Campaign Watch: Bait & Switch, Round 2
A special review panel of state judges has ruled that the ballot descriptions for two proposed state constitutional amendments are so deceptive that they must be rewritten or pulled from the general election ballot. State legislators are back in Raleigh to tinker with the wording.
The big problem: The new language is just as misleading as the old language. Legislators are still trying to hide from the voting public that the proposed changes would transfer key appointment powers from the governor to the legislature.
Two bills to modify the amendments and their ballot descriptions passed the House on Friday, and are scheduled to be heard by the Senate today (Monday, August 27).
HB 4 would create a new board both regulating elections and overseeing ethics rules involving public officials. There would be eight members, entirely appointed from recommendations of the legislative leadership. While the names would come equally from the majority and minority parties, the evenly split membership with no tie-breaker would effectively guarantee a deadlocked body. Unlike current law, approved after the state Supreme Court struck down a version which it ruled violated the state Constitution, this version of the elections and ethics board includes no ninth member appointed by the governor.
This version of the amendment is narrower in scope than the one blocked by the court, in that it would only deal with the elections and ethics board. The previously passed version would have gutted the governor’s appointment authority far more broadly, including for key boards such as the Environmental Management Commission and the Utilities Commission. However, the new descriptive ballot language still makes no mention of the transfer of power from the governor to the legislature.
HB 3 would set up a process for filling judicial vacancies created by resignation or retirement. The language is cleverly written to suggest a “merit” process involving the legislature, a citizen commission, and the governor. In reality, it would leave all the key discretionary selection power with the legislature. That is the amendment’s central impact: It effectively transfers the power of filling judicial vacancies from the governor to the legislature.
Why is the current legislative leadership trying so hard to avoid telling the voters that the primary impact of both proposed amendments is to gut the power of the governor’s office and transfer key executive and judicial appointment powers from the governor to the legislature? It’s simple: Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and House Speaker Tim Moore may be hard-headed, but they can certainly count.
They know that state opinion polls show that Gov. Roy Cooper is far more popular with the voters than the legislative leaders with whom he is waging policy and political battle. Proposals clearly understood by most voters to transfer powers from Cooper to the legislature are highly likely to fail.
That failure would void the entire purpose of the current legislative supermajority’s bait-and-switch plan. The plan’s intent is to attract Republican base voters to the polls with vague, unneeded amendments described as protecting hunting and fishing rights and the rights of crime victims. Once there, they and swing voters alike would probably go ahead and vote for the other amendments described as “bipartisan” reforms, despite the fact that the effect of those amendments is not something that most voters actually support.
Environmental advocates strongly object to this scheme because it would give sweeping power over the elections process to the legislators who have been fighting to disenfranchise substantial parts of the voting population. It would also give those same legislators the power to determine who fills unexpired judicial terms, giving them some control over those who rule on the constitutionality of their legislation. Together, these changes would eliminate much of the constitutional balance of power that has held many legislative abuses in check, including legislative efforts to gut North Carolina’s environmental protection programs.
Given the dangerous imbalance of power these changes would create, it’s no surprise that last week every living former Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court (both Republicans and Democrats) joined all five living former governors (both Republicans and Democrats) in opposing both of these proposed amendments.
Two lawsuits challenging four of the six proposed amendments, including the two being rewritten, are still being appealed in the courts, and will see more litigative action this week. CIB will report on the results next Monday.
