And a good Monday morning to you. Welcome into the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 1110-993 WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you.
Well, it was an incredibly busy week in Raleigh last week for members of the North Carolina General Assembly. Officially approved new congressional districts, which are now in effect. The new maps passed both the House and Senate, the Senate on Tuesday, the House on Wednesday. Last week, lawmakers proposed a new map to gain an additional Republican congressional seat in the 2026 midterm elections. Republican lawmakers claim that this is necessary to combat redistricting efforts in Democrat-majority states like California.
House Majority Leader in Representative Brendan Jones, the Republican from Columbus County, told his House colleagues that North Carolina will not stand by while this takes place in states across the U.S. Once again, we're here today. Because California and the radical left launched a full-fledged coordinated attack. not only on North Carolina, but the integrity of democracy itself. And I've got bad news for Gavin Newsom in the radical left.
North Carolina will not stand by while they try to undermine the will of our voters and stack the decks in Washington. Sadly, this isn't new. Just look around the country. In Massachusetts. New Mexico.
and Connecticut. Republicans hold zero congressional seats. due to Democrat congressional map gerrymanders. It's the same playbook over and over.
Well, enough is enough. We have been called to fight back, and that's exactly what this body intends to do. The motivation behind this new redistricting plan It's straightforward. The new congressional map improves Republican political strength in eastern North Carolina and will bring in an additional Republican seat to North Carolina's congressional delegation. That's Representative Brendan Jones from Columbus County, echoing similar commentary to that that we heard from Republicans in the United States Senate, or rather the North Carolina Senate, I should say, when this map originally came up to that body earlier this week, Monday and Tuesday.
Representative Jones continued his commentary saying that North Carolina will not be bullied by what is going on in other states. The same national organizations that are talking heads who praise the blue state maps will continue attacking ours, not because of the process. but because of the outcome. But the people of North Carolina didn't elect us to surrender our responsibilities. They elected us to lead.
So to the national left. I'm sorry your favorite government in Sacramento miscalculated. Proposition 50 has backfired. Republican-led states are here to make sure that one man does not predetermine the controls of Congress. North Carolina will not be lectured.
will not be bullied. and will not be sued into submission. We will not let outsiders tell us how to govern. And we will never apologize for doing exactly what the people of this state has elected us to do. We did our job.
Transparently. Lawfully and unapologetically. And if that offends the left, so be it. Because what we're defending here today is not just a map. It's the principle that stops the deck from being stacked against us.
It's the principle that our delegation in Congress Will advocate for the true beliefs of North Carolinians. And it is a fact that we will send one more Republican to Congress from this great state. You can be mad about redistricting all you want to. But you need to look in the mirror and ask yourself what got us here. And I think then you'll begin to realize just how bad the left messed up.
Once again, Representative Jones in the North Carolina General Assembly on Wednesday with this final approval and the final House vote of 66 to 48 in favor of the map. It is now in effect in North Carolina. Unlike standard legislation of which we have covered plenty of here on the show, this map does not require the governor's approval. There's nothing that the governor can do to block or slow down the process for that map. It is something that is simply the responsibility of the North Carolina General Assembly.
Wilson, Wayne, Green and Lenore counties are moved into District Three from District One. Craven, Buford, Pamlico, Carteret, Hyde and Dare counties are moved from District Three into District One. As you can imagine, this is a highly political issue as we have been covering here on the show this week. And Democrat members of the North Carolina General Assembly are not and were not in favor of the map being redrawn and did not vote in favor of approving it. Other Democrats, of course, are not happy with the map as well.
Representative Phil Rubin, the Democrat from Wake County, called the new map an attack on North Carolina during his commentary on the House floor on Wednesday. Today's latest attack by Republicans on self-governance in North Carolina follows the attack on our Board of Elections. It follows a brazen attempt to steal Supreme Court election. And it all adds up to a sense. that there are those in our government that think only the right people may ever hold power.
And that the rules must be rigged to make sure that people can never disagree with those choices. And now we're here today. The Republican Party holding a vote of no confidence on our self-government in North Carolina to make our already rigged maps. Even worse. But it's not just the maps themselves.
