archived: 7 - 13 Jan, 2007         Back                 Next

UPDATED: JANUARY 11, 2007

                        PDNC’S RESPONSE
                        [By Pete McDowell, PDNC President] 

The Executive Board of the Progressive Democrats of North Carolina issued our appeal to NC candidates for Speaker and Democratic House members because we feel that the first principle of the Democratic Party is to be for democracy. 

We said that “In short, almost no bill passes that a well-heeled lobby is opposed to unless a better- heeled lobby is for it, and, conversely, almost any bill backed by a major wealthy special interest that is not opposed by another major special interest can fly through the legislature.”   

Steve raises two apparent exceptions, the minimum wage and the landfill moratorium. I think our statement is certainly the general rule. 

The minimum wage increase was a great victory because beating the business lobby is so rare. But, objectively, a dollar increase is a very small step toward a living wage. 

The landfill moratorium victory was helped enormously by the fact that Senator Basnight had two proposed mega-landfills in his district, and the landfill lobby was largely based out of state. And then, the moratorium it is only for 18 months. 

Progressive ideas can and do compete in the marketplace of ideas, but the NC legislature is, by-and-large, not a marketplace of ideas but rather is a marketplace of campaign contributions, lobbying clout, and political favors.  The reason we are for procedural reform is precisely because we want our legislature—and our election system—to be a  place where the primacy of issues and ideas trumps moneyed influence—where the voice of the grassroots can be heard above the din of wealth and power. 

It is sometimes true that bad bills can and have been stalled by undemocratic means.  Kings and dictators sometimes stop popular but heinous proposals, too.  But we are not for kings and dictators, no matter how benevolent.  We have checks and balances in a truly democratic system, but lack of democratic procedure should not be one of those checks.  It works against the people far more than it works for us.

Gerrymandering is a complex and difficult issue as Steve points out, but the present system is basically an incumbent protection plan controlled by the party in power.  Competitive elections are the essence of democracy.  If Democrats don’t feel that we can compete with competitive boundaries, we need to hang it up. In the present system it is more the case that legislators choose their voters rather than that voters choose their legislators.  One result is that ungodly amounts of money are spent in the 10 to 15% of districts that are competitive.  Another result is that in far too many cases no elections are held at all. In fact in the last election there was no general election in 63 of the 120 NC House races. It is true that worst systems could be devised, but if Democrats, now with clear majorities in both houses, set about designing a fair redistricting commission, they could certainly design one that would be much more balanced and fair than the present system and protects minority rights too.  

On campaign finance reform, Steve argues that “… our courts have held that contributions implicate free speech concerns.  The task of fashioning restrictions what will pass constitutional muster will be difficult.”  True, but the voluntary publicly-funded campaign finance reform model known here as “voter-owned elections” has passed in seven states and two cities. A version of it is in effect for Supreme Court and Appeals Court races in North Carolina. It has passed repeated constitutional tests. No system is perfect, but these reforms have produced far more democratic electoral systems than are in place in the rest of the country. 

In short, Democrats have to stop fearing democracy.  In fact, we should be its foremost champions. 

                        WE WON; DIDN’T WE?   

NC Democrats clearly won the 2006 mid-term elections; picking up one critical Congressional seat, increasing the levels of majority control of the State House and State Senate; and increasing the number of Democratic County Commissioners.   Below the celebration of that victory, disturbing trends continue foreshadowing problems for the NC Democratic Party.  

While Democrats increased their majority in the General Assembly, Republicans continued to make gains against the Democrats in statewide voter registration. In 2006, Republicans gained 9,861, net, more voter registrations than Democrats.  This gain, as discussed more fully below, continues a long standing trend with the exception of 2004.

Graphically, the trends in North Carolina are represented best in the chart below.

By and large, Republican growth in voter registration has remained static since 2000, increasing a mere +.04% from 2000 to 2006.  Democratic Party registration dropped in every biennium since 1980.  Since 2000, Democratic registration has declined principally at the expense of the rise of unaffiliated voters.  At the close of 2006, the Democratic Party is at its lowest point in modern history. 

