schecter (Dem)

R+8

Linda P Johnson

63.2%

Johnson (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+13

Rena W Turner

65.3%

Turner (Rep) - Gene Mahaffey (Dem)

R+18

Josh Dobson (replaced Mitch Gillespie)

68.5%

Dobson (Rep) - J R Edwards (Dem)

R+9

Hugh Blackwell

60.8%

Blackwell (Rep) - Jim Cates (Dem)

R+16

Edgar V Starnes

100.0%

Starnes (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+6

Rob Bryan

54.9%

Bryan (Rep) - Margie Storch (Dem)

R+16

Mitchell Smith Setzer

100.0%

Setzer (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+15

Sarah Stevens

100.0%

Stevens (Rep) - John Wiles (Dem)

R+11

Bryan Holloway

61.0%

Holloway (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+1

Charles Jeter

51.4%

Jeter (Rep) - Robin Bradford (Dem)

R+5

Jonathan C Jordan

51.5%

Jordan (Rep) - Sue Counts (Dem)

R+17

Jeffrey Elmore

100.0%

Elmore (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+16

C Robert Brawley (LOST)

94.8%

Winner - John Fraley (Rep)

R+13

Andy Wells (did not seek re-election)

62.5%

Jay Adams (Rep) Cliff Moone (Dem)

R+18

Jason R Saine

100.0%

Saine (Rep) - Rosemary B Hubbard (Dem)

R+9

Thom Tillis (did not seek re-election)

100.0%

John Bradford (Rep) Natasha Marcus (Dem)

D+30

Rodney W Moore

100.0%

Moore (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

100

D+22

Tricia Cotham

100.0%

Cotham (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

101

D+24

Beverly Miller Earle

100.0%

Earle (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

102

D+32

Becky Carney

100.0%

Carney (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

103

R+7

Bill Brawley

100.0%

Brawley W (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

104

R+8

Ruth Samuelson (did not seek re-election)

100.0%

Dan Bishop (Rep) Eric Cable (Lib)

105

R+10

Jacqueline Schaffer

100.0%

Schaffer (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

106

D+34

Carla Cunningham

100.0%

Cunningham (Dem) - Trey Lowe (Rep)

107

D+29

Kelly Alexander

100.0%

Alexander (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

108

R+11

John A Torbett

100.0%

Torbett (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

109

R+8

Dana Bumgardner

59.2%

Bumgardner (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

110

R+11

Kelly E Hastings

63.8%

Hastings (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

111

R+9

Tim Moore

100.0%

Moore (Rep) - Nick Carpenter (Dem)

112

R+11

Mike Hager

61.9%

Hager (Rep) - Lisa Bralley (Dem)

113

R+11

Chris Whitmire

63.0%

Whitmire (Rep) - Norm Bossert (Dem)

114

D+24

Susan C Fisher

100.0%

Fisher (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

115

R+1

Nathan Ramsey

54.3%

Ramsey (Rep) - John Ager (Dem)

116

R+5

Tim Moffitt

56.3%

Moffitt (Rep) - Brian Turner (Dem)

117

R+13

Chuck McGrady

100.0%

McGrady (Rep) - Shelby Mood (Lib)

118

R+5

Michele D Presnell

51.3%

Presnell (Rep) - Dean Hicks (Dem)

119

D+1

Joe Sam Queen

51.7%

Queen (Dem) - Mike Clampitt (Rep)

120

R+14

Roger West

100.0%

West (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

nccivitas.org

May 2014 Capitol Connection

Check Election Results, Prospects at a Glance SD

2012 CPI 2012 Winner

2012 Party 2012 Vote % General Election Candidates

R+3

Bill Cook

50.0%

Cook (Rep) - Stan White (Dem)

R+12

Norman Sanderson

63.1%

Sanderson (Rep) - Carroll G. (Carr) Ipock II (Dem)

D+18

Clark Jenkins (LOST)

100.0%

Winner - Erica Smith-Ingram (Dem)

D+20

Angela Bryant (replaced Ed Jones)

72.3%

Bryant (Dem) - James Richard Scott (Rep)

D+15

Don Davis

100.0%

Davis D (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+10

Harry Brown

100.0%

Brown (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+10

Louis Pate

100.0%

Pate (Rep) - Erik Steven Anderson (Dem)

