Governor Stein hasn’t given conservatives much to be happy about recently.
Good evening,
Governor Stein hasn’t given conservatives much to be happy about recently.
He vetoed House Bill 171 (HB 171) and Senate Bill 227 (SB 227) — two bills that would have banned diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in North Carolina state agencies and public schools.
While Stein says these bills are mean-spirited and would marginalize vulnerable people, DEI efforts have fueled culture war clashes, divided Americans, and breached constitutional protections.
Perhaps it's the supporters of these divisive initiatives who are mean-spirited.
Gov. Stein also vetoed Senate Bill 254 (SB 254), which was supposed to give the Charter School Review Board additional powers to approve, renew, and close charter schools (historically, this has been delegated to the State Board of Education).
While Stein says the bill infringes on the State Board of Education’s authority, it was the legislature that originally authorized charter schools. And the legislature should control the governance structure of charter schools, if they so choose.
Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) announced on July 21 that the state Senate would take up veto override votes on a variety of bills, including SBs 227 and 254, on Tuesday, July 29.
Finally, on a positive note, Gov. Stein signed House Bill 959 (HB 959). The legislation will require local school boards to have a policy prohibiting students from using, displaying, or having a wireless communication device turned on during instructional time. The legislation also includes exemptions for when such devices might be necessary for education, emergency, or medical reasons.
While not perfect, HB 959 is a commonsense solution to the distractions provided by cell phones (and other devices) in classrooms, and is a good first step towards ensuring classrooms are a productive place for learning.
You can read more about education in North Carolina here, here, and here.
Zohran Mamdani, the candidate for New York City mayor, made headlines proposing government-owned supermarkets to offer a “public option” for groceries
Stores wouldn’t pay rent or taxes, wouldn’t aim for profit, and would offer lower prices in a market supposedly dominated by greed
Mamdani isn’t the first to pitch publicly owned grocery stores
Many small towns and cities have experimented with government-run food retail, but have failed
In Baldwin, Florida, the town’s government-run grocery store closed in less than five years, unable to break even
In Erie, Kansas, the town operated its only grocery store at a loss for years before leasing it to a private operator
In Little River, Kansas, the town only owns the building and refrigeration, with day-to-day operations run by a private family
The results are overwhelmingly clear: public grocery stores are inefficient, unsustainable, and ultimately counterproductive
The comparison often made to state-run liquor stores is flawed as well
Liquor monopolies aim to limit consumption and regulate public health, not to provide convenience or affordability
And they tend to be more expensive
As of 2024, grocery stores averaged profit margins under 2%. That means even well-run private stores are just scraping by
A government-run store wouldn’t necessarily be more efficient either
It would simply shift losses onto taxpayers
Additionally, publicly funded grocery stores could distort the market and hurt the very communities they’re trying to help by undercutting private grocers
The end result is a publicly run monopoly propped up by taxpayer dollars, with less variety, less accountability, and no clear advantage for consumers
Another omnibus election bill is working its way through the General Assembly
House Bill 958 (HB 958) is a positive step for North Carolina election reform, aiming for better administration and security, but it still has room for improvement
Positive reforms in HB 958 include:
More time for curing absentee ballots
Only legally transmitted ballots would be counted
Would not count ballots submitted by voters who died before 6:30 am on Election Day
Bans ranked-choice voting in all North Carolina elections
No voter turnout solicitation by election officials
Military and overseas voters must submit copies of their photo IDs with their ballots
While areas for improvement in HB 958 include:
Not exempting so many positions at the State Board of Elections from the state Human Resources Act
Banning donations from foreign nationals to referendum committees campaigning on ballot measures (i.e. bond referendums or constitutional amendments
Federal law already bans donations by foreign nationals to federal, state, or local elections, but it “does not bar foreign nationals from issue advocacy”
What is not in HB 958, but should be:
Removing the literacy test from the state constitution
Requiring all counties to use hand-marked paper ballots
Removing the exception clause in the statute governing the Felony Disclosure form
Including independent performance election audits
And consideration of future redistricting reforms
HB 958 is a good package of election reforms, and with a couple of changes and a few additions, it would be a great package
The General Assembly recently passed Senate Bill 416 (SB 416), the “Personal Privacy Protection Act,” which aims to protect nonprofit donor privacy
But it was vetoed by Gov. Stein, who claimed it would create “more opportunity for dark money in our politics,” which is nonsense
SB 416 is commonsense legislation that would protect the privacy of those who donate to nonprofits and would prevent government-run witch hunts
The protection of donor privacy has constitutional foundations, though
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that disclosure of NAACP members’ names violated freedom of association, as it could lead to harassment
Bates v. Little Rock (1960): The Court reinforced the principle that privacy in group association is vital for freedom of association
In recent years, new cases have complicated the constitutional landscape regarding donor privacy
Citizens United v. FEC (2010): While emphasizing disclosure in campaign finance, the Court acknowledged that disclosure shouldn’t unduly burden speech rights if a group could show “reasonable probability” of threats of harassment
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021): The Court significantly strengthened donor privacy, requiring “exacting scrutiny” for even confidential disclosure requirements
And in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, next term the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case where New Jersey’s Attorney General subpoenaed faith-based pregnancy centers seeking information for nearly 5,000 contributions
Just as we fiercely protect the privacy of the voting booth, North Carolina must also defend the right to support the causes we believe in, free from government oversight and the fear of being exposed to the world
