>> This is NC Spin, an
unrehearsed discussion
on issues of interest
to North Carolinians.
Now here is your moderator
Tom Campbell.
>> Thank you for watching This
week's NC Spin.
Courtroom controversies are
front and center this week
as we began by discussing
a rerun of sorts.
The legislature passed the bill.
The governor vetoed it.
Lawmakers overrode the veto.
Then comes the court case
this time over
constitutional amendments.
We'll also discuss
a 473 million dollar jury
award to hog farm neighbors
against Smithfield Foods.
And it is time we want
to ask why school boards
are going to court over seven
hundred thirty million dollars
in unpaid fines.
But of course as always
we'll ask the panel
to tell us
something we don't know.
So let's introduce
this week's panel
include former Lieutenant
Governor Dennis Wicker.
John Hood syndicated
columnist and author,
Chris Fitzsimon senior
political analyst.
And Patrick Sebastian campaign
and communications consultant.
>> We'll begin our
uninterrupted debate
after these brief messages
by our underwriters.
>> In rural North
Carolina, vibrant Main Streets
depend on a thriving
agricultural economy.
Research at NC State
improves the products
our farmers raise and grow.
NC State Extension brings that
research from labs to fields
in all 100 counties
which means growth for rural
in North Carolina.
At NC State, what we think and
do helps grow local economies.
>> Discover how NC State
and extension work for you.
Visit:
>> Underwriting support
provided in part
by the more than 65,000 members
of the North Carolina
Retired Governmental
Employees Association
>> Today's tools
make your real DIY'er
and as a member
of an electric cooperative
you have lots of valuable tools
to help you do it yourself
and controlling your home
energy use and budget
leaving you free to be dad.
>> Before we get started
on this show
I want to thank
our good friend Brad Crone
for sitting in for me
the last couple of weeks
a number of viewers wrote saying
why don't you just move
out of the way
and let Brad do this
permanently from now on.
We're under discussion
about that, until such time
as that happens however
I'll try to muddle through.
So let's get started.
You almost need a scorecard
to figure out all the lawsuits
over the six constitutional
amendments
our legislature wants to put
on the ballot in November.
Governor Cooper
is one of the defendants
suing two plaintiffs suing
to prevent them from going to
a vote saying two of them
violate the separation of powers
in our state
and the NAACP
and an environmental group
are also getting into the act
trying to stop the vote.
Let's ask our panel to try
to unravel this Dennis Wicker
in order to provide
full disclosure
I need to say that your law firm
is representing the legislature
in several of these lawsuits
even though you personally
are not involved in them.
Now three former governors
have sounded off
on the separation
of powers issue
saying the legislature
is overreaching
its constitutional
authority a Superior Court judge
refused to give a TRO
or temporary restraining order
saying a three judge panel
should rule on it.
How big a blow is this
to Governor Cooper's case.
>> Well first of all Tom
it is awfully confusing
to the viewers out there.
I mean it is a lawsuit
for the week
but I don't think
this is a major blow
to the to the governor
on this last ruling.
Procedurally the judge
made a correct ruling this
has to go to a three panel
judge trial judges under the law
and he appointed those judges
one's a Democrat
one's a Republican
and one's an independent.
They will convene.
I believe they scheduled
that for this coming Friday
and they will convene and they
will determine the merits
of the temporary
restraining order.
Meanwhile the State Board
of Elections
has put off printing the ballots
and that's the real problem here
because time is not on
the governor's post
>> Supposed to have been on
August 8th.
>> Now they've said maybe next
week
and then I think what's going
on is they're trying to time it
with the ruling of the judges.
Now they hear this case
next Friday apparently.
But that doesn't mean
they rule on it that day.
So we have to worry about that.
>> Patrick does it help
or hurt that the NAACP
and this environmental group
joined into this lawsuit
or is it just make it
more confusing.
>> It does make it
more confusing.
I got to tell you I think
especially the lawsuit
with as far as the governor's
powers is going to be
maybe the toughest ballot
initiative to pass this year.