R+6

Bill Rabon

60.0%

Rabon (Rep) - Ernie Ward (Dem)

R+4

Thom Goolsby (did not seek re-election)

54.2%

Michael Lee (Rep) - Elizabeth Redenbaugh (Dem)

R+6

Brent Jackson

100.0%

Jackson (Rep) - Donald Rains (Dem)

R+6

Buck Newton

60.8%

Newton (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+6

Ronald Rabin

51.0%

Rabin (Rep) - Joe Langley (Dem)

D+14

Michael Walters (did not seek re-election)

72.6%

Jane W Smith (Dem) - Bernard White (Rep)

D+27

Dan Blue

100.0%

Blue (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+2

Neal Hunt (did not seek re-election)

55.8%

Jim Fulghum (Rep) - Tom Bradshaw (Dem)

D+12

Josh Stein

100.0%

Stein (Dem) - Molotov Mitchell (Rep)

R+3

Tamara Barringer

53.7%

Barringer (Rep) - Bryan Fulghum (Dem)

R+1

Chad Barefoot

55.9%

Barefoot (Rep) - Sarah Crawford (Dem)

D+3

Wesley Meredith

53.9%

Meredith (Rep) - Billy Richardson (Dem)

D+26

Floyd B McKissick Jr

100.0%

McKissick (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+20

Robert B Clark III

100.0%

Clark (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

D+14

Mike Woodard

65.4%

Woodard (Dem) - Milton Holmes (Rep)

D+15

Valerie Foushee (replaced Ellie Kinnaird)

67.0%

Foushee (Dem) - Mary Lopez-Carter (Rep)

R+9

Rick Gunn

79.0%

Gunn (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+3

Gene McLaurin

53.0%

McLaurin (Dem) - Tom McInnis (Rep) - Prentice Harold Dawkins (Lib)

R+9

Philip E (Phil) Berger

61.1%

Berger (Rep) - William Osborne (Dem)

R+5

Trudy Wade

57.6%

Wade (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+32

Gladys A Robinson

100.0%

Robinson (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+18

Jerry W Tillman

100.0%

Tillman (Rep) - Tommy Davis (Dem)

R+17

Shirley Randleman (replaced Don East)

64.3%

Randleman (Rep) - Eva Ingle (Dem)

R+13

Joyce Krawiec (replaced Pete Brunstetter)

69.0%

Joyce Krawiec (Rep) - John Motsinger (Dem)

D+19

Earline W Parmon

73.0%

Parmon (Dem) - Winner - Incumbent

R+17

Stan Bingham

100.0%

Bingham (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+14

Andrew C Brock

100.0%

Brock (Rep) - Connie Johnson (Dem)

R+15

Tommy Tucker

100.0%

Tucker (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+11

Fletcher L Hartsell Jr

100.0%

Hartsell (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+13

Daniel (Dan) Clodfelter

67.0%

Winner - Jeff Jackson (appointed)

D+26

Joel Ford

80.2%

Ford (Dem) - Richard Rivette (Rep)

R+11

Robert (Bob) Rucho

61.6%

Rucho (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

D+30

Malcolm Graham (did not seek re-election)

84.1%

Winner - Joyce Waddell (Dem)

R+8

Jeff Tarte

100.0%

Tarte (Rep) - Latrice McRae (Dem)

R+16

Austin Allran (did not seek re-election)

64.5%

Winner - Andy Wells (Rep)

R+12

Kathy Harrington

100.0%

Harrington (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+15

David Curtis

65.9%

Curtis (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+12

Dan Soucek

60.7%

Soucek (Rep) - Jim Sponenberg (Dem)

R+8

Warren Daniel

56.0%

Daniel (Rep) - Emily B Church (Dem)

R+10

Ralph Hise

56.5%

Hise (Rep) - Winner - Incumbent

R+10

Tom Apodaca

100.0%

Apodaca (Rep) - Rick Wood (Dem)

D+9

Martin L Nesbitt

62.0%

Terry Van Duyn (Dem-appointed) - Mark Crawford (Rep)

R+8

Jim Davis

57.1%

Davis J (Rep) - Jane Hipps (Dem)