Behold the process. that led to today. Secretive. Dismissive. Six days long from end to end?
and frankly, disrespectful of the people of North Carolina. Dismissive of the people of North Carolina. You have treated them as obstacles. to be managed, even talked down to here in this debate today. not citizens to be heard.
And it would be bad enough if they were simply ignored. And they were ignored. No one looked at those comments. We all know that. No one looked at that.
No one tried to take their feedback into consideration and why even have a public comment period? If you're going to dismiss all of their comments when they're clearly one direction. That's Representative Phil Rubin, the Democrat out of Wake County, again calling those an attack on North Carolina, saying that the General Assembly made a vote of no confidence in voters, presumably referring to those voters in the 1st and 3rd congressional district in the northeast half of the state. Regardless of the Democrat outrage on the House floor yesterday, the protesters in the gallery that had to be removed because they could not stop jeering during the ongoing debate that was taking place, and the public comment that has taken place over the last couple of weeks. Republicans do have a majority in the North Carolina General Assembly, a supermajority in the Senate, a simple majority, actually one vote shy of the supermajority in the North Carolina House.
And with that final 66 to 48 vote on Wednesday afternoon. These new maps are now in effect, and candidate filing for the 2026 midterm elections that will likely give Republicans an additional congressional representative from North Carolina will begin in early December. As it stands right now, North Carolina's current maps currently elect 10 Republicans and four Democrats. Under this new map, that number would likely be 11 Republicans and three Democrats. As I mentioned, this map cannot be vetoed or stopped by Governor Josh Stein.
Immediately after the vote in the North Carolina House on Wednesday, the governor released a lengthy video to social media talking about the new congressional districts and calling it a power grab from the GOP. Today, the General Assembly is abusing its power. to pass yet another congressional map for the 2026 midterms. Why? to try to hand President Trump, another Republican seat in the House of Representatives.
Under North Carolina's Constitution, The governor does not have the power to veto redistricting maps. If I did have that power, I assure you I would veto this map. True leadership. is knowing when and whether to use your power. Republican legislative leaders are abusing their power To take away yours, they're afraid that they will lose in the midterms and afraid to say no to the president.
So they've turned their backs on you to silence your vote in the 2026 election. It's outrageous. We'll continue our coverage of what was a busy week in Raleigh at the North Carolina General Assembly coming up after this. You're listening to the Carolina Journal News Hour. This is the story of the one.
As head of maintenance at a concert hall, he knows the show must always go on. That's why he works behind the scenes, ensuring every light is working, the HVAC is humming. and his facility shines. With Granger's supplies and solutions for every challenge he faces, plus 24-7 customer support, his venue never misses a beat. Call quickranger.com or just stop by.
Granger, for the ones who get it done. News Talk 1110-993 WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour as we continue our coverage and recap. What was a very busy week in the North Carolina General Assembly as lawmakers from both the North Carolina House and Senate last week did approve a new congressional map, likely giving Republicans one extra seat in the United States House of Representatives as we head into the 2026 midterm elections.
To get details on where everything stands right now in the latest, nobody better than Dr. Andy Jackson from the John Locke Foundation. He joins us this morning on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Andy, a busy week in Raleigh. It looks like in terms of additional work to be done, redistricting is now complete here, at least for North Carolina's congressional districts.
Yeah, they got it done yesterday. And as we expected, it was a pretty quick process. We were only looking at tweaking two districts. They shifted some counties between the second and the third district and essentially kind of split the difference. Whereas before, the first district was very competitive and the third district was pretty solidly Republican.
Now we have two lean Republican districts.
So unless we have kind of a tidal way of election, we could expect Republicans to win in both of those. Andy, there have been a couple of discussions and points about this. Obviously, this whole discussion is inherently very political. You've got a Republican-led General Assembly that is doing this here in North Carolina. As I think folks can imagine, Democrats not happy with the redraw of this map.
Based on the state law, Andy, and based on the state constitution, is this something that Republicans, because they are in the majority, have the authority to do in Raleigh? Yes, they do.
Now, the North Carolina Constitution says that General Assembly districts, once drawn, cannot be redrawn. Until the next census.