Our fundamental analysis is from the perspective of comparing Republican and Democratic Party registrations as one yardstick of the relative organizational strength between the two Parties.  From that perspective, 2006 is another year in which Democrats were bested by Republicans.  

These are the critical facts: 

Republican net registrations in 2006 increased by 36,436; Democrats net registrations by 26,575 a net gain of 9,861 for the Republicans.

Democrats have more registrations over Republicans at the end of 2006 in 70 counties and, conversely, Republicans have more registrations than Democrats in 30 counties.

During the year, comparing net Democrat registration to Republican registration; Democrats gained against the Republicans in 35 counties and, conversely, Republicans gained over Democrats in 65 counties. 

From another perspective, in the 70 counties that Democrats lead in registrations, Republican registration was a net increase over Democratic registration during the year in 37 counties.  In the 30 counties in which Republicans lead in registration over Democrats, Democratic registration was a net gain in Republicans in only 2 counties.  

TPJ’s policy is to provide the underlying data used in its studies in order to permit anyone to verify the data used and to permit peer review.  Consistent with that policy, two charts below are hyperlinked.    

Registration 2006:  This is our comprehensive chart of registration data by county for every month surveyed in 2006.

NC Voter Reg Net Gain Loss:  A chart of voter registration by county on from January 06 to January 07 with net gains and losses. (A positive number represents a Democratic net gain over Republican registration.  A minus figure denotes that Democrats lost in registrations or, conversely, Republicans gained registrations.) 

We invite anyone interested in voter registration to provide feedback on any aspect of voter registration that they believe is pertinent. 

From any perspective, Republicans continue to outperform Democrats in voter registration.  Our initial hypothesizes are three: (1) the population growth that North Carolina is experiencing is attributable in substantial part to citizens moving into North Carolina.  We speculate that many of these new citizens to this State are more Republican than Democrat; (2) the NC Republican Party has a better organization in the field to register voters than Democrats; and (3) Democrats have not institutionalized voter registration programs into their organizational structure. 

Democrats are simply not selling themselves as a “brand,” and it is clearly reflected in the continuing decline of the percentage of Democratic registrations.  IF the decay continues, Democrats will ultimately loose their status and perhaps more importantly, their cohesion as a Party.  The last two years have truly been a disaster for the Republicans nationally and in the State, yet, Democratic registrations are not keeping pace.  

The challenge for the State Democratic Party is to build an infrastructure for voter registration; to professionally train Democrats in every county to build effective voter registration efforts; and to nurture that infrastructure to success.  It will take time and the clock to 2008 is running. 

                        ALL IS WELL? 

The economic soothsayers are predicting that North Carolina economy will have another growth year.   But all is not well.  North Carolinians, like many Americans, are spending more than they earn to maintain their standard of living. 

TPJ has noted several studies demonstrating that for the first time in modern history, Americans are not saving money but have been borrowing against the equity in their homes.  As their ability to borrow runs out, the economic chickens come home to roost. 

Home foreclosures are up substantially: 

The rise in foreclosures is another indication of the growing economic stratification that is emerging among Americans generally and in North Carolina.  

_____________________________________________

                        PROGRESSIVE AGENDA? 

The Progressive Democrats of North Carolina are circulating a set of “progressive” proposals for the 2007 Session of the General Assembly.  At the outset, PDNA’s goals appear laudable:  elect a new Speaker who is committed to the core values of the Democratic Party; negate the power of business special interests; make the legislative process more open and transparent.   

Today, TPJ reviews the agenda and offers analysis.  We ultimately conclude that substantial portions of the PDNA’s agenda need to be rethought. 

We republish the PDNC’s email solicitation of their agenda immediately below and TPJ’s analysis follows. 

_____ 

Will the North Carolina House Democratic Caucus on January 10^th select a new Speaker for a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?  That would be nice – and maybe the time has finally come. 

But, let’s face it, that has not been how the House has operated under Speaker Black.  