CONTINUED from page 6

district with votes cast in the state as a whole. The end result is a letter (D or R) followed by a number, indicating the extent to which each district leans one way or the other. For example, a district whose voters allotted 5 more percentage points to the Democratic candidates compared with the state average receives an index score of D+5. While it does not predict elections, the CPI reveals which counties lean Republican or Democratic, plus illuminating larger trends.

nccivitas.org

In 2010, Republicans made history by winning majorities in both chambers. In 2012, they solidified their power by gaining veto-proof majorities in both houses. The stage is now set for 2014: Will Democrats overcome the odds and move back to the power they lost after more than 100 years of dominance, or will Republicans hold on and continue to make changes to the way North Carolina operates? Time will tell, but the information here may help us make sense of the electionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final outcomes. ď Ž

The vision of the Civitas Institute is of a North Carolina whose citizens enjoy liberty and prosperity derived from limited government, personal responsibility and civic engagement. The mission of the Civitas Institute is to facilitate the implementation of conservative policy solutions to improve the lives of all North Carolinians. Towards that end, Civitas provides research, information and training to: - empower citizens to become better civic leaders and more informed voters - educate emerging public leaders, enabling them to be more effective in the democratic process - inform elected officials about citizen-based, free-market solutions to problems facing North Carolinians

Election Changes May Haunt Judge BY francis de luca This year’s race for the state Supreme Court is highlighting how changes in judicial elections may come back to bite the Democratic Party and the high court justice who once benefited from the changes. Having survived the primary, Justice Robin Hudson will face Eric Levinson in the fall general election. But if she is unseated then, it might be because of the unintended consequences of nonpartisan elections and taxpayer funding of judicial campaigns – in addition to her own troubling ruling about the rights of child molesters. To understand, let’s flash back to 2006, the first year changes in the judicial elections had a real effect. Hudson was seeking a North Carolina Supreme Court seat against Anne Marie Calabria. At the time Calabria had more judicial experience than Hudson. In this supposedly nonpartisan election, Hudson was the Democrat and Calabria the Republican. (Levinson is the Republican in this fall’s election.) Less than two weeks before Election Day, however, a Sec. 527 group named fairjudges. net (in large part funded by the NC Democratic Party (NCDP) and headed by someone who had recently been the executive director of the NCDP, Democratic elected officials, and unions spent over a quarter million dollars, including TV advertising, in support of four candidates for the NC Supreme Court. All four candidates won, including Hudson. She won by a margin of less than 21,000 votes out of almost 1.6 million cast after be-

ing helped by this and other independent efforts. Today’s Democrats are quick to complain about “outside money,” but it seems obvious

duction of “voter-owned elections” legislation covering the state’s two appellate courts. This legislation severely limited the amount of money a

those) they did cause two unintended problems: 1. They effectively disenfranchised lots of voters by reducing the percentage of people

Left: State Supreme Court Associate Justice Robin Hudson, a Democrat, will face Eric Levinson, a Republican, in the fall General Election. Below: the North Carolina Justice Building in Raleigh.

that outside funding helped push Hudson’s campaign over the top. And that isn’t all: It was Democrats who set up that scenario in the first place. The roots of the problem go back to the late 1990s and early 2000s. Democratic leaders were alarmed at the number of Republican lawyers winning judicial seats. Democrats successfully worked to remove partisan labels in an effort to remove the perceived advantage GOP judicial candidates had. In conjunction with the election change was the intro-

judicial candidate could raise from individuals, while giving candidates access to taxpayer money to finance campaigns. The idea’s proponents talked in generalities of the possibility of corruption but were unable to point to a single case in North Carolina where a judicial decision or judge, at any level, had been alleged with or charged with corruption. While those changes have had no appreciable impact on making the judiciary more ethical or scandal-free (they already were both of

Pass the torch Donate If you like Capitol Connection, please consider making a donation to help fund the newspaper. Every dollar you contribute will help us send our conservative message out via Capitol Connection to readers across North Carolina. All contributions are tax deductible. Mail to: 100 S. Harrington St. Raleigh, NC 27603 web: nccivitas.org/donate | phone: 919.834.2099

voting in statewide (and lower) judicial races by between 25 and 35 percent, depending on the race and year, and … 2. They effectively gave outside groups more leverage in judicial elections by reducing the role of political parties, party primaries and individual contributions. These “reforms” opened the tap for candidates to access taxpayer money to oppose candidates with more popular support in the form of contributions, supporters or the ability to self-fund a campaign. In this year’s state Supreme Court primary, several in-