So, unless you have a court order saying, hey, you've got to do it because there was some violation of the state or federal constitutions. That's what you get. But there's no such thing for congressional districts.
So, in theory, the General Assembly could just redraw them after each election. They get a new set of data. Oh, let's tweak the districts a little bit. Maybe we could, you know, shore up an incumbent or let with it this time kind of pick up another district. And so, yeah, we have that process in place here.
And I don't expect that we'll have another round of redistricting after 2026, just because at some point, There's only so much you can squeeze out. I mean, you theoretically could have a 12-2. Map. I mean, that is doable. I've kind of played with maps and I know you can do it.
But by doing that, Republicans would really be spreading themselves thin, which is, by the way, what Democrats did. In their General Assembly districts before the 2010 election, and that came back and blew up in their face.
So, as we watch this process as it continues to unfold, the maps are now officially in law here in North Carolina. Candidate filing for these elections, Andy, will open up in the early and middle parts of December.
However, one of the things that you've been writing about over at the John Locke Foundation, and we've had some quotes over at CarolinaJournal.com, is that litigation is likely with these maps. Democrats taking an interesting stand in Raleigh on this, saying the state has spent $22 some odd million dollars in litigation costs since 2010. Every time maps are redrawn, Do you suspect that there will be some litigation with these redraws of the first and third congressional districts?
Well, there will definitely be litigation. I mean, there always is litigation. North Carolina has been kind of a haven for lawyers in order if they want to make a few bucks suing the state. don't expect that it'll get too far. We had a pretty similar lawsuit in the same part of the state over state Senate districts recently, I mean, just this year.
And that lawsuit got tossed. The judge said that they couldn't prove that these were racial gerrymanders. Political gerrymanders have already been kind of taken off the shelf by both the U.S. and North Carolina Supreme Courts. And since we have, we're kind of backtracking in North Carolina on the racial gerrymandering front, as long as the state isn't trying to actually disenfranchise black voters, but they're just trying to get a political advantage for their side.
If that's the goal, then it's been increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to prove a racial gerrymandering claim, and I don't expect they'll be able to succeed here.
Well, let me ask you about this race question. That was a major talking point, not only for Democrat members of the North Carolina House and Senate, but for anybody that listened to the public comment that's taken place this week. Pretty much every individual speaking publicly on this, Andy, called these maps either racist or Senator Ralph Heiss, the individual who drew them in the Senate, him by himself, he is a racist for drawing these maps. Yet we've heard from individuals like Senator Heiss or Brendan Jones over in the House that no racial data was used in drawing these maps. Does that maybe bolster the argument from a legal perspective here for Republicans that they didn't use any of that race-based data in redrawing these two districts?
Yeah, it is. I mean, the judge in that other case on the state senate actually pointed out that they didn't use racial data, and that was a point in the favor of the General Assembly on that. Yeah. The district went roughly from 41%. Black to, I think, 33%, maybe 34% black.
So there was a decrease in the number of black voters, but proportionately less than the movement on the political front. And if the change in the racial composition is incidental to pursuing a change in the political composition of a district, the courts, and we had a case in South Carolina on this a year or two ago, the courts have upheld that.
So I expect that we're going to see the same thing here. Plaintiffs will ask for a preliminary injunction. They probably won't get it. It kind of depends on which judge they get. And then we're going to go ahead and have this election in 2026, no matter what happens with the regular court case, and then they'll decide on the merits later on.
For those that follow the General Assembly closely, they are familiar with the process that legislation goes through. Andy, it's either introduced in the House or Senate, goes over to the other chamber, and then goes to the governor's desk for signature. These congressional maps are a little bit different. Even though there is a bill number associated with them, the governor actually has no play in that at all. What gives on that?
Well, yeah, this is a relic of the 1990s when they gave the governor the veto. The General Assembly at that time was controlled by Democrats and they had experience, and this was when Jim Hunt, his second time around, the Democrats had experience with a Republican governor.