You have like you mentioned
before you have
Republican governors
come out against it.
You have a lot of people say
you know we elected a governor
to be our statewide governor
it's hard to be elected governor
and if you want to
if you want to enforce the law
you should run for governor
not the legislature.
I can be a hard thing to pass.
Perhaps that might be
the closest ballot initiative
on the whole thing.
>> Important point, because
that's and the governors
and I personally share their
concerns about the separation
of powers and implications
of this amendment.
But remember what we have
before us right now
is not a substantive debate
about whether this amendment
is good.
What what Governor Cooper
is trying to do
is to get the court to throw out
all that amendment out
and another amendment
out on judicial selection
for being ambiguous.
There's no precedent for
the Supreme Court to do that.
The Constitution clearly gives
the authority to the legislature
and ultimately to the people
when it comes to making
amendments to the Constitution.
>> So even though when we get
to actually arguing the merits
of the amendment I think I might
agree with Governor Cooper
I don't think his lawsuit
makes sense
>> Chris that the
legislature says
since there's no specific
wording on this
we can write the wording for
these amendments on the ballot.
the way we want to.
>> We'll see if the judges agree
with that.
I think it's probably a tough
sell to convince the judges
that the legislature
doesn't have the authority
to write the ballot
how they want to that a couple
other fascinating things though.
One is we are in a time
crunch now
because of the election which
points to the whole problem
why would you have
a special session
to put six amendments
on the ballot
without thoughtful
consideration public input.
Do this in the regular session.
So there will be plenty of time.
>> I though they
did it during the short session.
They didn't do the amendments
during the special --
>> They did at the end of the
short session the last week.
I mean this is not a special day
the end of the short session
this is
they've been contemplating this
for a long time.
>> They've been talking about
it.
>> They've been talking
about this a long time.
And the other thing I think
we're not talking specifically
about the voter ID amendment now
but the other issue I think is
that the public really
doesn't know
this is one of the first times
we've had an amendment
with no language.
We don't really know what we're
voting on which I think again
might not be a legal question
but it's a big
substantive issue.
>> Let's get into some specifics
here
because again the governor says
that these amendments the two
of them anyway are misleading.
Will if you can let's put up
still one. It says:
Patrick do you see where
this could be sort of misleading
to a certain extent
because essentially
what's happening here
is this is going to transfer
power from the governor
making the appointments over
to a commission which is formed
which will consider
applique names
of potential jurists forward
two to the governor
who has to appoint assembly.
>> I mean the general assembly -
>> The General Assembly
gives the governor
two choices,
and he has to choose
one of them.
>> I didn't say that right.
I'm just to get it right.
>> Really, by definition this is
political.
I mean
there's really no way around it.
It's going to be political
whether the legislature appoints
a judge or or the governor
appoints a judge.
Again you know this is this
is really unprecedented
unprecedented territory
I know in South Carolina.
The legislature appoints
all the judges.
It's kind of crazy
how much power
they have down there
in North Carolina.
Again I don't know people
are going to go for it
but those kind of ballot
and those kinds of ballot
questions who's going to know
unless there's a real there's
got to be some real money --
>> Has there been that
much of a problem with
the governor making these
appointments Dennis?
>> I don't think so.
Our judiciary has been pretty
well corrupt for a few years
and there has been no problems
that I think with the governor
appointing judges.
I do think I do think
it will make lawyers think a lot
about running
for the legislature now.
>> So they will be making
these appointments
and having a big say in it.
But we've had really across
for a solid good judiciary
is not an option I think is
the problem it's partisanship.
>> This is like this.
This amendment I think
is the most egregiously word
it's like
a partisan Madlib game.
They put all these words in
their merit based professional.
Well what it really means is
they don't want the governor
whoever he or she
is to have as much power
appointing judges or men
that really ought to say take
power away from the governor
put it in the legislature's
hands to appoint judges as John
one of the things that they're
most concerned about here
is the way this bill was worded.