May 2014 Capitol Connection

dependent expenditure (IE) groups weighed in. One was “Justice for All NC,” which questioned Hudson on a dissent she authored to a Supreme Court decision in 2010 on whether convicted child molesters could be ordered to wear electronic ankle monitors. She argued that child molesters and child rapists were being deprived of their rights and subject to “ex post facto” punishment as a result of a 2006 NC law being implemented. She argued against both the legal rationale and the efficacy of satellite-based monitoring of adults who sexually assaulted children. This is exactly the type of philosophical discussion that should be going on in our judicial elections. For the wide majority of North Carolinians, protecting children from sexual predators is a worthy goal. If it includes making convicted predators wear an ankle monitor and a transmitter, most voters will think: So be it. I would think that most judges and lawyers would prefer this inconvenience to having these folks get the death penalty, which is what a Civitas Poll showed 65 percent of NC voters thought was an appropriate punishment for “raping a child.” And this discussion also underscores the benefit of money in political campaigns. Because of political funding, issues get aired, voters get educated and turnout goes up. Indeed, that’s exactly what the original election changes tried to suppress: More people understanding the issues and where candidates stood on those issues – and ultimately more people casting an informed vote. 

Yes, I’d like to support Capitol Connection! My check made payable to the Civitas Institute is enclosed Please charge my:

American Express

Master Card

Discover

Visa

Name _________________________________________________________________ Address ________________________________________________________________ City ______________________________ State _________ Zip ________________ Phone ____________________________ Email _______________________________ Card No. ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Amount: $____________ Expiration: ___ ___ / ___ ___ CVV: __________ Signature: ______________________________________________________

nccivitas.org

May 2014 Capitol Connection

Tar Heel Voters Send Message to Beltway BY francis de luca In a race that saw big outside money spent by “independent groups,” the Washington establishment suffered a defeat. I am not talking about the GOP primary for the U.S. Senate race to face Sen. Kay Hagan, which, by the end, was not really competitive; I am talking about the 3rd Congressional District in eastern North Carolina. The incumbent, Rep. Walter Jones Jr., defeated challenger Taylor Griffin in a race that saw Griffin’s D.C. and New York allies independently spend more than a million dollars to defeat Jones. This does not count the money Griffin was able to raise for his campaign from the same well-connected crowd of insiders, enabling him to out-raise Jones in the final reporting period. By the way, a million dollars goes a long way in the Eastern North Carolina media market. Proportionally, more money was spent in the 3rd District primary than was spent on the U.S. Senate primary when compared with candidate spending. The disparity is even greater when you factor in the cost of the 3rd District media market versus the cost of statewide media buys. This is not an indictment of independent expenditures or of more money in campaigns. In fact, campaign spending of all types is good – it drives turnout. In

the 3rd District, the turnout was up over 60 percent from the primary in 2010. That meant voters learned more about both candidates, and

Rep. Walter Jones Jr.

they preferred the incumbent to the Washington insider. Why did this race attract such big money in a primary? Walter Jones is a 20-year incumbent, first getting elected to Congress in 1994 after having served multiple terms in the state legislature. Jones has had a record that can best be described as independent. He is solidly conservative on social issues and has opposed increasing the debt limit and the bailouts Congress passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. What appears to be his biggest flaw to his colleagues in D.C. (but not his voters) was

his falling out with the House leadership. This resulted in his being removed from his seat on the Financial Services Committee. He was one of several GOP members removed from committee assignments immediately after the 2012 elections. These members were generally seen as too independent and willing to vote against the wishes of leadership. Others targeted by the GOP leadership included Reps. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) and Justin Amash (R-MI). (Primaries in those states are set for later in the year.) The 2014 campaign against Jones looks like an attempt to send a message to other potential House GOP renegades that the leadership and D.C. establishment could and would come after them – and beat them. There also may have been some score-settling left over from Jones’ position shift in support of the war in Iraq to a vocal critic, even calling for the impeachment of President Bush. (As an aside, Jones was the congressman who proposed