So, they knew that, well, maybe there is going to be a Republican governor sometime, and if we draw maps to benefit us, the governor might veto them. And so, they never expected that Republicans would actually take over the General Assembly. And so, they made sure that the governor could not veto redistricting legislation. And now, this has really come back to kind of bite them because now they're in a situation where you have the Democratic governor who cannot veto redistricting that the Republican legislature has passed. One of the things that was also a prominent discussion this week was, Andy, we need fair maps.
We need equal maps. We have 14 congressional districts in North Carolina. That is a pretty easy number to divide in half. Seven Republicans, seven Democrats. Can you walk me through why something like that is not wholly practical here in North Carolina, or maybe it is?
What exactly is a basis for some of these 7-7 claims?
Well, with modern technology and data, you can draw almost anything. I mean, if I really set my mind to it, I could probably draw a 10-4 democratic map. It would take a lot of work, but you could do it.
Now, should I do it? No.
Now, there has been work, and this is the result of experts coming out in some of these other lawsuits that we've had in the past. And that data has shown if you use politically neutral criteria, you don't care about the politics involved. You don't consider election results. You don't consider voter registration. You just consider headcounts.
You try to keep counties whole. You try to keep districts reasonably compact. In North Carolina, you normally get either an 8-6 or a 9-5 Republican map. There's some variation there. A 7-7 map is just as much an artificial creation as a 10-4 or an 11-3 map.
That is not the political geography. Great information this morning on redistricting. We appreciate the time. Dr. Andy Jackson from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails, and rewind mistakes.
So you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI transformation at rubric.com. That's r-u-b-r-i-k dot com. News Talk 1110-993 WBT, welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour. I'm Nick Frank.
A situation just north of the Charlotte Metro dating back to at least 2021 has been the subject of litigation over the last couple of years. To walk us through some of those details this morning, Mitch Kokai with the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, a hate crime conviction back a couple of years ago, an appeal over the last 12 months or so. What are you tracking in the Concord area?
Well, this is a story that people in the Concord area are probably aware of. A fellow named Marion Hudak, who was convicted of a federal hate crime in 2024 and sentenced to 41 months in prison, along with several years of supervised release afterward. And the latest development is that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous opinion from a three-judge panel, has affirmed that conviction. What happened on the appeal?
Was that Hudak said that the trial judge in the case made a couple of mistakes. One of them, Was not allowing evidence into the case saying that the problem was not. The racial animus of Mr. Hudak, but the fact that he suffered from mental illness, that information was not allowed to be used in the trial. And the second was that the judge.
Did allow into the trial the fact that Hudak owned a bunch of Nazi memorabilia. Originally, the trial judge in this case Decided not to allow that into evidence, but then changed his mind when Hudak, when talking about this memorabilia, described himself as a military collector. And the judge decided: well, you know, this is something that the jury should decide: whether this is something that he was just collecting because he has a history buff, or because this is something that's a symbol of hate and that symbolizes his desire to act out against people of other races.
Now, some of the facts of the case are of interest as well. The initial incident that led to a hate crime charge, and there were two for which he was convicted, but the initial incident was from 2021. The next-door neighbor. For this defendant in the case is a Hispanic man, and apparently, there's a long A train of instances of insults and racial epithets and threats. But at one point in 2021, Hudak, according to the court records, actually beat the man and threatened to kill him.
And then in 2022 The second incident involved Hudak and a black man. They were next to each other in stopped-in traffic, and Hudak opens up his car, which is covered in Confederate symbols, and hurls a racial epithet at the man, threatens to beat him up, and then gets out of his car, punches on the other guy's car window several times, and then when the black man When the other man drives off, Hudak chases him back to his home, says he knows where he lives, he's going to shoot him and shoot his girlfriend too.
So that was the second hate crime charge. Hudak was convicted of both. And the latest development is that the fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says the judge did not abuse his discretion in this case, meaning that those convictions could stand and that Hudak will have to spend 41 months total in prison on these federal hate crimes. You mentioned mental illness in the original appeal, going back to the ongoing litigation that we're covering this morning.
Mitch, we do see that pretty often in it typically tends to be more major cases where you've got individuals that can clearly point to severe mental illness, deranged nature that drove them to make a horrendous decision. Most of the time, it's murdering somebody else or committing a heinous act against them. In this case, what did the appeals court have to say about the mental illness? Why was that not sufficient enough to enter into evidence and used during the trial?
