|
LEGISLATIVE WEEK IN REVIEW
July 14, 2006
Vajda: Eszter Vajda, Host
McCullen: Kelly McCullen, Legislative Week in Review
Henry: Johanna Henry, Legislative Week in Review
Easley: Governor Mike Easley
Perdue: Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue
Boseman: Sen. Julia Boseman, (D) New Hanover Co.
Pittenger: Sen. Robert Pittenger, (R) Mecklenburg Co.
Berger: Sen. Phil Berger, (R) Minority Leader
Clodfelter: Sen. Dan Clodfelter, (D) Mecklenburg Co.
Adams: Rep. Alma Adams, (D) Guilford Co.
Goodall: Sen. Eddie Goodall, (R) Union Co.
Kiser: Rep. Joe Kiser, (R) Minority Leader
Wainwright: Rep. William Wainwright, (D) Craven Co.
Clary: Rep. Debbie Clary, (R) Cleveland Co.
Stiller: Rep. Bonner Stiller, (R) Brunswick Co.
McComas: Rep. Danny McComas, (R) New Hanover Co.
Sutton: Rep. Ronnie Sutton, (D) Robeson Co.
Bordsen: Rep. Alice Bordsen, (D) Alamance Co.
Kinnaird: Sen. Ellie Kinnaird, (D) Orange Co.
Brock: Sen. Andrew Brock, (R) Davie Co.
Shaw: Sen. Larry Shaw, (D) Cumberland Co.
Luebke: Rep. Paul Luebke, (D) Durham Co.
Vitaglione: Tom Vitaglione, Child Fatality Task Force
Hood: John Hood, John Locke Foundation
Everett: Dr. George Everett, Dir., Environ. & Leg. Affairs, Duke Energy
Diggins: Molly Diggins, Dir., NC Chapter, Sierra Club
Nesbitt: Sen. Martin Nesbitt, (D) Buncombe Co.
Moore: Rep. Tim Moore, (R) Cleveland Co.
Weiss: Rep. Jennifer Weiss, (D) Wake Co.
Johnson Mark Johnson, Charlotte Observer
Bolton: Kerra Bolton, Asheville Citizen-Times
M: Male Speaker
F: Female Speaker
[BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS]
McCullen: The Pledge of Allegiance bill arrives on Governor Easley’s desk. North Carolina’s cable television industry sits poised for a new and competitive era. Click It or Ticket points toward back seat vehicle riders. And the House handles a possible cell phone ban for teenage drivers, next.
[INTRO MUSIC]
Voiceover: Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting UNC-TV.
[THEME MUSIC]
Vajda: Hello everyone, I’m Eszter Vajda.
McCullen: I’m Kelly McCullen. Thanks so much for joining us.
Vajda: Lawmakers scrambled to wrap up unfinished business. We will run through the bills being discussed and on the way to the governor, including new seatbelt rules and protecting consumers from unwanted faxes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
McCullen: Lots of bills. We start tonight by following the Pledge of Allegiance in schools bill. North Carolina school children will pledge allegiance to the U.S. flag every school day if Governor Easley signs this bill. The Senate unanimously passed the legislation but debate this week centered on that bill’s journey through both chambers.
The idea of North Carolina school children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every school day is a popular notion among lawmakers. Two bills exist, one the Senate’s work and the other a House version. These bills look nearly identical and offered almost the same requirements.
Boseman: Our students deserve to know and need to know the history of our great nation so that they can better appreciate the rewards of democracy that they so thoroughly enjoy.
McCullen: The Senate bill would have required that schools teach about North Carolina’s mottos and symbols alongside national civics lessons. But the House stripped the state requirements out. It sent the bill back to the Senate for consideration. Senators could agree or what’s called concur with the House bill as it is written and send it to Governor Easley or the Senate could not concur. That would trigger House and Senate negotiations on a compromised bill. Many lawmakers say the legislature would adjourn and go home before any deal could have been reached.
Pittenger: I’d hate to end this session and not send this opportunity to the young people in this state. They should be directed to give the Pledge of Allegiance.
McCullen: The Senate vote on concurrence tied 24 to 24. Senate leadership immediately asked for a brief recess of about 10 minutes. Republicans reached for the parliamentary rule book to ask if the lieutenant governor could be the tiebreaker.
Berger: The inquiry is did the lieutenant governor choose not to vote on that tie vote?
Perdue: The lieutenant governor did not choose to vote nor choose not to vote because according to the rules chairman the question before the Senate was a concurrence motion and was not a vote.
McCullen: So the Senate 10 minutes later reconsiders its tie vote and re-votes on supporting the House’s version of the Pledge of Allegiance bill. The result this time was a unanimous vote for the measure. The process sparked differing opinions on whether this debate and the House and Senate bill maneuvering, some dating back to last year, played politics with our Pledge of Allegiance.
Clodfelter: And I hope we will remember that our feelings about our members in the House and our feelings about the other party and what we think they are doing to us and what they think we are doing to them maybe we can once in a while get over that and do what we are all here for and what we all cared about when we came here, making this country a better place.
McCullen: Senator Marc Basnight said during that same session that North Carolinians’ by this bill passing will recognize and will understand what our pledge means and that it was not a bad day for the North Carolina Senate.
Vajda: And that brings us to last week’s question of the week, should students be required to pledge allegiance to the American flag in classrooms? We received lots of feedback; 61% of you say “no,” 39% say “yes.” Thanks to all who participated in our poll.
MINIMUM WAGE
Vajda: North Carolina’s lowest paid workers will soon get a raise. Governor Mike Easley signed a measure to raise the state’s minimum wage by $1.00 to $6.15 an hour. It is the first time in almost nine years the state adjusted this rate. Supporters say too many North Carolinians are suffering because of low wages and the high cost of living. Opponents of the measure say it will lead to layoffs and the cost will be transferred to the consumer. Here is what the debate centered on.