renaming French fries “Free- charge things would be better. dom Fries” over the French If Taylor Griffin was able to refusal to support our efforts in return to NC, successfully run Iraq.) In trying and failing to for office, and return to the unseat Jones, Republican lead- capital as an elected congressers may have hurt themselves man, then that validated their by showing both spitefulness opinions of their own importance – because he is them. and weakness. So now we can look ahead The other interesting story in this election battle was the and see a landscape a little fascination of the media and more dangerous for the GOP lobbyists in D.C. with this leadership in the U.S. House. race. This probably is a direct Do they try and force their result of Griffin’s having oper- members to do things they ated in the bureaucratic, me- don’t want to do? Cut deals dia and communications cir- with the president on immicles in D.C. He worked in the gration, spending and debt? George W. Bush White House Pass more crony-capitalism and the Treasury Department, legislation advancing the speand even formed his own cial interest of big businesses communications and lobbying and banks? The election makes firm in D.C. Griffin hailed his it much less likely that they roots in the Old North State, will be able to force their will but that wasn’t enough, ap- on individual members. Walparently, to erase the taint of ter Jones was in a uniquely his deep connections with the vulnerable position that gave a campaign like Griffin’s a Washington Beltway. For the reporters and politi- good chance to succeed – but cos in D.C., his running and it didn’t. There is a saying that if their belief that he was going to win was a validation of their you mean to shoot someone, own worth and wisdom. Folks make sure you kill them. In who make and report the news this case Walter Jones is very in Washington, D.C., have a alive and dangerous. The fact worldview which includes the that the party fat cats failed belief they truly are the best means independent members and brightest. Most of them of the Republican caucus will think they are far smarter than be emboldened to resist. For the folks that get elected to of- the country that is probably a fice and that if they were in good thing.  Rush Limbaugh quoted this article extensively in his Thursday, May 8 program.

Poll Uncovers Vote Fraud Concerns BY francis de luca The April Civitas Poll revealed North Carolina voters agree vote fraud is a problem – if they are informed about the latest news on the issue. The poll had a margin of error of plus/minus 4 percent, and asked 600 likely NC voters on April 19, 21 and 22 if they thought voter fraud was a problem here. Fortynine percent agreed it was, and 39 percent disagreed – a 10-point margin. But when asked if they had seen any news about voter fraud, 57 percent said they had not, 42 percent said they had. Respondents were then asked: “The North Carolina State Board of Elections recently reported to a legislative elections committee that

nccivitas.org

35,000 North Carolina voters who voted in the 2012 General Election were identified as matching, by name and date of birth, a voter in another state who voted in the same election. An additional 765 matched the last 4 digits of their Social Security number in addition to all other matched information. With that in mind, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Election fraud is a problem in North Carolina?” The number agreeing there is election fraud jumped to 58 percent, with 36 percent disagreeing. The margin more than doubled to 22 points. The first point is that this news about voter fraud is only slowly percolating out into

the public’s consciousness. The second point is that once people are aware of the recent news about voter fraud, they

quickly grasp the significance of the findings. Opponents of election reform pooh-pooh the chances of

tampering with the polls. But voters, if informed of the facts, are clearly concerned about the integrity of their ballots. 

The North Carolina State Board of Elections recently reported to a legislative elections committee that 35,000 North Carolina voters who voted in the 2012 General Election were identified as matching, by name and date of birth, a voter in another state who voted in the same election. An additional 765 matched the last 4 digits of their Social Security number in addition to all other matched information.

With that in mind, do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “Election fraud is a problem in North Carolina?”