Well, there were a couple of, actually, three reasons. The first reason was that Hudak did not. Attempt to have an insanity defense. He didn't try to excuse his behavior based on the fact that he was insane.
So that kind of threw that under the bus. The other thing there are some technical issues. There's something called Rule 702 in the rules that were contemplated. And the federal appeals court said that the trial judge got that right as well, that that was not something that Hudak could use to try to get this evidence in. But I think one of the main things that was of issue here is that the evidence that was entered to help The defendant in this case really didn't say anything about his mental state at the time of these attacks in 2021 and 2022.
This was evidence that came to light about the state. that he was in when he was examined. Much later, much after the fact. And so that was one of the things that the original judge decided and that the appeals court affirmed was that there didn't seem to be any tie-in. Between the mental health evidence that was presented and the mental health state.
That Mr. Hudak was in when he actually was alleged to have committed these crimes. And so that's what you really would have wanted to know. And one of the things that. Judge Harvey Wilkinson wrote for the appeals court was: you know, for this particular crime, It doesn't necessarily matter that there was some mental health issues or even mental illness.
And in fact, he wrote that the fact that you would attack your next-door neighbor probably shows that you do have some sort of mental illness, but that doesn't Erase the fact that it seems to be that this attack happened because of racial animus. That if The next-door neighbor had been white, that he would not have been attacked. The reason that he was attacked was that he was Hispanic, and that is entirely why this case is out there. In fact, at one point, Judge Wilkins had said the hate crime laws in the United States are written just for the circumstances like these: that because of the person's race, there is an attack of this sort, and that's what the hate crimes are designed to address. He said, and in terms of talking about the Nazi memorabilia, he said this is not a First Amendment case.
There is no law that would prevent The defendant in this case from owning Nazi memorabilia and expressing views, however odious they might be. But this is a case about action, about an attack. And the reason that you would put that Evidence into play is that it would help the jury decide whether there was racial animus based on the fact that he owned the Nazi memorabilia. And as I said, it was a close call. The trial judge originally was not going to allow that evidence in, but only allowed it in after Hudak tried to say that he was not motivated by racial animus, but that he was a history buff and collected military items.
And the judge decided: well, this is something the jury should really decide. The jury took all of the evidence and decided he should be convicted. Mitch, has the defendant been in prison since this appeal has been going on? Do you know the status of this individual? I actually don't know the status.
I assume that he has been so if so. That would mean that he's probably served about a year of his, what is a three and a half year sentence. I don't know whether he's been out or not, but if not, then that means he would start the three and a half years. If he has been in, he probably has about two and a half years to go, which will be followed then by another three years of supervised release. It's a sad story, Mitch.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention this morning. Unfortunate situation unfolding in Concord over the last three or four years. You can read some additional coverage this morning over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Good morning again and welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 1110-993-WBT.
Coming up on October the 29th, the North Carolina Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case between two parents in a private school in Charlotte, North Carolina. To get us up to date on the details this morning, Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, while this is only two parents in one school in the Charlotte area, this could have some broader impacts across the state of North Carolina as we see the school choice movement continuing, folks looking at alternatives outside of public schools. It's a pretty interesting legal challenge going on. It is, and it has attracted quite a bit of attention beyond what you might have expected.
The story goes back to 2021 when two parents, Doug and Nicole Turpin, were starting to raise concerns about changes in the way that the school Charlotte Latin was operating. They were concerned about the Some of the kind of DEI or critical race theory type things that seemed to be creeping into the atmosphere at Charlotte Latin. And so they were involved in a group that was raising questions about changes in the school's operations. And at some point, the school did not like the questions that Doug Turpin was asking. And so they basically kicked out the two Turpin kids from the school.
A lawsuit was filed. The Turpins are saying there's a breach of contract, that they were misled, deceived. And on the other side, Charlotte Lattin was saying, Look, we're a private school. We have the right to determine who's going to be attending our school. We had a contract with the parents.
