The author, Virginia Summey, earned her M.A in History and a post-baccalaureate in Women’s and Gender Studies from the University of Montana, and her Ph.D. in U.S. History and a post-baccalaureate in African American and African Diaspora Studies from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, where she currently teaches.

In the piece titled, “In Chief Justice Beasley’s loss, race again played a troubling role,” Summey compares Chief Justice Beasley’s 400 vote loss in 2020, to the 1974 loss of District Court Judge Elreta Alexander, an African American woman in a Republican primary to a non-college graduate white candidate. Of course, both Justice Beasley and Justice Newby are highly educated and qualified, nor was this race a primary. The comparison of two races held 46 years apart is absurd on its face.

It’s also a self-serving piece, since according to Summey’s website, “Her biography of pioneering judge Elreta Melton Alexander will be released by the University of Georgia Press in 2021.”

Summey points out that Justice Newby challenged some problematic ballots that happened to be cast by black voters, but she leaves out the critical fact that all of Newby’s challenges were in fact dropped and had no impact on the final vote count.

It is unfair to Justice Beasley who took the unprecedented and high-profile decision to basically shut down the entire court system for an extended period of time due to Covid-19. She also took the controversial step of proclaiming her belief that the entire criminal justice system is racially biased. These decisions were loved by some and loathed by others; but they were consequential and judged on the merits by voters. Beasley was praised as courageous by some, cussed as cowardly by others. Chief Justice Beasley however was not just marking time. It is unfair to the Chief Justice to assess her significant judicial record and a hard-fought contest and razor thin defeat based solely on the color of her skin.

Facts also contradict the entire premise of Summey’s self-serving piece. There were three state Supreme Court races on the ballot in North Carolina in 2020. Republicans won all three races.

Appeals Court Judge Phil Berger defeated a fellow white candidate by 71,000 votes and former State Senator Tamara Barringer beat another white candidate by 130,000 votes. If anything, race worked in Beasley’s favor, helping her make her contest against Newby far closer than the other Supreme Court races..

Also, as noted by NCFREE Executive Director Anna Beavon Gravely, Justice Paul Newby won despite being significantly outspent. According to the most recent third quarter campaign finance numbers, (the most recent available) Paul Newby raised $893,218.41 and Cheri Beasley raised $1,921,755.84.

Beasley raised $1,028,537 more than Newby, and that was before a large fourth quarter spending spree and final television buys for Beasley that Newby was unable to match. How does such a racist electorate fund the black candidate two to three times more than the white candidate?

It is worth noting after a summer of riots, voters turned to Republican judges up and down the ballot, as the GOP swept all eight statewide judicial races, including the three Supreme Court races and five races on the N.C. Court of Appeals. On the Court of Appeals, Fred Gore defeated Lora Christine Cubbage 51.27 % to 48.73%, a race with two candidates of color that showed no higher drop-off or statical difference from the other Court of Appeals races.

While reducing her narrow loss to her race is unfair to Justice Beasley, it is equally unfair to Chief Justice elect Paul Newby who will take command of the administrative functions of the Judicial Branch on January 1, 2021. Summey’s piece is a direct attempt to undermine him before he takes office.

Newby, an Eagle Scout, will be North Carolina’s 30th chief justice and is likely the most qualified person to ever assume the role. He earned a B.A. in Public Policy Studies with High Honors from Duke University and J.D. from UNC School of Law. As a federal prosecutor, Newby led a successful effort to recover North Carolina’s stolen original version of the Bill of Rights.  Justice Newby is the senior member of the Supreme Court, first elected in 2004, and re-elected in 2012. He has been elected to the state Supreme Court through both partisan and non-partisan elections.

Newby holds starkly different views than Justice Beasley. Newby has not favored the one size fits all shut down of the courts, stating, “Justice delayed is justice denied. The Judicial Branch needs to collaborate with all the Branch’s local stakeholders–trial judges, clerks, district attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, and civil attorneys–to develop ways to address the increasing backlog of cases in each district.”

Newby has defended the role of law enforcement and the legal system in general, as opposed to Beasley. Newby offered up lines like, “The symbol of the judiciary, Lady Justice, is blindfolded for a reason: everyone is to be treated the same.”

The race for chief justice did offer a choice in color, but it was the kind of bold differences in positions, not pale pastels that Ronald Reagan spoke of. Voters weighed their choices and they made one, a very narrow one on the merits. No self-serving academic reaching back to an irrelevant past to sell an unpublished book can re-write history and change that.