58% Total Agree

36% Total Disagree

May 2014 Capitol Connection

Unemployment Update

NC Jobless Rate Keeps Falling

County

10-08 1-13

3-14

County

10-08 1-13

3-14

6.4

Johnston

6.1

8.9

5.8

Alamance

7.1

Alexander

7.9

10.2

Jones

6.8

10.7

7.9

Alleghany

6.6

12.6

8.5

Lee

8.2

12.7

8.2

Anson

9.5

12.8

7.3

Lenoir

7.8

10.8

7.3

Ashe

6.3

13.8

8.7

Lincoln

7.2

10.8

6.5

Avery

5.6

13.7

8.1

Macon

5.3

13.3

7.5

Beaufort

7.3

11.8

7.8

Madison

5.7

10.1

5.7

Bertie

7.5

13.5

9.3

Martin

6.9

7.6

Bladen

8.1

13.6

9.6

Mcdowell

8.1

11.9

7.3

Brunswick

6.9

12.2

7.3

Mecklenburg

6.6

9.7

6.5

Buncombe

5.1

8.1

Mitchell

7.7

15.5

8.3

Burke

8.6

11.6

Montgomery

8.3

11.1

7.1

Cabarrus

6.4

9.4

5.8

Moore

6.4

10.1

6.3

Caldwell

8.3

7.4

Nash

8.6

12.7

8.7

Camden

5.4

9.4

6.9

New Hanover

5.4

10.4

6.2

Carteret

10.6

6.6

Northampton

7.7

12.1

8.6

Caswell

8.2

10.4

6.9

Onslow

5.8

9.6

6.8

Catawba

7.9

11.6

7.1

Orange

4.2

6.6

4.6

Chatham

5.5

7.5

4.6

Pamlico

5.7

11.2

7.8

Cherokee

8.7

14.1

8.6

Pasquotank

6.4

12.4

9.4

Chowan

8.5

11.3

8.2

Pender

6.4

11.5

7.7

10.6

6.5

Perquimans

6.7

11.1

7.6

Cleveland

8.5

11.3

6.9

Person

7.3

11.1

6.9

Columbus

8.1

13.8

8.6

Pitt

9.9

6.4

Craven

6.2

10.8

7.7

Polk

8.2

4.8

Cumberland

6.8

7.6

Randolph

6.7

11.1

6.3

Currituck

3.6

10.5

6.6

Richmond

9.5

13.6

8.7

Dare

4.2

20.1

11.1

Robeson

8.1

13.9

9.3

Davidson

7.4

10.7

6.8

Rockingham

7.9

11.7

8.3

Davie

6.9

9.3

6.1

Rowan

7.2

10.3

6.7

Duplin

5.9

10.6

7.3

Rutherford

8.7

14.7

8.9

Durham

5.4

7.9

5.2

Sampson

5.4

6.4

Edgecombe

11.4

16.6

10.8

Scotland

11.7

17.8

12.2

Forsyth

6.3

9.4

6.2

Stanly

10.1

Franklin

6.7

9.6

Stokes

6.1

9.0%

Gaston

7.7

11.1

6.6

Surry

8.3

11.1

Gates

5.2

8.3

Swain

5.5

10.5

8.5%

Graham

8.2

20.4

12.7

Transylvania

11.5

7.1

Granville

10.3

6.9

Tyrrell

8.6

BY SUSAN MYRICK According to the North Carolina Division of Employment Security, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 6.3 percent in March. The rate is down 0.1 percentage point from February’s revised rate of 6.4 percent and 2.2 percentage points lower when compared with March of last year. The number of North Carolinians employed increased in March by 10,277, and the number of people unemployed decreased by 2,412. In March, North Carolina’s not seasonally adjusted unemployment rates decreased in 59 counties, increased in 23 and remained the same in the remaining 18 counties. At 4.6 percent, Chatham County had the lowest unemployment rate, while Graham County had the highest unemployment rate at 12.7 percent. Of the state’s 14 metro areas, five saw unemployment rate decreases, six remained the same and three areas experienced rate increases. Rocky Mount had the state’s highest metro area rate at 9.4 percent, and the Durham-Chapel Hill area had the lowest at 5.1 percent. According to the Division of Employment Security’s report, the unemployment rates decreased in all 100 counties when compared with the same month last year and all metro areas experienced rate decreases over the year also. North Carolina, as a state, can no longer lay claim to having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. While we have more work to do before we approach an unemployment rate of 2.6 percent like North Dakota’s, we have moved far away from the four states with the highest rates of unemployment: California (8.1%), Illinois (8.4%), Nevada (8.5%) and Rhode Island (8.7%) 