>> They're concerned that
perhaps in this recommendation
this judicial
selection recommendation
they could
potentially attach a bill
which the governor
could not veto.
Is that fair.
>> Not really that that
has been argued
by some Senator Jeff
Jackson Mecklenburg County
or county kind of started
that meem on the internet.
I don't believe that is
particularly persuasive
but the argument
they do have for it
is that they you could have
changed the language
to rule that out
and they didn't change it.
Well legislature response
is why we rule out
something that's impossible.
I think that this is
a little bit like
claiming the victims
rights amendment
will actually is some sort
of sneaky anti-abortion thing
that this is conspiracy
theorizing of the worst kind.
It doesn't help us.
>> It sounds like you if you're
a lawyer and a legislator
you know
there's a high possibility
you could argue a case
in front of a judge
that you basically appointed.
>> There is actually that's why
I would suggest
the lawyers around them.
>> I agree that the attorney
general does that that's true
but that's currently the case
when the governor appoints
the vacancies and the governor
has cases that go before.
>> Let's put up still two so
that
we can look at this
the second amendment
that that Governor Cowper's
is concerned about. It says:
>> Wow a lot of words there.
Basically what they're
concerned about
is it's going to transpire
again power from the governor
to having four members
of the elections and ethics
commission from one party
four from the other party.
And it's going to further erode
the power of the government.
And I don't think that not just
don't elections. That's right.
>> That's right.
And that's a big point
but I actually think
that this is another one
I think this is going
to confuse the public.
There's lots of language
in here.
All the things to me
are case studies about
why we shouldn't do this
in a rushed short session
why we should have had hearings
that had a lot of input.
Maybe we need
to change the constitution.
We surely don't need
to change it six amendments
at a time with little thought
going back to the two of them.
>> Article 13 of our
Constitution Patrick says
that proposed amendments
should be fairly
and accurately reflected
on the ballot.
Do these pass the test.
>> Well as far as the Board
of Elections
things that's a good part
but frankly who's going to know
unless there's a
real public campaign
about the appointment process.
So it's kind of hard to say
they are really.
And I don't know
what's going to happen there
but there might be something
big coming out
with people
really do want to push.
>> Yeah I think the nature
of the problem here
is that that
constitutional provision
is there
that this ought to be true.
This ought to not
mislead the voters.
The problem is what
is the remedy here.
This is a really ultimately
a political question
the voters do get to decide
whether to do this or not.
I think on this board
of elections
Memet for example this is not
Aquash where I have concerns
I'm actively against this bill
but I think it's a bad idea
but I also will the average
citizen no doubt understand
well they'll listen to me
and of course
they'll vote on something.
It is a compelling discussion
but allowing judges to intervene
and say we don't think
this is an accurate
reading of the amendment
therefore we're going to take it
off the ballot.
That is a dangerous precedent.
>> And I lived
with the legislature
the Republican legislature
gave the authority to do this
to a commission thinking
that I think that the Republican
attorney general candidate
Buck Newton was going to win.
Then all of a sudden
we talked about this last week
or last couple of weeks
then all of a sudden
there's a 2 to 1
Democratic
majority in that commission.
Then they took that they had
a they had a session
to take that power in effect
take that power away
from the commission
they gave the power to.
So they were playing games
before
they started playing again.
This is a really important point
is the argument
I just made which I believe
because I made it.
>> Does cut both ways though.
I mean just a few weeks ago
the Republicans were saying
if you put
a caption on the ballot
that we think is misleading
that's wrong.
We're going to have
a special session.
Take it off because the voters
might be confused.
Now they're arguing well
you know the voters
have the ultimate decision.
It's their responsibility
to inform themselves.
Let's choose one
or the other argument here.
>> Well look I think if you put
12 jurors in a box and Fed
Put on your evidence
that this amendment would
come across as being confusing
they don't know what it means.
They don't understand it.
And I think
it's designed that way.
I think it's a bad
a bad proposal
put on the ballot.
>> I'm hopeful there will be
more chances here.
