[link removed]
Good evening,

North Carolina recently answered ([link removed]) a brutal wake-up call with Iryna’s Law.

After the murder of a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee on Charlotte’s light rail, North Carolina learned the hard way what happens when repeat violent offenders cycle through the system on promises to appear.

In response, the General Assembly passed House Bill 307 ([link removed]) , “Iryna’s Law”, which tightens pretrial conditions for violent offenders, ends cashless bail, adds mental health evaluation protocols, and even requires GPS monitoring or secured bonds for certain violent offenses.

While Iryna’s Law is a great first step in protecting the citizens of North Carolina, more needs to be done.

The current process to set bail still relies too much on hurried discretion, and too little on structured diligence.

A magistrate can set conditions of release within minutes, sometimes without a full criminal background check. Inconsistent local policies and “use-your-judgment” norms produce wildly different results for the same risks. The law asks judicial officials to consider a long list of factors, offense, evidence, history, mental condition, failures to appear, but it doesn’t guarantee those facts are actually gathered.

We need two simple, statewide reforms to finish what Iryna’s Law started:
* A standardized, evidence-based bail/bond guide for magistrates. Not a rigid mandate, but a consistent framework with offense categories, recommended ranges, and risk factors to ensure equal treatment and public safety.
* Mandatory criminal background checks for every arrestee before release decisions. Prior violent charges, convictions, and failure-to-appear records are not trivia; they are the heart of risk assessment.

These reforms can protect the public, reduce disparities, eliminate any racial or other biases in bail decisions, and strengthen trust in the justice system.

They will not only allow more transparency and accountability within our justice system, but they will also help make North Carolina a safer place to be.

You can read more about law and public safety in North Carolina here ([link removed]) , here ([link removed]) , and here ([link removed]) .

Esse quam videri,

Donald Bryson
CEO
John Locke Foundation

Check out our NEW PODCAST, “Revolutionary Roads,” to hear from experts on North Carolina’s pivotal role in our nation’s founding.
[link removed]
All ten episodes will be available before Thanksgiving, so be sure to check in regularly for new episodes!
Listen Now! ([link removed])
Join us for an informative event on school choice and education policy!
[link removed]
RSVP Here! ([link removed])
More from Locke

1) ⚖️⚖️⚖️ NC Supreme Court affirms right to a fair trial ([link removed])
* The North Carolina Supreme Court has formally repudiated the legal doctrine of judicial deference, which previously required state courts to "defer" to administrative agencies' own self-interested interpretations of laws and regulations.
+ The court's action is rooted in the North Carolina State Constitution, which explicitly guarantees the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal (Article I, Section 18), declaring that "right and justice shall be administered without favor."
* In a pair of opinions by Justice Richard Dietz, the court applied this change to two different areas:
+ Savage v. NC DOT: The court repudiated the doctrine of agency deference when interpreting state statutes, mandating that all lower courts apply traditional de novo review (interpreting the law "anew," or independently).
+ Mitchell v. UNC Board of Governors: The court ruled that courts must also employ de novo review and "freely substitute their judgment" when interpreting agencies' own regulations.
* This is hailed as a major victory for the rule of law and the separation of powers in North Carolina, going even further than the US Supreme Court did in Loper Bright in repudiating judicial deference to the administrative state.

You can read the full breakdown here ([link removed]) .

2) 📊📊📊 Redistricting alters North Carolina’s congressional district ratings ([link removed])
* The North Carolina General Assembly approved a new congressional district map on October 22, shuffling all or part of 11 counties between the 1st and 3rd congressional districts.
* A new analysis from Locke of the 2026 North Carolina congressional districts combines voting data from 9 2024 Council of State races (excluding the Governor's race) to determine the partisan lean.
+ The 1st District shifts from a toss-up to one that now favors Republicans (R+4).
+ The 3rd District has become more competitive as a result of the changes to the 1st District.
+ The 11th District in Western North Carolina is now rated as the state's most competitive district at R+4, replacing the 1st District.
+ The number of safe Democratic districts remains the same (3).
+ The sole toss-up district is gone.
+ The number of lean Republican districts (R+2 to R+5) increased from 1 to 4.
+ The number of likely Republican districts (R+6 to R+9) decreased from 8 to 7.
* While Republicans are favored in "lean" districts, the president's party typically loses support in midterm elections, creating an outside chance for strong Democratic candidates in these races in 2026.

You can read the full analysis here ([link removed]) .

3) 🏥🏥🏥 The disingenuous fearmongering of Josh Stein on Medicaid ([link removed])
* Gov. Josh Stein has been playing politics with the healthcare of millions of North Carolinians.
+ Stein ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to reduce reimbursement rates for several Medicaid services starting October 1.
+ Stein claimed the cuts were necessary because the "General Assembly's failure to fully fund the Medicaid program has forced the state to make cuts."
+ The General Assembly had already approved a bill in August providing an additional $600 million to address the Medicaid "rebase", which Stein himself signed into law.
+ DHHS's own projection shows another $319 million may be required, but Rep. Donny Lambeth noted rates are historically not reduced before the end of the fiscal year.
* Stein is engaging in a cynical ploy to score political points by ordering the cuts and then leveraging the resulting pressure from advocates and patients against the legislature, despite having full knowledge of the $600 million in allocated funding.
+ Stein also publicly urged the legislature to address "painful cuts" to critical mental health funding, even though these same mental health cuts were included in the bill that allocated the $600 million rebase funding.

You can get the full picture here ([link removed]) .

Donate ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Link ([link removed])
** LinkedIn ([link removed])
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.