Thank you for being loyal listeners of Civitalk! We are grateful for the time you’ve invested in listening to the program and hope we have provided you with more than a few insights and laughs.

We can’t wait to re-engage with you in 2021 in a new format at the John Locke Foundation and Carolina Journal! Keep an eye out for an exciting, engaging (and perhaps visual!) podcast designed with you–our fellow North Carolinian–in mind!

Until next year,

Ray and Brooke

Have a question or comment? Send us an email at radio@nccivitas.org.

If you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes!

You can also listen to Civitalk on Spotify.

Are government agencies allowed to elevate administrative procedures above laws passed by the legislature when those laws make their jobs inconvenient?

The North Carolina State Board of Elections (SBE) put that question to the test.

North Carolina law (163-182.7A.(a)) states that a candidate that loses after the initial count of ballots and a machine recount may “demand a second recount on a hand-to-eye basis in a sample of precincts.” As I noted on December 3, Cheri Beasley made just such a request in the race for NC Supreme Court Chief Justice.

That same section of the law also dictates how that sample is to be taken:

That sample shall be all the ballots in three percent (3%) of the precincts casting ballots in each county in the jurisdiction of the office, rounded up to the next whole number of precincts. For the purpose of that calculation, each one-stop (early) voting site shall be considered to be a precinct. The precincts to be recounted by a hand-to-eye count shall be chosen at random within each county.

The statute is clear: ballots are to be counted in the sample on the basis of precinct or one-stop voting site.

So, I was intrigued when I read that Graham County was to count, not ballots from a precinct or early voting site, but its absentee-by-mail ballots (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Section of 2020 statewide hand-to-eye recount results in the NC Supreme Court chief justice race showing that Graham County hand-counted absentee-by-mail ballots. The columns are county and precinct; type of precinct; the original machine-count result, hand-eye recount result; and the difference between machine-count to hand-eye recount. Source: NC State Board of Elections

That response was confusing to me since the law was clear that only precincts and early voting sites were to be considered in the random selection process (with mail ballots presumably counted based on their precinct). So I looked back at the State Board of Elections’ (SBE) media announcement, “Hand-to-Eye Recount Begins Next Week in NC Supreme Court Contest.” Again, there was mention of precincts and early voting sites, but no mention of absentee-by-mail ballots as a separate category.

Figure 2: Relevant Section of media release announcing how partial hand-eye recount in NC State Supreme Court chief justice would be conducted. Source: NC State Board of Elections

So, we have a contradiction, both between SBE practice and election law and between SBE practice and its own statement about what its practice is.

In hopes of resolving these contradictions, I reached out to SBE Public Information Director Patrick Gannon via email. Here is his December 7 reply:

[Absentee ballots counted as precincts] were included based on necessity. If we didn’t include them, then those ballots would not have a chance of being re-counted — since they wouldn’t belong to a one-stop site or an Election Day precinct — which would go against the purpose of the random selection. It would also mean that certain ballots could never be counted in a hand-eye recount, and would be therefore be a perfect target for a malicious attack.

We do not want counties sorting ballots back to the respective precincts until canvass is officially over. Having recounts with a different precinct /administrative precinct than canvass makes audits far more difficult — and would make it impossible to compare the machine count for a particular precinct (where absentee by mail ballots were not sorted) to a hand-eye recount where absentee by mail ballots were sorted back into their respective precincts. Some of the variance would be because of the sorting.

The SBE’s reply was practical and reasonable. It is better for absentee ballots to be included in the partial recount somehow.

But the way they did it also violates state election law.

Gannon and I went another round of emails on this, with more reasonable-sounding statements coming from the SBE such as:

[not counting absentee-by-mail ballots] would also leave absentee by mail ballots, which made up close to 20% of the ballots cast this year, particularly vulnerable as a target for tampering.

But the email also included this: “Until the post-election precinct sort can be conducted, the State Board has long considered the absentee-by-mail ballots to be an administrative precinct for the purposes of results reporting.”

So, can the SBE’s consideration of absentee-by-mail ballots to be “an administrative precinct” make them so under state law for the purpose of fulfilling 163-182.7A.(a)? The good news is that you do not have to guess. It is clear under state law (GS 163-128) that a precinct is a physical entity in which voters reside, that you can draw on a map, and which hosts a voting location. A county’s collection of absentee-by-mail ballots do not fit any of those criteria.

Are we to believe, then, that the SBE’s “administrative precinct” takes precedence over precincts as determined by state law? Surely not.

