A Session That Does Not Make Us Proud

Legislative News by Nelda Holder –

It’s July! Let’s talk about revolution.

One of my most favorite Broadway musicals (subsequently a movie) is 1776 by Sherman Edwards (music and lyrics) and Peter Stone (book). The play is a delightful interpretation of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, leaning on the idiosyncrasies, the brilliance, and the stubbornness of the “founding fathers” (with a big tip of the hat to founding mother Abigail Adams).

Serious subjects are not ignored: the “right” to own slaves became a major bargaining chip in the Declaration’s passage; the woeful condition of the Continental Army was an omnipresent sword over the heads of the convention; the presence of women in the Congress was nonexistent; the fractious nature of delegates made a unified voice almost impossible.

But when the Liberty Bell finally tolls as the representatives sign the Declaration, the most serious subject of all is presented viscerally. Each man, each former subject of the king of England, is basically signing his own death warrant, for the penalty for treason was death.

Think about that for a minute.

John Adams. Thomas Jefferson. Benjamin Franklin. John Hancock. Larger-than-life patriots in our history and in our minds, each of these and their 53 fellow delegates/signers could have been hanged immediately for treason. That fact always leaves me with chills at the end of a performance of this historical tribute. And it always makes me wonder if today’s politicians would have had the sheer nerve to sign such a document at the risk of their own lives.

Patriotism versus paternalism

Fast forward to the 2018 session of the North Carolina General Assembly with its 50 senators and 120 representatives.

The sobriety of purpose, and the honest haggling over principle and unity, could not be called a hallmark of the hyper-partisan legislative session that has just ended.

First, too much of the legislation that was passed was brought forward by the majority party (Republican) after closed-door sessions that did not allow for give-and-take with other delegates and did not open windows for the fresh air of citizen scrutiny and testimony. Attempts to accommodate, compromise or, at a minimum, allow for dialogue did not even rise to the level of charades. Raw power was the rule. No unity of purpose, and no eye on higher ideals for the state as a whole, characterized this session: it was not a pretty picture, nor an inspiring one.

Certainly, comparing the state legislature to the Second Continental Congress is something of a stretch. But I take “government” seriously.

And when this state’s legislature passes a law to protect the corporate entities involved in factory hog-farming from being accountable for damage to the individuals and families whose land and lives they affect negatively, I don’t see that as good government for the people. Or when this state’s legislature cuts funding to the State Department of Public Instruction that results in removing professionals involved in transforming low-performing public schools, I do not see that as good government—especially when funding was continued for two programs the legislative majority supports: the Office of Charter Schools and the new Innovative School District program (which allows the state to take over low-performing schools).

When this state’s legislature, in one short session, delivers six constitutional amendments to be voted on by the public in November, I am frankly alarmed. I will be examining those proposals in depth in future columns before November, particularly the amendments designed to limit the long-standing constitutional powers of the duly elected governor of the state, and to place even more power in the hands of the legislature itself.

And when this state’s legislature, contrary to a vote of the residents of the city of Asheville (75% against), impose their own districts for City Council representation to replace the preferred at-large seats currently in place, it is difficult to think that government “of, by, and for the people” (the Gettysburg Address) is at work in our settlements.

Then there is the subject of requiring photo identification in order to vote in this state. The first legislative attempt to require this was declared unconstitutional. The current attempt provides a hazy outline that is to be filled in by a subsequent session of the legislature. Voters are asked to blindly approve the concept and leave the details in the hands of (currently) a majority that has been wracked by court challenges for their abuse of the electoral process. The last attempt at a list of acceptable IDs, the courts found, significantly disadvantaged students, minorities, and the poor. That is not an acceptable way to practice democracy, folks.

And to think, the founding fathers risked their lives for the right of governance.

Nelda Holder is the author of The Thirteenth Juror – Ferguson: A Personal Look at the Grand Jury Transcripts. Read Holder’s blog, www.politicallypurplenc.com