Adams: I think it means that they are going to have a little more money in their paycheck so the working poor people, people who work hard every day two and three jobs, will be able to take home a little more. It is going to help them probably buy a little more food, those things that they probably haven’t been able to pay for.
Goodall: A constituent of mine in Mecklenburg County that has 3,300 employees and they estimated that $1.00 increase at the minimum wage would increase his cost of doing business by 15 to 20 cents per employee that was paid hourly, costing his company about $400,000 in Mecklenburg County alone. So he said he would have to layoff people.
Easley: I think it is something that is long overdue, needs to be done; we’ve waited on Washington as long as we can wait. We do hope that actions that we have taken as a state and a Southern state will give Washington some incentive to go on and act on this. It is absurd that it has not been taken up on the federal level.
Vajda: If the federal level is raised, North Carolinians’ will get whatever is higher. The minimum wage law goes into effect January 1st of next year.
McCullen: Governor Easley also signed the budget bill earlier this week. The governor was joined by Senate and House leaders. They all praised this bill for its emphasis on public education funding, mental health funding, pay raises and tax cuts. The nearly $19 billion compromise bill was passed by the two chambers last week. Critics say this bill spends too much money and may put the state in jeopardy of a deficit in upcoming years.
Vajda: Those accused of a crime may soon have their innocence claim investigated by a commission. The House and Senate will negotiate a compromise bill that could create the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission [House 1323]. It would be the first of its kind in the country. The eight-member body would investigate cases by people who contend they did not commit the crime they are convicted of.
Clodfelter: You know the value of a free and innocent person. You know the value of redirecting the inquiry to find the truly guilty person and bring that person before the courts for justice. But beyond those two values is the additional value of the public confidence in our system of justice. I think this is a worthy step.
Vajda: The bill is one of the recommendations by the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission headed by Former Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake.
CELL PHONE BILL
Vajda: A bill to ban cell phone use by kids under 18 is also on the governor’s desk [Senate 1289]. The House gave final approval this week. There was long debate on the floor of the House including a push to add everyone behind the wheel under this measure.
Kiser: I wonder why we pick on the cell phone. The Triple A Foundation for Traffic Safety lists the cell phone as a cause of accidents way down the line. The radio, the CD, and the boom box is eight times according to them more likely to cause an accident than the cell phone.
Wainwright: If the law enforcement officers stop an operator that is 16 to 18-years-old for being on the cell phone and the operator says to the law enforcement officer, “I was talking to my parents” or “my legal guardian,” what happens then?
Clary: Representative Wainwright, this piece of legislation is largely therefore parents are the major enforcers of this legislation. It is just like the limited passenger legislation that we passed on the graduated driver’s license law and it is about the honor system.
Stiller: There are not many of y’all that have teenagers at home. I have two and I’ve got two more coming up. And as a parent it is a lot easier for me to tell them this is against the law and that is why you can’t use it as opposed to what I usually tell her is, “You know I don’t want you talking on the phone while you are driving.” And I know that it is an excellent safety feature.
McComas: Representative Sutton, how old—what is the youngest that you can join the military?
Sutton: Legally 17.
McComas: Representative Sutton, at 17 you can join the military; I am assuming that would be with your parents’ permission?
Sutton: That is correct.
McComas: Does that mean that at 17 after doing boot camp and whatever training would be necessary they could be sent abroad and fight in a war?
Sutton: Absolutely.
McComas: There is a change in brain function that takes place. Your brain is not processing the information in the same way that it normally does. They can tell it by tracking eye motion. They can tell it by tracking your response rate. They can tell it by tracking a lot of things. It is not a distraction. It is not like talking to somebody in the back seat. So it doesn’t matter whether you are talking on the hand-held phone or whether you are talking on a hands-free phone, it is the talking. So it is dangerous for everyone but it is especially dangerous for those people who are young and who are immature.
Vajda: The bill excludes calls to 911, parents or guardians, and spouses of 16 and17-year-olds. The bill goes into effect December 1st of this year. If caught drivers face a $25 fine.
QUESTION OF THE WEEK
McCullen: This issue is our question of the week. What do you think? Should talking on cell phones while driving be banned for everyone or just drivers under 18-years-old? Log onto our website at unctv.org/legweek and vote. We will have your responses next week.
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
McCullen: A bill that restricts the handling of campaign contributions clears both chambers of the General Assembly [House 1845]. Political candidates would not be allowed to use their campaign funds for personal purposes nor could they shift the money into their personal accounts. The Senate added some language preventing campaign funds from becoming part of a lawmaker’s estate should that lawmaker die in office. Candidates instead must dictate where campaign funds are going to go in the event of death, otherwise the cash defaults to the state as if it is unclaimed property.
Vajda: Lawmakers have also approved legislation regulating election year communications in North Carolina by so-called 527 political organizations [House 1847]. The measure requires that mailed materials over 2,500 pieces in a political race would have to be reported. The law stems from alleged mailings from the Republican Legislative Majority Committee funded by former lawmaker Art Pope to constituents in some statewide races. Incumbents claim the mailings were attacked but Pope says he did not attack but rather shed light on some of the actions by the incumbent lawmakers. The measure awaits the governor’s signature.
McCullen: The Senate has rolled a number of campaign contribution bills previously passed by the House into comprehensive legislation. The bill lowers contribution reporting limits, bans blank check contributions, and orders training for campaign treasurers [House 1846]. This bill cruised to an easy passage but senators said the campaign reporting process, this bill aside, is difficult and sometimes the computer software they use to report is unreliable. Others say lowering the cash contribution reporting threshold from $100 down to $50 is unreasonable. Yet others say the public deserves to know how campaign contributions are handled.
Kinnaird: And I think that what we’ve got to do to help our treasurers, now especially it is going to be even more burdensome, is to work with the Board of Elections or say to the Board of Elections, “You’ve got to get something that the average citizen can actually file easily, don’t change the form, make sure the program doesn’t just suddenly disappear from the screen and you have to start all over again.”