This is the same cavalier attitude towards elections laws that led to SBE Executive Director Karen Brinson Bell to unsuccessfully seek to grant herself greater emergency powers to contravene election laws and to enter into a collusive settlement to alter election laws in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

What to do from here

By not following election law as set by the General Assembly, the SBE had made itself vulnerable to a lawsuit from whichever campaign did not prevail in the partial hand-eye recount. The good news on that front is that the results in Graham County, the only county counting mail ballots, showed no change (see figure 1) which would have made the Beasley campaign less likely to be able to show that it was harmed by the SBE’s action (Beasley conceded on December 12).

However, we cannot simply allow agencies to ignore laws that they find inconvenient. The General Assembly must be more diligent in exercising its oversight responsibilities.

For its part, rather than ignore laws it finds inconvenient, the SBE should ask the General Assembly to change the law on partial recounts to make the process easier to implement. The General Assembly passed many of the changes that Bell requested earlier this year in order to make the fall election run smoothly, despite concerns about the coronavirus.

So, what should the SBE have told county boards to do in the meantime to comply with the law?

One possibility would have been to have county election officials sort absentee-by-mail ballots by precinct but keep them apart from the election day ballots, run a machine count for both sets of ballots for each precinct, and then do a hand-eye recount for both sets to see if there was variation between the machine counts and the hand-eye counts.

Yes, it would have been inconvenient and taken longer. Yes, it would have meant more work for county election officials (although it would have saved some work on the back side because they must eventually sort mail ballots by precinct anyhow).

But, more importantly, doing it that way would have been in compliance with the laws passed by the legislators elected by the people of North Carolina.

(In case you were wondering, the title of this article was appropriated from Pompey the Great.)

Both John Locke Foundation and Civitas Institute engaged in extensive voter education campaigns in an effort to help clarify the state judiciary’s impact on North Carolinian’s lives, families, and communities.

Amy O. Cooke, CEO of John Locke Foundation issued the following statement:

“With the seating of Paul Newby as North Carolina’s 30^th State Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Court will have more balance as it moves from a 6-1 to 4-3 Democratic majority, which is a better reflection of North Carolina’s electorate. Over 5.3 million votes were cast in this race. That is 73% voter participation. Considering that only a few months ago we found that a majority didn’t even know they had a voice in these races, this number is remarkable. I’m proud of the work that Locke and Civitas did to educate all North Carolinians on the significance of researching the candidates and issues in these critically important down ballot races.

Donald Bryson, President and CEO of Civitas Institute, said the following:

“The race for North Carolina Chief Justice highlights the high level of voter engagement this election cycle, with historically low ballot roll-off. The sheer level of civic engagement is a testament to the work of both Civitas and the John Locke Foundation in educating citizens on the importance of becoming involved at all levels of government in 2020.”

The ballot roll off for the Newby-Beasley race was 2.78%. For comparison, the ballot roll off in the non-partisan 2016 State Supreme Court associate justice race between Mike Morgan and Bob Edmunds was 16.9%.

###

Newby’s election to the role of chief justice of the state high court completed a Republican sweep of eight statewide judicial seats, including three state supreme court seats and five seats on the court of appeals.

Beasley lost her reelection bid to Justice Paul Newby by 406 votes (as of November 19). Final statewide machine recount numbers showed Newby’s lead shrank by only five votes, with the final margin of victory for Newby being 401 votes out of nearly 5.4 million cast.  A hand to eye recount also confirmed Newby’s victory.

“Congratulations to Paul Newby for being elected as the Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. Justice Newby ran a phenomenal campaign and will serve with honor and distinction as the Chief Justice on our highest court,” said NCGOP Chairman Michael Whatley.

Cheri Beasley, current Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court

Beasley was first appointed to the state Supreme Court in 2012 by Gov. Bev. Perdue after serving on the state Court of Appeals. Beasley was elected to a full term on the Supreme Court in 2014, when she narrowly defeated Republican Mike Robinson by 5,000 votes out of 2.4 million cast. Beasley became the first African American woman in the North Carolina Supreme Court’s 200 year history to serve as chief justice when Gov. Cooper appointed her to the position in 2019 following the retirement of Republican Mark Martin.

Newby’s victory was in part secured by the strong GOP performance in Robeson County, a Democratic stronghold that’s become more Republican in the Trump era. Robeson County netted Newby 465 key votes by recounts’ end.

Beasley’s election protests were meritless

Knowing the recount would not likely result in a victory, Beasley sought new votes to count in hopes of securing a win. She filed protests in 90 counties to get changes in their vote tallies in an attempt to overturn the result. Specifically, Beasley asked the Democratic-controlled local boards of elections to reconsider already rejected absentee and provisional ballots.