Patrick what about this voter
ID amendment
that they're talking to
that putting on the ballot
give us no information
whatsoever what's going to be
the proper identification.
>> I think that's going to be
a lot more cut and dry.
I mean some people are time
about the Real I.D.
coming out
from the federal government
could be
the actual identification.
Currently right now
if you need an ID
you need an ID for voter ID
when we pass these laws
we've said
we'll give you a free I.D.
If you can't you don't have one.
I think do a lot more cut
and dry than the other one.
>> Whether it's a license
or military IDs
the previous bill
you could assume
that it would be very similar
to the previous bill.
>> We understand the lines at
the Department of Motor Vehicles
are very lengthy now for people
wanting these real IDs.
Let's move over to another part
of this
which is which is this Supreme
Court race.
There's another court issue
involved in that.
We had three candidates
on the ballot there
Supreme Court justice incumbent
Supreme Court Justice Barbara
Jackson who's a Republican.
We had Anita Earls
who's a Democrat.
And right at the end
we had a filing by a gentleman
named Chris Anglin
who registered as a Republican.
The legislature thought
that wasn't
going to help Barbara Jackson.
And so they said he didn't
change his registration
party registration enough time.
He went to court got a temporary
restraining order
in order to remain
as a Republican.
Why is that hurtful
to Barbara Jackson
or to Republicans
should face a primary
and then they don't want her
to face that primary.
>> That is not a primary.
Well they're on the ballot
and they would split the vote.
>> That's. OK.
So but but the but the point
is the legislature changed
the rules
of the game in midstream
on him running as a Republican.
He complied with the rules
when he filed he complied
with all the rules.
But now that he's running
as a Republican
they won't change the rules.
I think that
it's a winnable case.
>> But John he announced
this week
that if the court
ruled against him
because of the hearing on this
is supposed to take place
the 13th I think.
If the court rules against him
he's going to withdraw.
Did he hurt his own case.
>> Of course he did.
It is transparently obvious
that his campaign
is designed to help
elect Anita Earls.
It's just pretty obvious anybody
who's being straightforward
about the facts.
However that doesn't
doesn't vitiate against
Dennis's argument
that he comply with the rules
as they were written.
Now they were written
after he filed.
And ultimately the Republicans
who are outraged about
this the original sin here as
not having judicial primaries.
If there had been a primary
in the Supreme Court race,
and Anglin really was a
Republican
and ran in the primary
then he would have had a chance
to defeat Barbara Jackson.
>> All right let's play
"what if" for a second here.
Going back to the overall
overarching court cases
that are involved here
what if the three judge panel
refuses to give a tier
to the governor
the NAACP the environmental
group what happens then Chris.
>> Well and the the ballot
so soon
will be starting to be printed
and we'll have we'll have
these amendments on the election
it seems that they are
currently work right.
And then the argument
I think people will appeal that.
But then the people
the legislators case will be
oh we're already under way
and I think so I think
that the euro in this case
is important before the
election machinery gets started.
I do want to jump in
for a second
on that Chris Angland case.
This is a fascinating example
to me of the Republicans
actually tried
before the filing deadline
to recruit other candidates
or a group
affiliated with Republicans
and they couldn't find anybody.
And then then they sort of were
hoisted on their own petard
in a way as a person switched
parties. It's fascinating.
And the bottom line
is you can't change the rules
halfway through the game.
>> I didn't know you were going
to get erudite on us.
You know he was floating
Dan Blue today
but he used to write
things for Dan Blue.
Maybe this is for Dan Blue.
>> Let's move over to a lawsuit
that ended with a jury
awarding 473 million dollars
to neighbors
on a hog waste lawsuit.
The largest verdict any of us
can remember.
The case is on appeal
and because of state law
the award will be reduced.
But farmers agribusiness experts
even elected leaders
say these
so-called nuisance lawsuits
are going to result
in Smithfield Foods
leaving our state and the pork
industry virtually disappearing.
Environmentalists say the smells
are unhealthy
and a real nuisance.
Patrick Sebastion there some 26
of these lawsuits now.