Brock: The main thrust of this bill is to shed some light onto the reporting so that we can let the people back home, the people that vote for us, to know who’s behind us, who is for us, who is against us, and where the money is coming from. I urge you to support the bill.
Shaw: We need to stand up and take our hits when we deserve to take our hits and when we don’t let’s leave it alone. I am kind of tired of all this myself, I really am. And I don’t like this bill and I don’t think I am going to vote for it.
McCullen: The bill returns to the House for concurrence.
Vajda: A new elections pilot program aims at reducing primary elections costs while eliminating second and third primary runoffs [House 1024]. Ten counties would initially participate in local primaries where over two candidates seek office voters would rank their candidates by first, second, and third choice. The first time a ballot is counted only first-choice voters are considered. If no candidate wins the first count the same ballots are recounted with only the top two finishers considered. The candidate receiving the higher preference on a particular ballot wins that ballot.
Luebke: Number one you avoid the cost of holding a whole ‘nother election four weeks or seven weeks later. Number two, you are allowing the electorate to really participate in a second choice on the same day.
Vajda: The State Board of Elections would oversee this pilot program and report back to the General Assembly. It is scheduled on this Monday’s Senate calendar.
The dispute over the Republican House seat in District 10 will continue. That was the ruling by the State Board of Elections concerning complaints of voter irregularities in the May primaries in Lenoir County. Incumbent Representative Steven LaRoque lost the election by 11 votes to Willie Ray Starling. Representative LaRoque and his lawyers claim voters were not properly informed of their duties; poll workers may have mislead workers. But Starling and his team say there is insufficient evidence of this. A motion to certify the existing election results failed. The board instead ruled to hold a hearing in Lenoir County early next month.
McCullen: North Carolina’s cable television deregulation bill hits the governor’s desk [House 2047]. Supporters say it will give cable TV customers choice between competing companies but critics worry deregulation does not protect consumers very well and that cable companies could actually choose or in their terms cherry pick only the most profitable cities, leaving rural areas without price protection and thus price hikes. The state will assume customer service complaints and will negotiate cable TV franchises instead of the city doing it. This bill takes effect January 1st, 2007.
SEATBELT LAW
Vajda: North Carolina is now one of 20 states requiring everyone, not just children, to buckle-up in the back seat. The Senate gave final approval to this bill Monday night.
McCullen: Current state law is pretty clear, requires drivers and front-seat passengers to wear a safety belt. The debate this week centers around this balance of safety and choice with your back seat rider. Well the final vote was 30 in favor and 17 against.
Vajda: Johanna Henry talked to drivers, passengers, and those on both sides of the seatbelt law. Johanna?
Henry: Eszter and Kelly we were surprised more than half the drivers we spoke with admit they don’t always wear their seatbelt in the back seat. Now these are the same people who say a mandate is a good idea. The pieces clicked into place this week and the General Assembly made it law for all back seat passengers to buckle up. Drivers at this Raleigh post office generally said the law was a good idea.
M: I think it is a good idea probably to do that. I mean I know it saves lives. Granted I hate that you are going to be restricted, you can’t lay down in the back or something of that nature.
M: I frankly think it would be a good thing because of the safety factor.
M: I require for everybody to do it, all the grown-ups to wear safety in the back seat. ‘Cause if you don’t anything could happen. Everybody in the car could die.
M: I think it is a good idea.
Henry: Do you wear your seatbelt in the back seat as well?
M: From time to time yes.
Henry: If a law were passed so that you had to, would you wear it more often?
M: Sure.
Henry: Currently the penalty for not wearing your seatbelts in the front seat is $25 plus court costs. Under the new law you’d be fined only $10 and no court costs for not wearing your seatbelt in the back seat. But experts say more people comply just because there is a law, not because they are afraid of the penalty.
Vitaglione: When they feel that their legislator went to Raleigh and has come back with a message that this is so important it ought to be a law, regardless of a penalty, then people comply with it. And it has been wonderful. In the front seat for example we have almost 87% compliance.
Henry: Tom Vitaglione is a senior fellow with Action for Children North Carolina and co-chair of the Child Fatality Task Force. Children under 16 are already required to be buckled up in the back seat but the task force got involved because teens over age 16 weren’t covered under the current law. Vitaglione also says unbuckled back seat passengers are a bad example for children. And here is another reason; back seat behavior affects front seat safety. This video from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows during a crash the back seat passenger slams into the front seat. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, belted drivers are five times more likely to die if their rear passenger is unbelted. And according to the IIHS, the cost of recovery for an unbelted victim is 50% higher than a buckled one.
Vitaglione: Now who pays that? The rest of us pay that. We pay it in health insurance premiums and car liability premiums. In fact when the first seatbelt law was passed just for the front seat, insurance companies’ liability went down $132 million in North Carolina and the insurance commissioner got a decrease in our rates.
Hood: I think that we have long been on a slippery slope, eroding our personal freedom and this is just another step down.
Henry: John Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation. He says it is a sign of the times that government is telling you how to take care of yourself.
Hood: If in fact it is dangerous to ride in the back seat of a car without a seatbelt, it is also dangerous to overeat. It is dangerous not to get appropriate exercise. It is dangerous to smoke. It is dangerous to drink to excess. Now when are we going to start regulating these behaviors and why not if we are going to be regulating seatbelt usage? I would argue that these behaviors actually cause a lot more social ills than the lack of seatbelt usage in the back seat.
Henry: Remember those drivers at the post office who generally said the law was a good idea? They weren’t all in favor of a mandate.
F: I think it is probably a good idea for adults to wear their seatbelt in the back seat but we’ve already got too much government interference. No, I don’t think it should be a law.
Henry: As for the danger an unbelted driver poses to other passengers, Hood says we don’t need a law, we need people to take responsibility for their own safety in the front or the back seat.
Hood: We are making people morally, behaviorally lazy when we encourage them to wait for the legislature to tell them what is right and what is wrong. That is the job of individuals themselves in a free society.