But the chief justice’s protests turned out to be highly problematic, controversial and downright embarrassing.  WRAL found the complaints filled with errors, including urging election officials to count ballots that had in fact already been counted.

Even worse, the News and Observer found a shocking effort by the chief justice to steamroll the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Beasley attempted to only have the rejected ballots of registered Democrats reconsidered and not Republicans (pay wall):

“Across the more than 3,200 voter names Beasley’s campaign provided to election officials in almost every county in North Carolina, only a handful belonged to registered Republicans.”

The N&O further noted an “analysis that matched more than 2,800 names on the campaign’s list with public election data shows that about 70% identify as Democrats. Another 800 are unaffiliated. Only nine voters matched from Beasley’s list were members of the GOP – less than 1% of the total.”

Civitas spoke with former North Carolina State Board of Elections member John Lewis about his concerns regarding the Beasley protests and the need to keep partisanship out of the chief justice race. In fact, most Democratic-controlled local boards of elections found the Beasley protests meritless and rejected them outright.

Civitas noted that in appealing to the State Board of Elections, her campaign was asking state election officials to count ballots in direct violation of the law. Beasley’s nod to reality will allow both campaigns to withdraw all remaining protests and Newby to be certified the winner on December 18^th, less than two weeks before his term begins.

New court administration

As Chief Justice, Newby will control the administrative functions of the judicial branch that includes 6,400 employees and an annual budget of $550 million dollars. Newby will make his biggest impact and most critical decision in court administration when he names the director for the administrative office of the courts. Soon after, he will begin working with the General Assembly on budget proposals that will seek to resume and accelerate court functions while maintaining safety during the pandemic.

Newby has already indicated he intends to give local courthouses more say on how to resume normal operations and make up for lost time.

New Supreme Court dynamic

Democratic majorities on the state Supreme Court have routinely sided with the Cooper administration in lawsuits against legislation enacted by the Republican-controlled General Assembly, while also regularly siding with the governor over questions of executive power.

Republican Supreme Court Justice-Elects Phil Berger Jr. Tamara Barringer will join Chief Justice Newby on the Supreme Court

Newby, the Supreme Court’s sole conservative voice since 2018 will be joined by new Republican justices Phil Berger Jr. and Tamara Barringer. All three  hold a similar judicial philosophy of judicial restraint and respect for the other elected branches of government. Newby and Republicans will immediately have a greater voice on North Carolina’s highest court, but Democrats will continue to have a 4-3 majority on the Supreme Court.

Republican judicial candidates were likely boosted by a law and order theme after widespread vandalism and unrest was seen across North Carolina in 2020.

Chief Justice Beasley raised eyebrows by casting aspersions on the entire North Carolina judicial system in which she declared it racially unjust. Appeals Court Judge Lucy Inman joined in and described the court system as systematically racist in her race against Phil Berger, Jr.

Justice-elect Berger told the North State Journal why he believed voters chose a slate of conservative judges.

“The people of North Carolina said no activist judges, and yes to the rule of law,” said Berger. “I’m thankful that the voters of this state have put their trust in me to serve them.”

As Chief Justice, Newby will select the three judge panels that give initial review to redistricting cases as well as constitutional challenges to acts passed by the General Assembly. Newby will also appoint the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, chief administrative law judge and members of the NC Judicial Standards Commission.

Both sides have misjudged the politics of the courts

North Carolina conducted partisan judicial elections for most of its history until 2004. The state was controlled by Democrats for most of its history and partisan elections allowed the Democratic party to dominate the courts as well. Then in 2004, as Republicans became more successful in statewide elections, Democrats in the state legislature switched to nonpartisan elections.

In 2016, Republican majorities in the General Assembly  passed legislation  requiring all court of appeals candidates to list their party affiliation. In the fall elections, GOP candidates went 4-4. Republicans did not require ballot affiliation for the one state Supreme Court race and Republican incumbent Bob Edmunds lost to Democrat Mike Morgan, in part because Morgan was the sole Democrat listed at the top of his ballot that year.

In 2018, the GOP led General Assembly decided to eliminate some judicial primaries, resulting in Republican state Supreme Court incumbent Barbara Jackson having to face two candidates in the general election. Jackson lost to liberal Democrat Anita Earls and Chris Anglin another Republican who had recently changed his party affiliation and whose campaign was managed by a leading Democrat.

Yet in 2020, it was Gov. Roy Cooper and Democrats that made a serious political miscalculation.