Democrats control the House, Senate and the Governor’s office.  The Party declares repeatedly that it is committed to democracy, transparency, and championing the people instead of special interests as among its core values, and yet, based on the recent record, apparently:  

[1] no health care reform bill can pass that the health insurance industry opposes;

[2] no major environmental bill can pass that the utilities or the developers oppose;

[3] the large bank tax loophole can’t be closed because the banks are opposed to it; and, of course,

[4] the tax system can’t be made more progressive, and taxes can’t be raised regardless of the needs of education, state employees, or the poor since the business lobby will definitely be opposed to it. 

In short, almost no bill passes that a well-heeled lobby is opposed to unless a better-heeled lobby is for it, and, conversely, almost any bill backed by a major wealthy special interest that is not opposed by another major special interest can fly through the legislature.  A notorious example from last session was the quick passage of Duke Energy’s bill that allowed more air pollution from their proposed Cliffside coal plant. 

How does this happen?  Games are played to get around democracy and transparency. In the House, the Speaker controls the games.  Want to kill a popular bill in the public interest but opposed by powerful interests? Have the committee chair not bring it to a vote, or send in “floating” committee members with instructions to vote it down, or refer it to the Rules Committee with a pliable chair and bury it there, or several other ways.  Want legislation to pass for a powerful interest that members would be embarrassed to vote for?  Insert its provisions in the budget bill.  Don’t like the results of a House vote? Add a new provision, never debated in the House or Senate, in a conference committee report – and hold that meeting in secret, with no notice. 

The Speaker’s role in all this is pivotal.  Not only is he (and there has never been a she) the traffic cop of the process, but he is the judge and the banker too.  No bill will pass that the Speaker actively opposes.  Of course, money flows to power, and the Speaker is one-stop shopping. Campaign money from wealthy special interests that goes to or through him gets things done and is used to elect the party faithful who then, out of gratitude, become the Speaker’s faithful.  The Black scandals were not aberrations.  They just pulled back the curtain on how campaign money - moved through the Speaker - buys legislation.  

No single legislator invented this system.  It is the polluted sea legislators must swim in, like it or not.  But this campaign for Speaker, coming with a comfortable Democratic majority, can be that opportunity for change – IF – the Speaker candidates will commit themselves to real reforms, and once elected, follow through by leading the Democrats to reform House rules and pass serious reform legislation. 

What is needed is clear.  We endorse the reforms advocated by the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform:   

1.   Budget & Appropriations:  The budget and technical corrections bills are not the place to write or rewrite laws. 

            [a] Ban special provisions from the budget bill.

            [b] Ban substantive material from the technical corrections bill.

            [c]Require all appropriations of funds to be itemized.

            [d] Provide a 3-day window between time the budget is referred to the floor and the vote.

2.  Committees: Ensure that committee membership assignments and meetings are consistent and open. 

[a] Eliminate changing the make-up of committees.  All membership assignments should be final unless a member is unable to serve.

[b] Ban committee floaters and prohibit stacking committees with lawmakers who are not full-time committee members.

[c] Ban committee meetings from being held on chamber floor and instead hold meetings in a committee meeting room with public notice and public access provided. 

3.  Drafting of Bills: Bills without content should not be eligible for filing.  Ban blank bills. 

4.  Leadership Term Limits: The Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate should have term limits. 

Furthermore, we would add the following to the list for a reform Speaker to advocate: 

5.  (A modification of #4 above) The term of the Speaker should be two terms – after which he or she would have to step down for two terms before running again. 

6.  The House should adopt rules such that any bill may be brought forth for a vote in a committee upon a majority vote of that committee, and any bill having passed a committee vote, may be brought forth to the floor upon a majority vote of the House.  

7. The Speaker should appoint no committee chairs who have a clear conflict of interest in terms of substantial investments, direct employment or employment of a spouse, which would put the committee chair in a position to handle bills that would materially affect his or her economic interests.  In addition, the Speaker should rigorously require all members to recuse themselves from votes in which they have this kind of conflict of interest. 

8.  The Speaker should dedicate this coming session to completing the ethics and lobbying reform begun last session and to bringing forth and passage of voter-owned elections campaign finance reform, establishment of a non-partisan redistricting commission, and reducing the absurdly high signature requirements for other parties to win ballot status. 