Henry: Currently a law enforcement officer can stop a vehicle if they notice a front seat occupant or a child not belted in. But under the new law an officer cannot stop a car if they suspect that a back seat passenger is not buckled up. Back to you.
McCullen: Thank you, Johanna. The bill takes effect December 1st of this year. Warning tickets can be issued until June 30th of 2007 then on July 1st of 2007 you could receive a ticket.
VARIOUS BILLS
Vajda: Duke Energy and some environmental groups are at odds over a bill that gives the power company credit under the Federal Clean Smokestacks Act [House 2884]. Duke is expanding its flip site facility and wants the flexibility to operate and produce more power. Some claim that the measure would increase the amount of the dangerous gas sulphur dioxide released from the stacks. Under this measure Duke Energy would receive credit for air pollution reduction because of a scrubber it had installed. The scrubber they say helps reduce the overall emissions.
Everett: This provision continues the agreement that was entered into under the Clean Smokestacks legislation. It gives us flexibility to operate these new plants under the cap that was set on our emission.
Diggins: This is important to people in North Carolina because this will directly affect the quality of air in popular vacation areas in the western part of the state, such as the Pisgah Nantahala Forest, Linville Gorge, Shinning Rock, these are places that are much loved by North Carolinians and the purpose of the federal review would be make sure that that air is as clean as it can be.
Vajda: The federal Smokestacks Act passed in 2002. It requires power companies to reduce harmful emissions. The bill would only exempt Duke Energy.
McCullen: The Senate unanimously puts the breaks on proposed mega landfills throughout North Carolina. A bill heading for House consideration authorizes an 18-month moratorium on new landfill creation but does not prevent local landfill expansion projects that worry some county commissioners. The Senate budget contained moratorium language but it didn’t survive the House and Senate budget negotiations. There was some debate about whether this issue is actually better addressed by county governments but not enough dissent was there to spark a single “no” vote against this bill [House 1093].
Nesbitt: This is something that will not impact a single county; it will impact the eastern part of the state. They are just way too large to ignore and if you wait until they are 400 feet high there is nothing you can do about it.
Berger: I still have some reservations, one of them is if we are concerned about mega landfills then maybe what we should have done is considered a moratorium on mega landfills and not on all landfills. But this as I said is much, much better than what we were looking at before and I do plan to vote for it.
McCullen: The bill directs the Environmental Review Commission to study landfills and their public health impact.
Vajda: First it was a cap on gas taxes now it is illegal immigrants. Bill Graham, a person many predict will run for the governor’s seat, has launched a campaign to regulate immigrants in this state. Graham is asking lawmakers to pass two bills, one would stop giving illegal immigrant’s driver’s licenses, the other would require voters to show a valid ID at the polls. Some Republicans claim that House and Senate Democrats are blocking these bills from hitting the floor. Graham who heads N.C. Conservatives United spent millions in ads asking the General Assembly to cap the gas tax. Graham says he is not sure whether he will be running for governor.
Junk faxes in your inbox may soon be a thing of the past. Under a bill sending unsolicited faxes, if there is not a business relationship in state to North Carolina consumers could carry a fine [Senate 1295]. Faxes would have to be identified in the margins. Violations could be addressed in civil court. Junk fax violators would face a $500 fine for the first offense and $1,000 for a second offense and $5,000 for a third offense. Defendants would also face paying the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees.
McCullen: Banning teens from driving and cell phone chatting and expanding the state’s seatbelt laws were topics of House debate this week. Eszter speaks with Representative Jennifer Weiss and Representative Tim Moore to learn more.
SEATBELT BILL AND CELL PHONE BILL INTERVIEW
Vajda: Representative Moore, Representative Weiss, thanks so much for being here. Representative Weiss, why should people in the back seat of cars wear seatbelts?
Weiss: To save lives. It is safer, we know for a fact that not only is it going to save the lives of the people sitting in the back of the car, but we have research that shows that people in the front of the car are five times more likely to die if people in the back are not belted. So they need to buckle-up in the car, period, and we are going to save lives in our state.
Vajda: Representative Moore, why not?
Moore: This is a question about personal choices and individual liberty, whether folks should have to wear a seatbelt or not. I oppose the bill, not because there may be some good things that come from it, but because really people should be able to make the choice whether they want a seatbelt or not. And there are a number of changes we could make to traffic law. I guess we could reduce the speed limit down to 25 miles per hour on the interstate and the collisions wouldn’t be as bad so more people would survive those, too. But there is a balance, there has to be a balance between what government does and what government says people have to do. And allowing people to make choices and assume certain risks.
Vajda: Representative Weiss, some contend that law enforcement officials will have a hard time catching those not wearing seatbelts in the back, especially because it is really hard to see. What is your response to that?
Weiss: Well the response is this is something the Governor’s Highway Safety folks encourage us to do, Triple A, the Pediatric Society. The bottom line is you need to wear a seatbelt in a car and when you make it a law your compliance rate goes up tremendously. The compliance rate for front seat seatbelts is about 87%; for back seat is about 38% because we don’t have the law in effect now. When that law goes into effect we are going to see more people using seatbelts and that is the purpose of the law. It is not to catch people, it is to make sure people know it is safer and government has a responsibility to let folks know that it is a lot safer to be buckled in the back.
Vajda: What about educating people about this law?
Moore: People know that they are safer in seatbelts. Folks should wear seatbelts. But people should also have the choice as to whether they want to wear the seatbelt or not. One of the statistics that was used by the proponents of the bill were these arguments that folks in the back seat are flying up and hitting the folks in the front seat. And I actually had an opportunity to talk with a couple of highway patrolmen about that, have you seen that kind of thing happening. And the answer is no. What happens, the reason people die or get seriously injured when they don’t have a seatbelt is they get ejected from the vehicle. That is where most of your fatalities and serious injuries occur. Or, in the case of the front seat, the person flies up and hits the windshield or hits the dash. In the back seat that is not an issue. The real thing in the back seat, why people should wear seatbelts, because it keeps them harnessed in and they won’t get ejected from the vehicle. But the argument that people are becoming human projectiles and flying up hitting other people in the car, I just haven’t seen enough data to really support that that is really there, but still I don’t think it is justification to require folks in the back seat to do it.