In January of 2019, then Chief Justice Mark Martin announced that he would retire from the North Carolina Supreme Court in February 2019 to become the dean of law school at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Gov.  Roy Cooper appointed Associate Justice Cheri Beasley as Martin’s successor to fill the role until the 2020 election. Cooper’s choice did not follow the tradition of the governor filling a vacant chief justice positionwith the most veteran member of the court, who would have been Republican Paul Newby. Cooper likely wanted to make history and gain favor with African American voters with the Beasley appointment.

At the time, Newby was already vacating his seat as associate justice to run for chief. Without the appointment, Beasley could have run for chief justice without vacating her seat as associate justice. Had she won, Cooper would have replaced her via appointment. With a loss she would still be on the court as an associate justice.

When Cooper appointed Beasley, a third seat on the Supreme Court came open. Gov. Cooper could have guaranteed Democrats no worse than a 5-2 majority. Instead they sit at a fragile 4- 3 Democratic majority.

Going forward, 2022 looms large

Chief Justice Newby and the four Democrats that make up the liberal majority begin 2021 with huge legal and political implications on the line. Two of the Democrats’ four seats on the court  will be up for election in 2022 during President Joe Biden’s first mid-term, an election that should favor Republicans if history is any indication.

With Justice Robin Hudson facing mandatory retirement in early 2024, she is unlikely to file for re-election. Democratic Justice Sam Ervin, Jr’s term is also up for election in 2022.

Republicans need to capture just one of the two seats to obtain a Supreme Court majority that may endure until at least 2026. The court majority elected in 2022 will likely render final state judgement on legislative and congressional districts enacted by the Republican General Assembly in late 2021 or early 2022.

“Under North Carolina law, Beasley could and did request a hand-to-eye recount in a sample of precincts in order to ensure a complete and thorough ballot count,” declared Civitas Elections Analyst Andy Jackson.

Jackson is tracking the status of the race on Twitter.

With recounts in one-third to one-half of counties already completed, there is no statistical variance in the numbers that would force a full hand to eye manual recount of the 5.4 million votes in the chief justices race.  Nor would one be justified with two recounts on track to confirm — with almost exact precision — the original result of a Newby victory by about 400 votes.

Beasley’s last gasp is continuing to seek  new votes in hopes of securing a win. She has filed protests in 90 counties to get changes in their vote tallies in an attempt to overturn the result. Specifically, Beasley asked the Democrat controlled local boards of elections to reconsider already rejected absentee and provisional ballots.

But the chief justice’s protests are highly problematic, controversial and downright embarrassing.  WRAL found the complaints filled with errors, including urging election officials to count ballots that had in fact already been counted.

Even worse, the News and Observer (N&O) found a shocking effort by the chief justice to steamroll the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Beasley attempted to only have the rejected ballots of registered Democrats reconsidered and not Republicans (pay wall):

“Across the more than 3,200 voter names Beasley’s campaign provided to election officials in almost every county in North Carolina, only a handful belonged to registered Republicans.”

The N&O further noted an “analysis that matched more than 2,800 names on the campaign’s list with public election data shows that about 70% identify as Democrats. Another 800 are unaffiliated. Only nine voters matched from Beasley’s list were members of the GOP – less than 1% of the total.”

Civitas spoke with former North Carolina State Board of Elections member John Lewis about his concerns regarding the Beasley protests and the need to keep partisanship out of the chief justice race. In fact, most Democrat controlled local boards of elections are rejecting the Beasley protests without finding probable cause. Others are being rejected after a hearing on the evidence.

Generally speaking, the Beasley protests attempt to get late votes counted including those without a postmark, contrary to state law. She is also trying to get unsigned absentee ballots counted, again not allowed under law, as well as attempting to get provisional ballots counted that are deemed unlawful by election officials.

Most of the counties have rejected the Beasley protests at the preliminary stage, finding no probable cause to move forward, and no reason to hold a formal hearing examining evidence.

Rockingham County

Democratic Chairman Royce Richardson noted that during the preliminary hearing on Nov. 23, the Beasley campaign failed to present any evidence of violation of election laws by board staff.  The Rockingham Board of Elections dismissed the Beasley complaints finding them to be “frivolous, and without merit or substance.”

Cleveland County

After a preliminary hearing, the Cleveland County Board of Elections held a December 3 follow up hearing on the evidence of Beasley’s protest.

Candidate Beasley initially challenged what she alleges was an unlawful failure to count eleven ballots in Cleveland County. However, at the outset of this hearing, her counsel voluntarily dismissed the protest on eight of the challenges, leaving just three ballots in question.