We've had three verdicts.
What was it 90 million dollar
verdict
of 50 million dollar verdict
in a 25 million dollar verdict.
This one is supposed
to be reduced to 94 million
but supporters
say it is outrageous.
The port industry says
it's outrageous.
What do you say to the charges
that it's eventually going
to bring the downfall
of the pork industry.
>> Well agriculture and farming
are the lifeblood
of our state's economy.
Still we have the second highest
resected highest producer
of hogs in the country.
So yeah this keeps happening
and these payoffs keep happening
this could be a major
major problem for our state
but we're not the only state
that has lawsuits
were lawsuits are allowed
but something's got to happen
it's got to be
some kind of regulation
or something at the beginning
of these things
to where there's not
going to be 38 lawsuits anymore.
And what I'm worried
more worried
about the farmers themselves
and the people
that are employed.
>> So at Denish midweek
this past week we got word
that a U.S. district
court judge
Earl Britt
was recusing himself from this
and a judge from West Virginia
is going to be appointed.
Was new in this case
that the heat got too hot
or what was going on.
>> It's really known Tom.
Nobody knows exactly
why Judge Brett
stepped aside on these cases.
There was a lot of complaints
I think by the pork industry
about the way
he was conducting the trials.
But I think that the jurors
looked at the evidence
and apparently just sided
with the homeowners out there
that we're having to put up
with these hog hog lose.
>> But John the lawsuits
the pork industry farmers
agribusiness say
all of this has been prompted
by outside agitators
and lawyers from Texas
and from other states
not coming from North Carolina.
We didn't have.
These kinds of what
they called nuisance lawsuits
not a legitimate claim.
>> I'm sure it is
factually accurate
that lots of out
of state interest
are involved in these lawsuits.
That doesn't mean the plaintiffs
don't have a claim.
The plaintiffs are arguing
we have property rights
where near a hog lagoon,
the smell
is a nuisance aesthetics
that affect our property right.
The better argument
the pork industry
has is that many of these
property owners move then.
After the operations were
in place after you could smell.
That's that's actually
the more relevant legal argument
not whether the lawyers
from Texas or New York
or North Carolina.
You know I'm very easily tempted
to be Antei out of state lawyer
but I'll be to resist
that temptation
say it doesn't matter.
>> First of all I think what's
fascinating about this case
is that people are acting
like these
are these are small family farm
that are being oppressed somehow
but many of them
are no fair small family farms
don't have 20000 Khagan.
OK. Few people would say these
are corporate owned Chinese
owned 20000 hog farms next door
and people are saying
all these hog farms
have always been there
you have it 20 years ago
they were 100 hogs
there not 20000.
And if you can't open
your window
and your emphysema is made worse
and you can't sell your property
or the value has gone down
by 100 percent
if you read the accounts
of this trial
it's stunning every jury
is always going to find form
because everybody can imagine
opening their window
and smell this incredible odor
and the solution
is the hog industry
the corporate hog industry
needs to figure out
the technology
to reduce this problem.
>> And remember it was it was
a jury of their peers
that rendered these verdicts
not the lawyers.
>> I got that.
However as we all know
it's easy easier to get juries
to make large awards
when people go to juries
in North Carolina
fairly conservative.
>> I mean I was really shocked
at the size
of this versus in Alabama.
Yeah.
>> No that's where the juries --
>> Smithfield says they're not
going to settle here.
They're going to keep going.
OK.
>> So if they keep going
what's the ultimate result.
Are we still going to lose them.
>> No I doubt it.
I think I think there's got
to be some kind of precedent
if you will set here
about these kind of issues
or these lawsuits
are going to keep happening.
They're never going
to be fulfilled.
And I keep watching the politics
of it's really interesting.
You have the Republicans that
are totally with the farmers
with the big farmers
and the small farmers.
And then you have the governor
and the Attorney General Moore
the trial lawyers.
So you see
a lot of politics here.
And I want to see there's
ever kind of any precedent
set either by law
or by the courts.