And go back to this, too, the reason the original seat belt bill passed in the ‘80s was that the argument being that the person who is driving the car needed to have the seatbelt because if they were in a collision and might lose control of the car and thereby injure some other person in another vehicle. We’ve gone beyond that phase to now actually dictating what happens to an individual. And I think we’ve crossed that line and we’ve gone too far.
Vajda: Representative Weiss, you have some different statistics from the Highway Department about back seat projectiles?
Weiss: Yes, you know we are hearing anecdotal evidence versus studies that prove that people are five more times likely to die if the folks in the back are not belted. The front seat passengers and the front seat driver are, they are more likely to die. And if you are not belted, the cost of healthcare if you do happen to survive are 50% higher than if you are belted. So you know, society is going to bear this cost, the taxpayers are going to bear this cost, all of our insurance rates, our health costs, our taxes go up because of folks who choose not to wear seatbelts. So this isn’t just about personal choice, it affects all of us; we all end up paying more. And I can tell you with the compliance rate that is improved because of the Click It or Ticket campaign for front seat seatbelts; we’ve saved $132 million in this state in insurance premiums for car insurance. That is a tremendous savings to the people of North Carolina. We’ve saved lives and we’ve saved the cost of folks, you know, purchasing insurance and I know just as a consumer that matters when you write your check for the insurance company every year, especially when you have a young driver in the family. You want your, you know, those insurance rates to be fair and the way we can do that for all of us is for all of us to wear our seatbelts.
Vajda: Representative Moore, what about the claims that all of us share the burden of insurance when people get into car accidents?
Moore: Listen that is a slippery slope. You can justify that to just about any law so I don’t ascribe to that argument at all. It is another way—I’ve used this term on the floor because I think it applies—of us becoming a nanny state, the state trying to tell individuals what they have to do because it is best for them and if they don’t live a certain way or make certain choices it is going to cost society in other ways. That is the argument that people use to try to say you should outlaw smoking or you should outlaw McDonalds because it has fattening food, people go there, they eat then they have a heart attack and it costs the healthcare system. That is a very dangerous road to go down. We have to draw the line at some point.
And with respect to this car issue, what’s next? We’ve had—every year there has been some sort of law to mandate what folks have to do when they are in a car. What’s next? Next year are they going to have to, people going to have to wear a helmet like in a race car? It would probably save lives, they would hit their head on the dash. But where do we draw the line? At what point does the law go too far? And I agree with Representative Weiss on some of—their intent is good, no argument with the intent. The intent here is to try to have people make the right decision but at the same time people should be able to make those decisions. And so where do you draw the line where government says you have to do something where the person has the choice to choose whether to do something or not?
Vajda: Representative Weiss where do you draw that line?
Weiss: Well I think government has a role in the health and safety of the citizens. And we now have more information about seatbelts than we did when the original seatbelt law was passed. There have been people all along who have opposed every step of the way. They opposed the original seatbelt law. Now they say, “Well that was then, this is now.” They have opposed child booster seats, they have opposed child car seats, you know those battles have been fought over the years. When I was a little kid I was thrown in the back of the station wagon, nobody belted you up. You know I survived. A lot of kids didn’t. We now know that children are safer if they are, you know, buckled up in a safety seat and so we put our children in there. And I think government has a responsibility to let folks know just as we now have more information. People used to think, you know, you just need a seatbelt in the front because in the back you are safe, you won’t be ejected. Well you can be ejected and not only that you can be seriously injured even if you are not ejected. And we do have information now that in fact, in some ways it is more dangerous because of the injuries you can inflict on the people in the front, so. When we have more information we need to make those changes.
Vajda: Let me go back to the slippery slope comment. What do you mean slippery slope and where, how far do you think it will go?
Moore: Well I hope it doesn’t go any further than it does. The slippery soap argument being at what point does government allow individuals to make choices, even if they are bad choices, and at what point does government step in and say we are going to make the choice for you by law. But I want to respond to one thing about this bill, too, that I think there is a bit of a disconnect. We don’t require seatbelts in school buses, which are full of children. And the reason, but the seats are designed, the rationale being that when there is a crash they crash into the seat in front of them. But we are going to require adults in a vehicle to wear a seatbelt but we are not going to require kids in a school bus to have a seatbelt on. I don’t know if that is a situation of government saying do as we say, not as we do, that the government doesn’t want to bear that expense or burden or what the rationale is.
And the other thing, there are a couple of problems with this bill. Vans, like a lot of church vans that don’t have seatbelts in them, are these folks going to legally be able to ride in these vans without the seatbelts? The way I read it they won’t be able to. What about cars where there is not a seatbelt to hold everybody in the back seat? Can you only carry that number of passengers? Those are things that really weren’t addressed but I think those are going to be problems and that is one reason I opposed this bill, especially in its form, as well as the philosophical approach about people having the choice to decide whether or not to wear a seatbelt.
Weiss: Under the law if there is a seatbelt in the car you are supposed to wear it unless you have a medical reason for not wearing it. It does not require you to wear a seatbelt if there is not a seatbelt in the car. And in terms of school buses, Representative Moore you’ve been here a couple of years, I’ve never seen you run that bill. If you are interested in running that bill we will debate that bill on the merits. I know my predecessor felt very, very strongly about it and that there were arguments on both sides of the issue but certainly if that is something you feel like bringing forward no one is stopping you.