Two of the ballots were absentee mail ballots. They were signed by the wrong voter, living in the same house with the other voter. The board of elections attempted to reach the voters to have them resubmit new ballots with correct signatures, with no success. Beasley’s campaign argued the voter intent should allow these ballots to count, despite the envelope mix-up. The board dismissed the protests over these two ballots, as a valid signature is required by law. The Beasley campaign argued another ballot should be counted despite the fact it did not have a postmark, as required by law. The board dismissed this protest.

Pasquotank 

The Beasley protest alleged there were 15 absentee and provisional ballots that were wrongly rejected by the board. However, at the hearing, the Beasley campaign removed the objection to 12 of the uncounted ballots, and two more had in fact already been counted. That left just one disputed ballot. The board did determine that a spelling error kept one ballot from being counted properly and moved to add it to the total.

Lee County

The Lee County Board of Elections rejected an attempt to count an absentee ballot which was signed by the voter’s spouse, but not by the voter. The voter died prior to Election Day. In total about 10 ballots were reviewed by the Lee County Board and the rejection of the ballots was upheld because the voters were not registered in the county or were not eligible voters.

Madison County

Madison County held an evidentiary hearing but quickly dismissed a protest that attempted to count the ballots of two people the county had no record of ever registering to vote.

Union County 

Union County dismissed a protest from Beasley that attempted to count 20 previously rejected ballots. Of the 20, six of the ballots in question were cast by voters who later voted in another way and had their vote counted. The rest were not registered to vote in Union County or failed to properly return their absentee ballots as required by law.

Justice Beasley may succeed in getting a handful of other votes re-examined, but the local boards of elections are rejecting and dismissing her protests in mass. She has  appealed most of these dismissals to the State Board of Elections which  could hear them on December 18.

However, the board should decline to do so. The State Board of Elections is not a “finder of fact” as to the rejected ballots. Local boards have examined and rejected them twice.

The state board can’t adopt some new standard to make most of these rejected ballots legal. Almost all the ballots in question have been cast by people who already voted, who are not registered, or who are felons and are ineligible to vote. It is not within the board’s discretion to count these ballots. It would be illegal to do so.

Beasley lost this race on election night. She lost the machine recount of all the ballots. She is set to lose the partial hand recount. Her efforts to “Cheri-Pick” disqualified ballots are ending in embarrassing fashion. Its time for her to accept reality and move on.

This reorganization to merge capabilities was approved this week by the Boards of Directors of both nonprofit organizations. The decision harnesses the influence and reputation for quality and credibility of both organizations, earned over a combined 45 years of service to North Carolina.

Amy Cooke will continue as Chief Executive Officer of the John Locke Foundation and Publisher of Carolina Journal. Donald Bryson, president and CEO of Civitas Institute, will spearhead the strategic efforts of the John Locke Foundation as its President and Chief Strategy Officer.

“We have created an unmatched powerhouse for economic opportunity and conservative values in North Carolina and in the Southeast,” Cooke said. “We are uniting the pillars of opportunity and hope, infusing them with the sharp minds and empathetic hearts of our team. We enter 2021 dedicated to coming alongside of North Carolinians, fighting for their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Talent from the groups — the 501 (c)(3) John Locke Foundation, and the 501 (c)(3) Civitas Institute— will collaborate as one voice for freedom. Civitas Action, a 501 (c)(4) nonprofit, will remain a sister organization. The team will deploy its expertise across an array of essential policy issues. Emphasis will be placed on fiscal restraint, respect for taxpayers, maximizing opportunities to earn a living, access to affordable quality health insurance and medical care, parental empowerment and necessary reforms in education, election integrity, agricultural freedom, and transparent and accountable government.

As a result, the public and policymakers can expect (1) broader expertise and influence in public policy research rooted in liberty and constitutional limits on power, (2) expanded outreach to lawmakers, (3) grassroots education and mobilization of voters, (4) more cohesive alliances and coalitions, and (5) deeper reporting and analysis of issues and decision-making.

The launch of the southeast’s largest state-based think tank follows a statewide election in which North Carolinians endorsed lawmakers who champion conservative values: limited government, free enterprise, the rule of law, and education opportunity. Despite the voters’ clear message, the Left’s opposition is relentless and well-funded.

“We are engaged in a conflict of ideas with a Leftist ideology steeped in a ‘trickle-up’ economic model, and the creation of a ruling class to kill the individual American Dream,” Bryson said. “Let’s be clear: This won’t happen on our watch. We are unapologetic in defense of liberty and firmly believe that North Carolina’s best days are still ahead of us.”