North Carolina Unemployment (2013 -‐ 2014) North Carolina Unemployment (2013 -‐ 2014) 10.0%

9.5%

Unemployment Reform Implemented in NC

8.0%

7.5%

7.0%

6.5%

6.0%

Jan-‐13 Feb-‐13 Mar-‐13 Apr-‐13 May-‐13 Jun-‐13 Jul-‐13 Aug-‐13 Sep-‐13 Oct-‐13 Nov-‐13 Dec-‐13 Jan-‐14 Feb-‐14 Mar-‐14 United States

North Carolina

Alleghany 8.50

Clay

Greene

9.8

7.3

Union

8.6

5.7

Guilford

6.7

10.3

6.7

Vance

9.8

13.8

9.1

Halifax

9.7

14.7

9.8

Wake

7.8

5.1

Harnett

7.1

11.5

7.4

Warren

9.7

12.9

8.8

Haywood

5.7

10.2

5.9

Washington

7.2

13.5

7.8

Henderson

5.1

7.9

5.1

Watauga

4.1

9.5

6.5

Hertford

6.6

11.5

7.9

Wayne

6.3

9.8

6.6

Hoke

6.3

9.7

6.6

Wilkes

8.2

11.7

7.6

Hyde

4.6

15.7

Wilson

7.9

Iredell

6.5

10.4

6.3

Yadkin

6.1

10.1

5.5

Jackson

4.3

11.3

6.4

Yancey

7.2

13.8

7.5

Gates Camden Currituck Vance Northampton Stokes Rockingham Caswell Person 6.90 Hertford 7.00 9.10 Warren 8.60 6.60 6.00 8.80 8.30 6.90 6.90 Granville 7.90 Watauga Halifax Perquimans Wilkes 6.90 6.50 9.80 7.60 Pasquotank 7.60 Yadkin Forsyth Guilford Orange 9.40 Franklin 5.50 Bertie Chowan Mitchell Avery 6.20 6.70 4.60 Durham Nash 8.20 6.00 9.30 8.30 8.10 Caldwell Alamance Tyrrell 8.70 Davie 5.20 Madison Yancey Edgecombe 7.40 Alexander 6.40 8.60 6.10 Martin 6.00 7.50 5.70 10.80 Washington Davidson Wake Feb-‐13 Mar-‐13 Apr-‐13 May-‐13 Jun-‐13 Jul-‐13 Aug-‐13 Burke Sep-‐13 Oct-‐13 Iredell Nov-‐13 Dec-‐13 Jan-‐14 Feb-‐14 Mar-‐14 7.60 Randolph Dare 6.30 7.80 Chatham 6.80 Wilson 5.10 6.30 Catawba McDowell 7.00 11.10 Rowan 4.60 Buncombe 9.00 Haywood 7.10 Pitt 6.70 States 7.30 North Carolina 5.90United 5.00 Beaufort Johnston Hyde Swain Lincoln Greene 6.40 Lee 7.80 Graham 10.50 5.80 11.00 Rutherford Cabarrus 6.50 7.30 Moore Henderson 8.20 Harnett 12.70 Wayne Jackson 8.90 5.80 Stanly Polk Gaston 6.30 5.10 7.40 6.60 Montgomery Cleveland 6.40 Lenoir 4.80 Cherokee 6.00 Craven 6.60 Macon 7.10 Transylvania 6.90 Mecklenburg 7.30 Clay 8.60 7.70 7.50 Pamlico 7.10 6.50 6.50 Union Jones 7.80 Sampson Hoke Richmond Duplin 5.70 Anson Cumberland 6.40 7.90 6.60 N.C. Counties 8.70 7.30 7.30 7.60 Scotland Carteret March 2014 Unemployment 12.20 6.60 Onslow 4.6 - 5.8 Bladen 6.80 Robeson Pender 9.60 9.30 5.9 - 6.9 7.70 Ashe 8.70

Jan-‐13

2008-2014 Unemployment Rate Comparison

Surry 7.00

7.0 - 8.1 8.2 - 9.8 10.5 - 12.7

*Data is from the North Carolina Department of Commerce Labor and Analysis Division