You know we talk about personal liberties. At the end of the day if somebody flies through the windshield we are going to have to scrape that person off the road and hopefully, if you know they are going to survive then we are going to have to pay all the healthcare costs to get them well, if we can get them well. And those costs, 75% of them, are borne by the public. They are borne, you know if somebody else flies through the windshield we are all paying for it. And you know I am all for personal choices; I think we heard some really strong arguments from folks who feel very strongly on the floor about personal liberties and personal choices and what they said is your choices end where they really have a negative impact on other people. And that is the purpose of this bill. You know make your own choices but if your choices are going to end up leaving children orphaned or killing people in the front seat, or causing the rest of us to pay more for healthcare and ultimately when we all pay more for healthcare it means some people are just completely left out and don’t get good healthcare, can’t purchase insurance because of those costs. So that is why I feel strongly about this.
Vajda: Will we see a bill urging kids to wear seatbelts next year, Representative Moore?
Moore: I’d like to see a bill repealing this bill next year. I may file that one just because again it comes down to personal liberty. I am not going to support any legislation to expand this, to further restrict a person’s right to choose whether or not to wear a seatbelt. I just don’t—I think it is government going too far. We’ve got a lot of other problems we need to be addressing other than this.
Vajda: Let’s talk about another bill that was passed this week and that is restricting kids from using cell phones while driving. Why are all of these bills coming in on the floor right now, restricting people in motor vehicles?
Weiss: Well actually both of those bills, the rear seatbelt bill and the cell phone ban for young drivers, were recommendations of the Child Fatality Task Force. Several years ago the legislature put into place a task force that studied all of the deaths of young people in our state and they make recommendations to us about legislative policy to take up to try to reduce deaths of young people. And the cell phone bill ban was their number one recommendation. It had broad support and the purpose was to add that to one of the provisions of the graduated driver’s license in North Carolina. We have a very good, effective graduated driver’s license system in North Carolina which has saved a lot of lives. The Child Fatality Task Force made this recommendation and the bill went through.
Vajda: How do you feel about the cell phone ban?
Moore: The Child Fatality Task Force does a great job with what they do. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I disagree with them. But their hearts are in the right place and they are trying to protect children. No question about that. The cell phone bill I am somewhat torn about. I voted against it because I saw some procedural problems with the enforcement side of it. Do we want law enforcement out writing tickets and worrying about whether people are wearing their seatbelt or whether they are talking on their cell phone? Or do we want police officers out looking for people who are driving drunk, reckless driving, speeding, or committing other crimes. I believe we should have our law enforcement officers focused on those other things and not on whether they are talking on the phone or wearing a seat belt or doing anything that is not bothering anybody. So that is, you know that is another rationale for why I voted really against both of those.
Weiss: And I can explain with respect to both of those bills, this is about compliance. You know parents have actually told us please, we want this cell phone ban, you know, give us a reason to tell our kids you can’t talk on the phone. And law enforcement knows that their job is to go after the most serious crimes and they are going to continue to do that. They are not out there to just catch people. But the reason we pass these laws, the graduated driver’s license and the seatbelt laws, is because we know that when folks learn about this they are going to comply with the law and the compliance rate is going to be much higher. You compare 87% of people buckling up in front to 38% buckling up in the back, I mean just by virtue of a law and no law. So with the young people with cell phones we are going to see safer driving; this is important.
Vajda: But statistics show that even adults get into car accidents when using cell phones. Why not include adults in this measure?
Weiss: This was a recommendation of the Child Fatality Task Force and so they really wanted to focus on the graduated driver’s license. I think there have been bills filed in the past; I think Representative McAllister feels very strongly that adults should not be talking on the phone. And there is a lot of good data out there that in fact it is not just a distraction when you are talking on the phone, you are using parts of your brain that you really should be using driving. And so there may be very strong arguments to look at that in the future and I think you are going to hear folks, you know, filing those bills again in the future.
Vajda: New York has a, New York state has an all-out ban on cell phone use. Is North Carolina going to be next?
Moore: I hope not, I hope we don’t follow New York on that as well as some other things but no, I hope not because again it is another, it is the slippery slope. Ban it for kids next no cell phones for anyone. And this was attempted this week. And again it comes down to personal choice, personal responsibility on that. But you know it is already an offense to drive distracted. If someone is playing with the radio or doing their makeup or talking on the phone, whatever, and they are not operating the vehicle safely, an officer can already write a ticket for it. So banning the use of cell phones is not addressing the issue. The issue would be if the person is driving recklessly or not paying attention to what they are doing. An officer can already write a ticket for that. So there is no need for it. It is just another example of government stepping in, telling somebody what they can and can’t do for no reason.
Vajda: Representative Moore, Representative Weiss, thanks so much for talking to us about these important issues.
McCullen: The seatbelt bill sits on Governor Easley’s desk.
Vajda: For more analysis on this week’s happenings Kelly sits down with members of the Capital Press Corps.
ANALYSIS SEGMENT
McCullen: I am joined tonight by Mark Johnson of the Charlotte Observer and Kerra Bolton of the Asheville Citizen Times, the western part of the state duly represented. Thanks for being here on Legislative Week in Review. Mark you just told me off camera it has been a really long week. What’s the atmosphere like in these halls and in these chambers right now?
Johnson: I can tell you Papa John’s Pizza is doing a bang-up business in the cuss room. The, it is definitely an atmosphere of when are we going to get out of here. And there were a lot of folks who were thinking it was going to be this past week but as we’ve seen in previous years something seems to always hang them up. You know it is often the budget; we thought that was the big hump they were over but there are other things like the ethics bills that have kept them around for a little while.
McCullen: How about you, Kerra, what is your—from your perspective of covering this place, are we going to get out of here soon? That is what everyone seems to be rumoring.
Bolton: Well I think there is a poll going on on what date that we are actually going to leave and my money is on July 20th. Maybe I am being a little bit hopeful but it has been a frantic week as Mark has said. I found that I’ve been sprinting up and down the halls of the legislative week trying to get things done.
McCullen: I know the sessions have started early and they’ve been running late into the evening. Is there any count of how many bills either chamber has considered this week? I know nobody keeps a formal tally I don’t think but how about informally? Hundreds of bills this past week?