The John Locke Foundation was established in 1990 to research and promote policies and ideas that create a freer and more prosperous North Carolina. It has been a trailblazer among state-based think tanks, frequently sharing its research models with allied organizations across the country to support various free-market initiatives, ranging from healthcare deregulation in the Midwest to legislative frameworks for Texas online casinos and regional property tax reforms. The Civitas Institute followed in 2005 with a special emphasis on holding lawmakers and media accountable and working with grassroots coalitions of conservative North Carolinians.

“This is an exhilarating time. With this change, we marshal the intellectual forces necessary to continue the battle for freedom and free markets in the new decade. For the sake of today’s and tomorrow’s North Carolinians, we move from think tank to battle tank. I’m proud to lead this powerhouse team,” Cooke said.

###

Ray kicks it off by complaining about the cold but Bob helps take the Christmas discussion in a more festive direction.

They also take a deeper look at the hypocrisy from many political leaders who are ignorning their own Covid-19 lockdowns and restrictions. Bob and Ray delve into the public doubt over the response and wonder just how much trust is being eroded as well as the need for less central planning and more personal responsibility.

They conclude by noting that the Left’s continued attack on voter ID is a losing proposition.

Have a question or comment? Send us an email at radio@nccivitas.org.

If you like what you hear, please leave us a review on iTunes!

You can also listen to Civitalk on Spotify.

]]> http://www.nccivitas.org/2020/assessing-election-2020-education-agenda/ Thu, 03 Dec 2020 21:59:53 +0000 http://www.nccivitas.org/?p=31278 2020 has been a tough year for North Carolina public schools. Gov. Roy Cooper’s response to the Coronavirus has closed many public schools or morphed them into virtual learning centers. K-12 enrollment is down 5 percent, fueled in part by a nagging concern that academic achievement is lagging. Throw in increased competition for limited tax dollars and rising parental dissatisfaction with online learning and you have a minefield of issues that will compete for the attention of policymakers.

How will lawmakers address these issues? Voters opted not to make huge changes to the political landscape. Cooper was re-elected for another four-year term. Likewise, Republicans retained their majorities in the state House and Senate. To the surprise of many political pundits, Republicans picked up four additional seats in the House, a stunning development in a year when some Democratic strategists floated the strong possibility of flipping the House. The biggest surprise of the election may be the outcome of state Supreme Court judicial races. Republicans will pick up a minimum of two additional seats and — pending a recount on the race for chief justice – could pick up a third seat if Justice Paul Newby’s 400 vote lead holds up. Republicans also swept all five statewide judicial races for the NC Court of Appeals.

The courts tilting to the right could impact how the Leandro school finance case is resolved as well as influence the outcome of current litigation to stop the Opportunity Scholarship Program. The decision by voters to re-elect the governor and retain Republican majorities in each House will impact not only what gets done – and not done –  in the state legislature, but how things get done. The political realities mean parties will have to compromise and be more accommodating. Not always a bad thing. Let’s look at three major issues likely to be considered in the upcoming legislative session.

School Finance.  The way North Carolina funds public schools is overly complicated, little understood and ineffective. No one is happy with the 37 different formulas the state uses to distribute funds. Two studies seven years apart (see here and here ) came to similar conclusions. The system is too complex, outdated, and fails to ensure that resources get to where they are needed.

Most lawmakers agree we need a better way to fund schools. The disagreement comes in how you answer that question.

North Carolina is one of only a handful of states that distributes resources via a resource allocation model (RAMs). Dollars are distributed via three types of allotments: dollar, position or categorical. Proponents say RAMs are helpful from a budgetary perspective because they give policymakers a good view of what is being funded and how. Unfortunately, RAMs have significant shortcomings. For starters, most RAMs are highly centralized,  controlled by decisionmakers  (in this case policymakers or administrators) and lack transparency. Because RAMs are restricted to a specific purpose, they work to limit the autonomy and flexibility of districts to meet budget challenges. Moreover, the scope and complexity of RAMs makes it difficult to track how money was spent and if goals were accomplished. As such, RAMs impede accountability and innovation.

Despite the current shortcomings, North Carolina can work to improve the current system. Adopting a system where funding is distributed not centrally to fund staff or programs but to students – according to need – would be a good first step. Weighted Student Funding (WSF) is one such model. WSF uses a student-based formula to allocate a fixed base sum of support to students in each LEA. Additional funding is targeted to help meet other student needs like special needs, limited English proficiency, or at-risk students. These needs are given a weight to reflect the amount of additional funding.