Columbus 8.60

New Hanover 6.20

Brunswick 7.30

nccivitas.org

May 2014 Capitol Connection

Scandal BY brian balfour The Raleigh News & Observer (N&O) and their progressive allies have been going to great lengths to make hay over the recently reported projections of a $455 million shortfall of state budget revenue this fiscal year. Their goal is to sound alarm bells about a coming “budget disaster” that will impoverish school teachers and blame the whole situation on last year’s historic tax reform. But why is the newspaper making such a fuss this year, when many recent state budgets missed their revenue targets by larger amounts? First, however, it is important to understand what is meant by a state revenue “shortfall.” When state budget analysts speak of a “revenue shortfall” or “surplus” what is really meant is a difference between the revenue analysts predicted the state would collect while crafting the state budget versus the actual amount of revenue collected. These predictions are based on the structure of the tax code and economic trends. So really when you hear discussions about revenue shortfalls or surpluses you are looking at the accuracy of these prognostications. In short, the $455 million shortfall being reported just means the revenue projections were inaccurate to the high side. Actual revenue is falling short of what was predicted. The key questions, therefore, are: How inaccurate were the projections, and was this year’s projection any more or less accurate than those of past years?

Misleading NC on Tax Revenue

The News & Observer office in Raleigh

According to budget documents, the $455 million “shortfall” amounts to 2.3 percent of total projected tax revenue. Moreover, the 2.3 percent miss this year is far smaller than the average difference between revenue projections and actual revenue over the last 20 budget years. Past budget shortfalls never seemed to solicit such dire warnings from the Left. Beyond the selective outrage of the N&O over a missed revenue target smaller than historic averages are their misleading claims that last year’s tax reforms have somehow caused a massive dent in the state budget. Joining their cries is Senate Minority Whip Josh Stein (D-Wake). “Now it turns out the tax (plan) doesn’t provide enough to pay our bills,” Stein said.

This ill-informed claim overlooks the fact that the revenue shortfall is due largely to tax returns collected this April from last year’s tax period – before

“Why is the newspaper making such a fuss this year, when many recent state budgets missed their revenue targets by larger amounts?” the tax reform took effect. As reported in a study by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, a significant contributor to the disappointing revenue figures from April’s returns is the federal government’s “fiscal cliff” and the federal capital gains hike that dampened last year’s tax liabilities. Many taxpayers moved a lot of their capital gains to 2012

My check made payable to Civitas Action is enclosed Please charge my:

American Express

Master Card

Discover

Visa

Name __________________________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________________ City ____________________________ State _______ Zip _____________ Phone _________________________ Email __________________________ Card No. Amount: $____________ Expiration: ___ ___ / ___ ___ CVV: __________ Signature: ______________________________________________________ If you prefer to make your contribution over the phone, please call (919) 834-2099 Contributions are not tax deductible

nccivitas.org

to avoid paying the higher capital gains rate in 2013 – which of course depressed tax collections. That’s the real culprit, not the state tax reform.

The Rockefeller report further notes that state income tax collections for the first quarter of 2014 are down across the country. It is hard for Stein, the N&O and company to blame North Carolina’s tax reform on a national trend.

Perhaps most troubling are the claims made in an article the N&O published written by a former state Revenue Department employee that completely misled the public. In the article, the author states: “Public information on the General Assembly website explains that the 2013 tax plan reduces tax revenue by over half a billion dollars in the year of full implementation and that revenues continue to decline in subsequent years.” This is typical politicianand bureaucrat-speak, and highly misleading. Projected revenues from the new tax code are not estimated to be reduced or to decline. Rather, they are projected to increase at a slower rate compared with what the previous tax code would have collected. Legislative research documents show projected tax revenue under the tax reform plan is predicted to increase every year of the five years following the reform, increasing from $20.3 billion in the current fiscal year to $23.3 billion in FY 2017-18 – a 15 percent increase in projected tax revenue. The N&O and their progressive allies are desperately pouncing on any perceived opportunity to advance their pre-conceived narrative that last year’s tax reform is causing irreparable harm to our state’s budget and economy. In their eagerness to spin recent revenue figures, however, they have tossed intellectual honesty out the window. 

Scandal is a regular column in Civitas Capitol Connection that will explore public corruption in NC Government. Have a local corruption story? Email corruption@nccivitas.org or call 919.834.2099.