There’s the civics-class version of how laws are enacted in North Carolina – rooted in the state constitution and rules of the General Assembly, and embodying ideals of orderly, even-handed decision-making.
Then there’s the version encompassing the kind of shenanigans all too typical of the legislative process in real life. Especially so, during the late spring of an election year, when parties and candidates are tempted to stretch the rules past what should be the breaking point as they jostle to hold or gain power in the balloting to come.
The blame for such abuses falls on those who have the clout and the will to commit them. These days, that means the legislature’s Republican leadership – which during its decade and a half in control has used voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering to tilt the scales in its party’s favor.
Now comes a maneuver to bolster Republican access to the money that can swing a close election by funding a barrage of slick advertising or a regiment of campaign workers. The saga of House Bill 237, given final passage on June 11, has showcased much of what’s troubling about our legislature’s way of doing business.
Under a genuinely democratic system, it should go without saying that lawmakers of all outlooks must be given time to review proposed legislation before it’s brought to a vote. The public as well should be in the loop.
That’s not what happened with H.B. 237. The overall tale is tangled – mixing a poorly considered, unnecessary and even dangerous crackdown on public mask wearing (yes, hard even to imagine!) with a change in campaign finance law that critics say could open a spigot for unlimited, unaccountable “dark money” contributions.
State House and Senate members were at odds over the mask provisions. Wearing a mask while committing a crime already was illegal. But sponsors wanted to stiffen penalties for mask-wearing during civil disturbances, of which North Carolina has seen more than a few in recent years, to deter protestors from disguising their identities.
Senators changed the bill to remove an exception to the state’s anti-mask-wearing law, thus preventing someone from wearing a mask in public “for the purpose of ensuring the physical health or safety of the wearer or others.”
That change, patently absurd in the wake of the pandemic, brought a chorus of complaints that gained momentum in the House. Conferees from the two chambers eventually agreed to allow “medical or surgical grade” masks worn to prevent “the spread of contagious disease,” although that still glosses over valid health concerns.
Don’t follow the money?
Here is where insult veered into injury. As the conferees on June 6 voted to approve the revised mask language, they added a new section to the bill that hadn’t been considered separately by either chamber or undergone regular committee review, thus mocking the principle that bills should be “germane” to one issue. That new section modified – critics say gutted – statutory language meant to control the flow of campaign money from national party groups to the state or local level.
“Control” in this context means subjecting those flows to limits on campaign contributions and requiring donors’ names to be disclosed. Bob Hall, retired head of Democracy North Carolina and a top campaign finance watchdog, described the bill’s effects this way in an article for N.C. Newsline:
- Individuals could funnel unlimited, untraceable contributions into a North Carolina political party or special committee called an “affiliated party committee” (APC). As the top elected Republican in the state, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson controls an APC; so do the Republican and Democratic leaders in the General Assembly and the state’s top Democrat, Gov. Roy Cooper. People can already give huge donations to these committees, but their identity is disclosed in searchable reports filed with the State Board of Elections. Cooper’s APC has been raising millions from big donors to help Democratic candidates, but Mark Robinson is having trouble.
- HB 237 comes to his rescue by legalizing a money laundering scheme. An individual can give, say, $500,000 to a federal 527 committee (the Republican Governors Association is one), and it can then donate $500,000 to an APC or a North Carolina party in its own name, without revealing the money’s true source. This will help Robinson’s campaign solicit donations from super-rich donors who don’t want to be publicly tied to his rhetoric.
That’s by no means the end of the bill’s mischief, as Hall sees it. Take a look at his piece for a fuller rundown.
The revamped bill with its cryptic language went almost immediately on June 6 to the Senate floor, leaving Democratic senators to try to assess it on the fly. In protest, the Democrats left the chamber rather than cast “no” votes that would have been meaningless anyway, given the Republicans’ supermajority. The tally in the 50-member Senate to accept the “committee substitute” was 28-0.
Under legislative rules, a bill modified by a conference committee can’t be amended, so House Democrats faced a similar squeeze. The bill received final passage on a strict party line vote, 69 Republicans in favor and 43 Democrats opposed. Not only did Democrats object to the new mask rules, but they spotlighted Republicans’ pandering to wealthy contributors amid a sorry spectacle of mutual self-interest.
Breaking boards
Say this about our state’s Republican officeholders: They’re not embarrassed to use legislative dominance to their political advantage. Take, for example, their ongoing efforts to tie our system of election governance in knots because it happens to be overseen by Cooper, a fairly-and-squarely elected Democrat.
A Republican-backed law would take control of the state Board of Elections from the governor and divide its seats between the two major parties, with members chosen by the legislature. The likely outcome would be deadlocks on issues with clear partisan implications – deadlocks that could play into Republican hands, for instance by hindering early voting.
The law was found by a Superior Court panel to be an unconstitutional swipe at the governor’s powers. Three judges decided unanimously to block the measure, but the Republican-controlled state Supreme Court is considering an appeal. To let the law take effect at this point in the election calendar would be a recipe for chaos – but from the GOP standpoint, that could be a feature, not a bug.
The Supreme Court meanwhile found no problem with false accusations of voter fraud when plaintiffs, who had voted lawfully, sued for defamation.
The ruling extended an absolute immunity against such suits beyond people directly involved in an election controversy – for example, whether or not votes had been fairly cast and counted. Republican lawyers had convinced party members to file protests alleging that certain voters had voted twice, for example. But the lawyers, in depositions, were unable to substantiate the charges, and the voters were cleared by election officials.
The ruling thus has the effect of shielding people – including out-of-state lawyers — who help perpetrate false fraud accusations while subjecting innocent citizens to harassment and ridicule. We shouldn’t be surprised this fall to see the Republicans’ Orwellian-named “election integrity” squads take advantage of that shield to try to drag perfectly legitimate voters through the mud.
Yes, it’s worth re-emphasizing that only American citizens are allowed to vote in North Carolina. To lie about one’s citizenship when registering to vote is to ask for trouble, and instances where non-citizens have been found to have voted are few and far between.
But that’s not good enough for some Republican legislators who proclaim the need for a state constitutional amendment restating a rule that’s been on the books for decades. It wouldn’t be the first time that an unnecessary or misguided amendment – which in this case would trigger a statewide referendum in the November general election — had been proposed with the clear, if cynical, underlying purpose of driving turnout among a certain portion of the electorate.
That portion, no surprise, would consist of folks who favor Republican candidates. After all, there’s a well-known figure atop the GOP food chain who gets good mileage out of bashing immigrants – and stirring up fears of polling places overrun by immigrant fraudsters in cahoots with Democrats sounds like a tactic that would suit him fine. We should know better than to fall for it. We must.
Steve Ford, Staff Volunteer
June 13, 2024