Johnson: Oh you mean how many they’ve just done this past week?
McCullen: Oh absolutely. It seems like they have gone bill, bill, bill just one right behind the other.
Johnson: Well I mean certainly dozens and of course I mean in terms of the numbers that have been introduced I mean in either chamber you are talking, you know, close to 3,000 bills. So there is a lot that we are going through but we are in that marathon session that you mentioned, they realize the time is short. And so they are trying to get through them fast. At the same time a lot of these bills have been, have gone through the grinder and the problems have been worked out so they are able to get them through more quickly than earlier in the session.
McCullen: How many of these bills Kerra that are being considered now might have been included in a budget that allow provisions?
Bolton: Many of them probably have and because there have been changes in policy about what gets in a budget bill versus what is a special provision versus what is separate, so as you said many of these things are things that would have normally been wrapped up in a budget bill but have been pulled out for policy reasons.
McCullen; One thing the newspapers have written about is the landfill moratorium which stops the permitting of new landfills, Mark. What is the status on that one right now coming out of the Senate? That was a provision that I think hung up the House and Senate budget negotiators?
Johnson: Right and the Senate did get it through pretty—I think it was quite unanimous. It was a big margin and so it, you know, it is doing just fine. It looks like it was something that finally folks were able to reach some agreement on. There is a little bit of question about well why didn’t we just limit landfills of a certain size? But the, you know I think even the deputy Republican leader stood up at one point right after one of the Democratic leaders had spoken and chimed in with it.
McCullen: It was so easy in the Senate, Kerra. It goes to the House I think right, next? Does it seem to be as easily passed there?
Bolton: From what I understand there are some questions about what it does and part of that was brought up during the budget negotiations when it was included, part of the Senate budget. And I think that the House will want to go through and see if it is, if those questions get answered.
McCullen: You know we are now hearing little comments during the sessions from whomever is holding the gavel about the other chamber and how they are working and oh they decided to go home. Given the history of, recent history, what does that say for the attitudes coming out of the Senate and the House towards each other?
Johnson: It seems pretty normal.
McCullen: Is it normal?
Johnson: This time of the session in that it is finger-pointing. It is, “No they did it, no they did it.” It is a matter of you’ve got again the time crunch, they want to get out of here and they are running into these problems late in the game and want to get them taken care of quickly and so the tension is up a little bit and so they, one chamber commiserates, “Well we dealt with it, why do they have to raise all these new questions?” Well simple answer is it is the way a two-house legislature works and folks just don’t quite have the patience for it right now that they did earlier in the session.
McCullen: With these flurry of bills, Kerra, are there any new proposals that are getting slipped in? Anything new happening that wasn’t on the radar in previous weeks?
Bolton: One of the bills that I am paying attention to which may not be new is the DOT re-allocation funding in western North Carolina would have lost a great deal of money for unpaved roads. The Senate had made a change to the provision so that is now in the House and there was a conference committee appointed and the reason why I mention that is because some of the senators were saying that it was a last-minute change and so I’m not sure if that is there perception or if it really was a last-minute change.
McCullen: How about from your perspective, Mark?
Johnson: There was one item in one of the ethics bills, there was a provision slipped in there that exempted the General Assembly from the requirement that they get approval from the attorney general before they hire outside counsel for something. This was significant because House Speaker Jim Black wanted to hire and did hire outside council to deal with subpoenas from a federal grand jury. The attorney general earlier this year, back in March, said no, you can’t spend the money that you want to spend. So the provision looked like something that the speaker would have put in there. He said he didn’t. There was a staff lawyer who said he put it in there but it was a rare instance this year of finding something like that. They have been pretty good about keeping things out in the open and keeping them out of, kind of omnibus bills.
McCullen: With all of this talk of adjournment, Kerra, are there any bills right now that the public consider important, the media considers important, that are at real risk of not getting any consideration or passage before adjourning?
Bolton: Well I think people are definitely watching the ethics reform that is now in the Senate and what they will do and how they will change the House package of that. I think that is, I don’t think it doesn’t have any chance of kind of not getting passed it is just what it will look like and will it be significantly weaker than the original proposed reforms?
McCullen: Who would say whether that is weaker or not if it passes out of the chambers, Mark?
Johnson: Well you can do a pretty good, I mean pretty easy analysis of what the original proposals were. You know for instance one proposal was that they, the ethics commission span the legislature and the executive branch and that it be able to investigate anyone. Well the version of the bill that is being dealt with right now still has that broad commission and they can still investigate the governor’s office and the agency’s executive branch but they don’t investigate the legislature. They say they make some recommendations or suggestions and the legislature investigates itself which you know raises the question of can you police yourself. And that has been a sticking point for a number of weeks.
McCullen: Anything else that might not, we might not see come to life by the time everyone goes home? Or is ethics the big hurdle?
Bolton: Ethics is the big hurdle.
Johnson: It is the one everyone is watching just because of the, you know, all of the controversies we’ve had this past year.
McCullen: With account of that, are any bills on the fast-track to try to get passed? I know the minimum wage kind of came up, it was dealt with rather handily. The Pledge of Allegiance bill; is there anything else on the fast-track that we can expect? Maybe less contentious between the chambers?
Bolton: We are both drawing a blank.
Johnson: I don’t know the ones we’ve been writing about are the contentious ones.
McCullen: That is understandable, that is what everyone is paying attention to. Well one was the Pledge of Allegiance, Mark. That was a big bill and it is much more than kids citing a pledge in school every day. What all does this bill encompass, Senate Bill 700 I should say if you want to look it up on the internet?
Johnson: Well kind of encompass some political grandstanding basically. It was, the two chambers were competing with each other for who could deck themselves out in the brightest red, white, and blue and in fact there was even a spat between the two chambers as to whose bill was going to be passed first. The Senate was angry because they had passed theirs first and the House hadn’t passed it. They ended—and then of course there was a squabble on the Senate floor because there was confusion among the Democrats about whether they should vote for a particular provision. The lieutenant governor didn’t break the tie so it is really, it has been quite entertaining to watch that one go through.