>> It can't be interesting
that the legislators came out
in favor of the pork industry.
I mean they obviously pass it
on now and just keep going out.
>> I may just like out of state
lawyer and statewide matter
whether the the company involved
is big or small does it matter.
Remember that even
a big corporate hog farm
has lots and lots of employees
and vendors.
There are thousands
of North Carolinians
who live livelihoods
are on the line.
But in fairness there are also
thousands of property owners
who have an answer.
This is a real clash
of interests
a real clash of rights claims.
>> This is going to be
an ongoing story really.
All right.
And I'm sure we'll be talking
about it again as weeks go on.
Speaking of talking
I think it's time for you guys
to talk a little bit
and tell us something
we don't know.
Chris Fitzsimon start with you.
>> Well we know a little bit
about him.
I'm fascinated this whole debate
about the governor's powers
and I thought it was great
that former Republican governors
have weighed in.
And I was just thinking back
to back in the old days.
North Carolina governor
didn't have the veto until 1997.
People sort of forgotten that
and it was the Republicans
who were
sort of leading the charge
to make sure we had
a powerful chief executive.
They thought that was one
of the most important things
we could do.
That was 1997.
Here we are in 2018
and they seem hell bent
on taking as much power away
from the chief executive
that they thought
was so important.
Not too long ago
and I thought it was.
It says a lot
that former Republican governors
have spoken up.
It shows this is a power grab
and not a partisan issue.
>> Patrick tell us
something we don't know.
>> So after almost two years
since Hurricane Matthew
they're still not really
construction being built.
You have states
like South Carolina
that have built houses
after the hurricane
with the same funding mechanism.
It's still not happening
in North Carolina.
And then at the same time
frankly politically I hate
to say it but at the same time
you have the governor it looks
like renovating the governor's
mansion for himself
but not pushing forward
at these things.
>> Is that something that you
didn't already know Tom?
>> Yeah that's definitely
something I did didn't know.
Dennis Wicker, tell us something
we don't know.
>> The Cape Fear River
is the longest river
in North Carolina 207 miles.
It starts in Lee County
with the confluence of the deep
in the Fall River at the end
of the Cape Fear sits the U.S.
just North Carolina U.S. Navy
wanted to scrap it.
North Carolina said no we want
to bring her home.
They collected donations
from private citizens
and dams from schoolchildren
I remember the day
that I remember let me tell you
a wonder
if we could do that today.
>> Interesting John could
tell us something we don't know.
>> Governor Cooper's been
complaining
about encroachments on executive
power by the legislature
but this week he announced
his administration
so that any legislative action
they were going to start taxing
a bunch of more online
sales calls to North Carolinians
hundreds of millions
of dollars a year.
There's no
legislative agenda ahead.
No know the court
allows states to do it.
The legislature levies taxes
this is a case
where the governor
is encroaching
on the legislature's power.
>> Wow.
Now that's a topic by the way
we're going to talk
about next week.
Well you've heard our spin
on the issues of the day.
To stay informed
all during the week.
>> Give your feedback
and read my weekly column.
Be sure to visit our Web site
and spin dot com or catchiness
the spin on Facebook
and join us next week.
We'll have more balanced debate
for the old more state.
Until then stay informed
and watch out for the spin.
>> In rural North
Carolina, vibrant Main Streets
depend on a thriving
agricultural economy.
Research at NC State
improves the products
our farmers raise and grow.
NC State Extension brings that
research from labs to fields
in all 100 counties
which means growth for rural
in North Carolina.
At NC State, what we think and
do helps grow local economies.
>> Discover how NC State
and extension work for you.
Visit:
>> Underwriting support
provided in part
by the more than 65,000 members
of the North Carolina
Retired Governmental
Employees Association
>> Today's tools
make your real DIY'er
and as a member
of an electric cooperative
you have lots of valuable tools
to help you do it yourself
and controlling your home
energy use and budget
leaving you free to be dad.
>> North Carolina channel is
made possible
by the financial
contributions of viewers
like you who support the UNC-TV
network.