We can hear the objections from some Democratic legislators and consultants now:  “Are you crazy?  When you have the power, you use the power to make your majority permanent.  That means attracting and using the big money, too much of which had gone to the Republicans on an ideological basis.  That means controlling redistricting so that, instead of 10-15% of House seats being competitive, the threat of Republicans again winning a majority will be eliminated.  Hey - Karl Rove understood power politics. We should too.” 

That does bring the question into focus. Will the Democratic Caucus of the House elect a Speaker, establish House rules, and pass legislation in the interest of its own perceived political and institutional interest, or in accord with the core values of the Party and the interests of its citizens and their democracy.  One thing for sure: If the Speaker leads for reform and the Party backs him, it can do wonders to win back the people from decades of disenchantment, cynicism, and disengagement from the political process and the Democratic Party. In fact, it would be of historic importance.  Or the new Speaker can be another deal-making, power-grabbing politician of, by, and for the powers that be in Raleigh.   

Democrats can’t let the Speaker’s race be inside baseball.  Way too much is at stake.

_____ 

The PDNC’s agenda is predicated on the proposition that no law is enacted if “a well-heeled lobby is opposed to unless a better-heeled lobby is for it, and, conversely, almost any bill backed by a major wealthy special interest that is not opposed by another major special interest can fly through the legislature.”  The PDNC’s premise, while true in part, is not entirely accurate.  It appears that the PDNC is focusing its criticism on powerful business interests. 

Yet, powerful special interests in the General Assembly do not always win.  From the last session of the General Assembly, the issues below were opposed by business interests: 

Minimum Wage:  Democrats passed a minimum wage bill in the face of opposition by the conservative wing of the Republican Party and business interests. 

Landfill Moratorium:  Democrats enacted a landfill moratorium that had perhaps more business lobbyists arrayed against it than most other pieces of legislation in the General Assembly.  We note that the moratorium survived only by it being placed in the Senate’s budget bill. 

In short, business interests and other “well-healed” groups certainly impacted some legislation, but so do citizens.  Progressive legislation can pass the General Assembly.  Progressive ideas, however, compete in the market place of ideas as with any other interest group.  Public opinion, strongly in favor of an increase in the minimum wage, passed during the past session because pubic opinion strongly favored enactment.   

Citizens will have health care reform, and other progressive legislation, when they demand it and are willing to vote at the ballot box on that issue.  The key for progressive interests is to register voters who will vote for progressive candidates at the ballot box and mobilize citizens in their community.  As discussed below, changing the legislative process will not ensure progressive measures pass and, in fact, may have counter productive results.   

A good example of the ability of grass roots organization is the issue of a Death Penalty Moratorium in North Carolina.  Citizens opposed to the death penalty organized in communities across North Carolina and waged an impressive campaign; writers made their case in the press, rallies and meetings were held across the State and a wide array of organizations joined the cause. While the Death Penalty Moratorium did not pass in the past session, progressives won the creation of the first Innocence Commission in the United States.  Prisoners who are factually innocent now have an established process in which they may gain relief from a wrongful conviction.  

Progressives can still obtain a moratorium.  However, in a State where some 60%+ of its citizens support imposition of the death penalty; progressives still have work ahead to convince the public to change its attitudes. 

The PDNC appears to believe that reforming the legislative process would afford progressive legislation a better opportunity to be enacted.   We refer specifically to the PDNC’s statement, “Want to kill a popular bill in the public interest but opposed by powerful interests? Have the committee chair not bring it to a vote, or send in “floating” committee members with instructions to vote it down, or refer it to the Rules Committee with a pliable chair and bury it there, or several other ways.  Want legislation to pass for a powerful interest that members would be embarrassed to vote for?  Insert its provisions in the budget bill.”   

Progressives should carefully consider that the structure and powers attendant in the legislative process as described by the PDNC also ensure to the advantage of progressive positions.  IF the PDNC’s reforms are enacted, progressives will have assisted in enacting constitutional ban on same sex marriages, perhaps including civil unions, in North Carolina. 

