Who Stole the “Public” From Our State’s Public Schools?

Legislative News by Nelda Holder –

So there I was, drinking my Sunday morning coffee and reading the newspaper … the typical Sunday scene since my childhood (once I could both read and drink coffee).

And I was noting that the North Carolina General Assembly was reconvening the very next day—less than two months before the big election day on November 5—for self-limited purposes that include funding for private school vouchers, called “Opportunity Scholarships.”

Let’s pause here and note that this round of funding would apply predominantly to students whose family income previously disqualified them from voucher eligibility. So for those sympathetic to a voucher program that assists lower-income families, that is not where this money lands. Instead, some $463 million state dollars will be going to households whose budgets were previously above the income cap for state assistance.

And keep in mind that voucher outlay from the state reduces the money available to our public schools, which lose potentially millions in this overall process.

Speaking of our public schools—a fact sheet from the office of the Gov. Roy Cooper points out that if the legislature’s $250 million in new funding for vouchers last year had instead been invested in public schools, it could have meant a 2.6% raise for teachers, or ensured a school nurse for every public school, or given a 10% raise to school bus drivers, teaching assistants, and other non-certified school staff. Or—pause here for a moment and really think about this—served an additional 27,000 eligible four-year-olds in the NC Pre-K program.

Now, where do you think that $463 million this year really needs to go?

P.S.: Don’t think for a minute that I’ve forgotten the lawsuit this legislative “leadership” has lodged to stymie the long-ago court-ordered Leandro money for our public schools (a case stretching from 1994 to 2002 and still beyond).

Another Question Regarding Our Courts

At the present time, the NC Supreme Court (an elected body) is led by a noticeably lopsided 5-2 Republican majority. So it was with great interest that the Supreme ruling in late August allowed Justice Philip Berger Jr. to remain on the panel during the hearing of cases involving his father—state Sen. Phil Berger, the leader of the NC Senate. Oddly enough, the vote on the matter was 5-2.

In North Carolina, the 2018 Legislature voted to change the state’s Supreme Court selection from nonpartisan to partisan elections. According to the online source, Democracy Docket, that makes us one of just seven states to utilize partisan elections. Twenty-three states have appointment by the governor through a nominating committee, often with a retention election (with no opponent) after a period ranging from one year to 12 years; 14 choose by nonpartisan election; four have direct appointment by the governor; and two use election by the legislature.

Here is the alignment of states by selection method:

(23) Appointment by Governor through Nominating Committee: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,* Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa,* Kansas, Maryland, Missouri,* Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico,* New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee,* Utah, Vermont, Wyoming

*A retention election follows after 1, 6, 8 or 12 years

(14) Nonpartisan Election: Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin

(8) Partisan Election: Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas

(4) Direct Appointment by Governor: California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey

(2) Elected by the Legislature: South Carolina, Virginia

Now, back to late August’s Supreme Court ruling. This is the second relatively high-profile case involving potential recusal for the younger Berger because of his father, the first involving the question of recusal in a challenge to the state’s voter ID law. The second was the now infamous, 30-year-old Leandro school funding case holding in abeyance billions of dollars for public schools—and in which the elder Berger was an intervenor. The younger Berger has remained in his Supreme Court seat to hear and help decide both cases.

The situation might be called unusual … and in some cases even precarious. In the Leandro case, Associate Justice Allison Riggs cited the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct in support of recusal by Berger. That code contains specific language regarding “the judge’s family” and the potential for influence, but in the end Berger remained “on the job.” Look for more of such conflicts in the future, given the interwoven nature of the legislature and the courts.

So Look What’s on Your Voting Ballot—or NOT

First, of course, you have to get that voting ballot, and the State Board of Elections is currently in a quandary because of the late withdrawal of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s candidacy for President of the United States.

Kennedy suspended his campaign in North Carolina (but not in some other states) on August 23, just in time to interfere with the mailing of requested absentee ballots in the state. By statute, “absentee ballots of the kind needed” are to be provided 60 days prior to the statewide general election in even-numbered years.

Despite the Board of Elections’ plan to meet their deadline by leaving Kennedy’s name on the ballot, the NC Court of Appeals acted to require the removal of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s name and print new ballots. The NC Board of Elections has appealed the lower court’s decision, and the NC Supreme Court ruled on Monday, September 10, that Kennedy’s name and party (We The People) must be removed from the state ballot.

Want to know just how complicated that task will really be?

According to the BOE’s website, 2,348 different ballot styles are needed for the 2024 general election, and more than 2.9 million ballots had already been printed before Kennedy’s withdrawal caused the Court of Appeals to draft the reprint order.

According to the State BOE’s press release, it will be the individual counties in the state that must now spend additional money preparing and printing new ballots because of this appeal decision.  (Boards of elections in each county are responsible for ballot-related costs.)

The federal deadline to send absentee ballots in a presidential election is September 21. Reprinting the state’s ballots may take an additional 12-13 days. That means there’s the chance of needing to request a waiver to the federal deadline. All counties have been asked by elections director Karen Brinson Bell not to send any ballots until a date is determined for all of NC’s 100 counties to meet the same voting period for absentee-by-mail voters.

As of Friday, September 6, 2024, more than 136,300 voters had requested absentee ballots statewide, including some 12,700 military and overseas voters. Any eligible voter in the state can request and vote an absentee ballot by mail. Instructions are available at Vote by Mail. But for now, those ballots are not available to the public and a mail date—which will be the same for all counties—has yet to be announced.

If you have already requested a ballot for the 2024 general election you do not need to request a new ballot. Your original request will be honored. (NOTE: Should you need your ballot delivered to a different address because it is being mailed later than expected, then you should make a request with your new address—in which case the county will process the new address and cancel the old request.)

The absentee ballot request deadline is 5 p.m. Tuesday, October 29, but the earlier you request and return it, the better. Your voted ballot must be received by your county board of elections no later than 7:30 p.m. on Election Day, November 5.

Note: The previous grace period provided by law if a ballot was postmarked on or before election day and received up to three days after the election is no longer the case. Your ballot must be at the county board office itself by 7:30 p.m. on November 5.

And if You Ask My Opinion About That …

If you keep one slit open so your eyelid sees any television news, you perhaps know that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has asked that his name be removed from ballots in certain states, while not in others. At press time he has succeeded in getting his name off the ballot in North Carolina, following the state Supreme Court order noted above—and, tentatively, in the swing state of Michigan A judge in a third swing state, Wisconsin, rejected Kennedy’s request.

Let me quote none other than the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) regarding Kennedy’s maneuvering: “The rulings could make a difference in the tight race between (Donald) Trump, a Republican, and Kamala Harris, a Democrat, for November’s White House election.

The article notes the state of Wisconsin has a handy little law regarding such election shenanigans: “According to Wisconsin law, ‘any person who files nomination papers and qualifies to appear on the ballot may not decline nomination.’” (Emphasis mine.)

What a handy little law.

Nelda Holder is the author of The Thirteenth Juror – Ferguson: A Personal Look at the Grand Jury Transcripts.