WSF stands in marked contrast to the current highly centralized system of how public schools are funded. Instead, the money follows the student. Because WSF is more transparent and pushes discretion and decision making down to the local level, policymakers should seriously consider WSF as a funding alternative to the current system.

Teacher Pay. Teacher pay is the issue that never goes away in North Carolina. Despite the never-ending public debate over teacher pay, it’s hard to ignore average teacher pay in the state has risen significantly over the past decade. Since 2011, average teacher salary has increased from $46,514 to $54,612. North Carolina’s ranking among the states has also risen from 46 to 30. That number would be higher if Gov. Cooper had not vetoed several teacher pay proposals over the past several years from Republican lawmakers. Despite the progress, we should start with the realization that throwing more dollars at teachers won’t solve the issue. Much of the problem is tied up in how we pay teachers. North Carolina teachers use a teacher salary schedule to determine pay levels. Salary schedules have perverse incentives in that they reward teachers for time in the job and credentials — not performance. That must change.

Republicans managed to make small improvements to the salary schedule and win bonus pay for teachers in various positions, yet the basic structure remains the same and pay is still largely tied to time in job and credentials. Eliminating the teacher salary schedule and letting local school officials pay teachers based on local markets and wage demands would be a big step to solving this issue. Principals are best equipped to know the value of teachers and how they perform in the classroom. Principals have the responsibility for educating children. Shouldn’t they also have the authority to set pay levels to ensure quality faculty are in the classroom and fairly compensated?

Changing how teachers are paid is just one component of resolving the teacher pay issue. The other involves discussing a topic no one wants to talk about when discussing teacher pay: the rising costs of benefits.

The value of benefits for teachers has risen dramatically over the past decade. In 2011, the total value of benefits including healthcare, retirement and social security was $13,376. By 2020, that total had increased to $21,242. In 2011, benefits comprised 28.7 percent of the average teacher compensation package. Today that figure has risen to 38.8 percent. Increases in healthcare and retirement costs have helped to drive up staffing costs. In 2011, the average teacher health insurance cost was $4,929 per employee. Today it’s $6,306 per employee. In 2011, employee retirement benefits were 10.5 percent of employee salaries. By 2020, that number has reached 19.7 percent of employee salary. These increases have fueled significant increases in payroll. In 2020, total compensation (salary and benefits) for teachers came to almost $76,000.

These increases provide teachers and staff with healthcare and retirement benefits. However, they also work to limit the amount of money North Carolina can allot to salary increases. Working to curb these benefit increases is one of the best ways to raise teacher pay. Benefit costs can be slowed by asking individuals who have had lower than average insurance costs to pay higher premiums. In addition, the pool of those eligible for retirement should be reviewed annually. Steps should also be taken to give individuals more ability to manage their own retirement funds.

School Choice. A third and final topic on a 2021 education agenda is school choice. Coronavirus has underscored the reality that few public schools are up to the challenge of meeting the needs of a changing population. Recent declines in public school enrollment have been attributed to parental dissatisfaction over online learning. Parents have always wanted to be able to secure the best educational options for children. School choice has provided parents a mechanism to make that a reality.

North Carolina can take several steps to expand those options for parents.  If parents are dissatisfied with their local public school, they can choose from one of about 130 local charters. North Carolina needs to guarantee charter and public schools are treated equally with regards to finances. The law says charter schools must receive the same share of local funds. Because there is a myriad of ways to circumvent the laws, that doesn’t happen. Legislation should be approved to eliminate amendments that reduce the charter school share of local funds and allow local government or commissions the opportunity to assist charters with capital expenditures.

Parents looking to improve their child’s educational options, should consider the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) . OSP provides vouchers for over 12,000 eligible low income and moderate income families to attend a private school of their choice. While the program is popular and is experiencing dramatic growth, scholarship funding has been capped at  $4,200 since the program began in 2013  Rising educational costs have made it increasingly difficult for parents – even with scholarships – to meet the full costs of education. To provide a long term solution, lawmakers should consider linking OSP vouchers to a percentage of state per pupil expenditure.

North Carolina currently has a limited ESA plan for special needs students. That program has proved very popular and was recently expanded.North Carolina should consider scaling a wider Education Savings Account plan for K-12 students. A recent Civitas-Reason study found that development of  a statewide ESA program in North Carolina could produce $19 billion in higher lifetime earnings because of increased academic achievement, $790 million in economic benefits from higher high school graduation rates and $12 million from reductions in social costs associated with lower crime rates. These changes can go a long way in strengthening existing programs and giving parents expanded educational options.