Why?  The public in North Carolina is strongly opposed to same sex marriages in North Carolina, as currently is true in most other states.  North Carolina adopted legislation banning such marriages.  Republicans have led the effort nationally to advance constitutional amendments and they have focused their efforts in North Carolina as well. A bill calling for a constitutional amendment has not passed because Democratic committee chairmen in the General Assembly have refused to bring such a measure to a vote in committee.   

If a bill calling for a constitutional amendment comes to a vote, in committee or on the floor of either House of the General Assembly, it will pass.  Under the specific proposal of the PDNC that a majority of either House of the General Assembly can call for a vote on a bill, Republicans quickly will have the vote on the constitutional amendment. 

Are progressive Democrats willing to foster reforms that will have this result?  And, it will certainly not end with same sex marriage.  

TPJ draws particular attention to the PDNC’s call that the (emphasis added):  

The PDNC calls for a non-partisan redistricting commission because “controlling redistricting so that, instead of 10-15% of House seats being competitive, the threat of Republicans again winning a majority will be eliminated.”  PDNC’s view is overly simplistic and could have disastrous consequences for the Democratic Party in North Carolina.  

First, Democrats are at a distinct disadvantage in creating districts.  Federal law requires majority-minority districts in North Carolina that requires blacks, who are a key Democratic constituency, to be congregated in districts in sufficient numbers to be able to elect black candidates.  That is a laudable objective; yet, it means that many blacks can not be allocated in more districts that would improve Democratic Party performance.  

Despite majority-minority districts, Democrats have been able to win a majority in both Houses of the General Assembly.  

Republicans most recently attacked Democratic Party redistricting when Democrats divided some counties.  The NC State Supreme Court issued a decision that can only be described as partisan.  The Republican dominated court ruled that as a matter of constitutional law that counties cannot be divided. This clever partisan ruling limits the Democratic Party's ability to gerrymander the remaining districts in an attempt to partially pick up some African American voters who are the base for the Democratic Party. 

The Supreme Court also held that as a matter of North Carolina Constitutional law that multi-member districts could not be created. Their holding was simply gratuitous, meaning that none of the parties to the law suit before the Supreme Court asked for that ruling.  In addition, the US Supreme Court held that multi-member districts do not file the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. This gratuitous ruling was done to stop an effective tool for the Democrats to draw districts favorable to Democrats given the requirement to create minority majority districts.
 

The interplay of these rules has resulted in a redistricting plan that favors Republicans.  Yet, Democrats won in 2004 and 2006.  Republicans, who still cannot win a majority in either House, are now calling for an independent commission.  PDNC wants to join that effort? 

The real issue that must be addressed is the financing of political campaigns.  PDNC makes reference to the influence of money in the campaign process and we share their concern.  As a general rule, it takes some $50,000 to be competitive in a State House or State Senate race.  Raising this level of funding against an incumbent is an arduous task.  Yet, our courts have held that contributions implicate free speech concerns.  The task of fashioning restrictions what will pass constitutional muster will be difficult.  

In our estimation, the PDNC’s agenda for the next Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives misses the mark.  We urge progressives across the State to think carefully before supporting this agenda.                       

                        DEATH PENALTY  

Chris Kromm at Facing South, a TPJ favorite, has authored an excellent article on the death penalty that is a must read. Kromm notes that worldwide, the nations are abandoning the death penalty.   

That trend is also true within the United States:

Kromm correctly notes that the international and national trends are not so pronounced in the South:

As America increasingly relies on globlization, the international and national trends away from the death penalty can be “bad for business”  Kromm notes this story from Texas: 

In TPJ’s estimation, Kromm’s analysis provides another important perspective in advancing a more progressive public policy in North Carolina.  The world and a substantial portion of the United States is leaving North Carolina isolated in its view of the death penalty.  It is an isolation that has consequences both in the prestige of our State and its economic future.  These can be two very powerful arguments in continuing the drive to abolish the death penalty in our State.