McCullen: What does it mean, Kerra, when people accuse the chambers of playing politics with the Pledge of Allegiance bill? What do they mean by all that?
Bolton: Everybody wants credit for it. Everyone wants to be able to go home and take a bone home to their tribe and say look, this is what I did. And of course patriotism is just one of those broad things that people can campaign on and so they want to be able to take a bone home to their tribe. And everybody wants to be able to take credit for this. And that is, I think that that is part of it, especially in an election year that is very, it is going to be very contentious and very difficult, especially in the swing districts.
McCullen: What will the bill do, Mark? We talked about the politics of getting it passed. What exactly does it do for North Carolina school children and for public schools? The pledge of course and then displays of flags, mottos?
Johnson: Well I mean the pledge is really the important component of it because of course you know we’ve had a United States Supreme Court case involving the Pledge of Allegiance whether “under God” should be in there. It is something that folks, even in my youth I remember as a child having to recite that in school. And then there is some sense that we’ve gotten away from that and we’ve gotten away from acts of patriotism towards the country so it, it just really is—there is a lot of symbolism to the legislation as opposed to very heavy policy making.
McCullen: The Senate also dealt Kerra with some campaign contribution reform. One was lawmakers would no longer use campaign cash for personal use. What made that so easily pass this term?
Bolton: Because most of them want to get re-elected. I mean what is coming out of that is there were some issues with Representative Mike Decker who closed his campaign account and then used the cash for his own personal use for cars. You know we’ve also heard of two other instances. Representative Wilma Sherrill from Buncombe County was diagnosed with breast cancer earlier this year and she thought that she was going to die because her mother had died from breast cancer and she closed her campaign account and then used it for personal use. And I think Jim Black, that is your area, but didn’t he use some money for attorneys from his campaign accounts? That’s something I think I read or understood.
Johnson: He’s definitely used it. It is unclear exactly whether that was for allegations against his campaign or not. They are not answering a lot on it but yes, there have been a number of instances of it.
McCullen: But what is clear is that this bill would forbid any of that. There really aren’t many—well there are no exemptions to how campaign cash may be used for personal purposes the way I understand the bill. Is that a safe assumption if you are a person reading this bill? Senator Clodfelter commented on the floor about treasurer training, the campaign treasurers. Yet that cause more uproar and it probably wasn’t as controversial as some of the other provisions. What made it so controversial, Mark, to some lawmakers?
Johnson: Well because so many of them have these, their treasurer is a volunteer. It is a relative, it is a family friend, you know to keep the cost of the campaign down and you know the bill puts some, you know, fairly time-consuming requirements in terms of training and things that the treasurer would have to do and I think there is a concern there among folks that we want to keep this as a citizen legislature, you know, try to keep the cost of campaigns down. But of course the bill is, you know, is in reaction again to some of the controversies we’ve seen so that campaign treasurers do know what they are supposed to do to follow the law and avoid some of the problems that we’ve been writing about.
McCullen: Are training issues Kerra, based on your experience down here, could that be a big hurdle, the word we’ve been using, to getting folks to volunteer to be treasurers for candidates? Is it that big of a deal?
Bolton: Well that is some concern. I mean we are not talking about mini-CPAs but we are talking about little old ladies who have got some extra time and they often volunteer as Mark just said. And I think that lawmakers are duly concerned about whether they have to drive to Raleigh to get this training and how much time it will take for them. On the other hand there probably wouldn’t be as many problems in the State Board of Elections if there were, if there was more stringent campaign treasurer training.
McCullen: Are these bills for campaign cash reform, contribution reform, Mark, as popular as the final vote suggested in chamber or is this a bill that if you are an incumbent you can’t vote against?
Johnson: Well it certainly would be difficult to vote against. Again I mean after a year of all of these stories about he shenanigans with the campaign and checks with the payee line blank and this sort of thing, you know a number of these bills, you put them all in a package, are the essence of the reform that we are talking about. And you know you vote against those and somebody, your opponent can easily say, you know, voting to keep the status quo and the culture doesn’t change. But the one, those are really not going to be that controversial, the treasurer training, the personal use campaign funds. It is things like whether lobbyists can fundraise for candidates. Those are the ones that are going to be difficult to get through and there is going to be a lot of teeth gnashing on that.
McCullen: Let’s touch on the cell phone ban for teenage drivers. The House spent a few hours discussing this. Have you heard any of the debate, Kerra? How do you size-up the arguments that were being made?
Bolton: Well these advocates say that we need to limit the distractions for inexperienced drivers and the critics say that this is an unenforceable law; how are we going to know that the students are talking, or the teens are talking to their parents if they get pulled over. And how is this going to work? So there are a lot of questions around the enforceability of the cell phone ban. Of course there are lawmakers who want to have that cell phone ban apply to everyone, not just teenagers.
McCullen: How enforceable is a teenage cell phone ban? What exemptions to teenagers get under the legislation?
Johnson: Well it would be difficult. I mean the big exemption as Kerra alluded to is that you can answer a call from your parents while you are driving. Well you know how does the officer know that that was a phone call from your parents and you know with the kind of headset phones that we have today, I mean how are they even going to notice in passing by that you are on the phone? I mean this strikes me, I think Kerra hit on this, is that this is a watered-down effort from what we’ve seen before, the push to ban cell phone use while driving altogether because it is a distraction and there are statistics out that that show that it is a factor in accidents.
McCullen: Thanks for joining us tonight.
Bolton: Thank you.
Johnson: Thanks.
Vajda: If you have any questions or comments about our show or any legislation you would like covered, email us at legweek@unctv.org. That is going to do it for our show. Thanks so much for joining us everyone. I am Eszter Vajda.
McCullen: I am Kelly McCullen. Have a wonderful weekend.
[THEME MUSIC]
Voiceover: Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting UNC-TV.
[END OF BROADCAST]
|