There is a parent-school agreement, and that we have to be able to get along. And if we can't get along, we have the right as the school to end that contract, which would mean that the students go away and find some sort of other educational outlet for them. At both the trial level And the Court of Appeals level, the courts have sided with the school, basically saying, you know, this is a contract, it's a private school, they could do what they want. But the state Supreme Court has agreed to take the case. We'll hear the oral arguments in late October.
And the case has attracted quite a bit of interest.
Now, from the school side, the statewide and regional groups that represent private schools have come out in favor of the school, as has the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte.
Now, this is not a Catholic school, so it's not under the diocese, but the diocese put out a friend of the court brief saying, Look, we have some of the same similar arguments that Charlotte Lattin is making, and there's also a First Amendment argument to be made when it comes to Catholic schools. And so, they wanted the court to consider that. On the other side, on the parent side, there have been a number of groups that would tend to be kind of freedom-oriented or right-of-center groups that have backed. Doug and Nicole Turpin, as have Congressman Richard Hudson and Pat Harrigan. And 11 Republican members of the General Assembly, who all signed on to a friend of the court brief supporting the parents, saying that, look, you can't allow a school to deceive parents or to mislead them or to take some steps that would.
Constitute a breach of contract. And the latest court filing from the Turpins, which came out in late August, said: look, if you're allowing this school to prevail in this case, you're going to give Private schools. An advantage that you would not give to other private businesses that are involved in contracts. You would be giving them something that's beyond what a normal business would be able to get in a contract dispute. And so it's going to be very interesting to see what happens.
The state Supreme Court didn't need to take up this case. The lower courts have ruled for the school, including a unanimous ruling, an initial unanimous ruling from the State Court of Appeals that later was changed into a split ruling, in which one of the judges said, at least at this stage, which is the earliest stage of the litigation, the case should go forward. But still, the state Supreme Court did not need to take up this case. It did take up this case, which means there is at least some appetite in addressing this concern about the dispute between the Turpins and Charlotte Lattin and what that means for other. private school disputes with parents moving forward.
Mitch, let me ask you to read a little bit between the tea leaves on this. You laid that out perfectly. The state Supreme Court had absolutely no obligation to take this up. They have decided to do so. At any given point, Mitch, you're tracking dozens of legal cases across the state of North Carolina.
What do you think the relevance of the state Supreme Court taking this up? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that there is such a movement in private schools across the state of North Carolina that this might be something else that they see on the horizon coming forward? There is the potential that that's one of the reasons that factors into this. The easiest. Way to describe why the Supreme Court would take this case when it doesn't have to is that it saw what was written at the Court of Appeals and wasn't quite satisfied with what the Court of Appeals did.
If they thought the Court of Appeals, at least the majority opinion, got it completely right, they wouldn't have to take it. They could basically just sort of slough it off and say that this is right at the Court of Appeals level. But it seems as if they either think the Court of Appeals got something about this wrong, or they at least want to say that we want the highest court in the state to have a final say on this so that when future disputes of this sort come up in the future, that it'll be easy for payments. Parents For schools, for all of the litigators involved to know what the law of the land is in North Carolina. And that could have, as you alluded to, some tie-in to the fact that we know that there's more school choice.
We know that more parents in North Carolina are going to be looking at a private school option.
So, trying to settle what the law is when there's a parental school dispute at the private school level, trying to Give some certainty as to where that will stand in future disputes might be something that the Supreme Court had in mind. Mitch, from a political standpoint, this is kind of an interesting story. Many families and guardians are taking their kids out of public schools and looking at things like charter and private and homeschooling because of some of the complaints made by the family in this case, DEI initiatives, CRT initiatives across the state of North Carolina in public schools and really a broader move across the nation. There's kind of an interesting political element to this as well, as so many folks are evacuating the public school system to get away from many of these divisive concepts. That's true.
And, you know, the thing is, with the private school, you should be able to send your kids to a private school of any type of ideology or type of training that you think is best for your kids. And I think one of the things that the school is arguing is that, look, we have the right to teach kids the way that we want. And if parents don't like it, they could choose another option. They could choose another private school, they can go back to the public school. One of the things that the Turpins are arguing is that we enrolled our students expecting a certain type of education.
And then when the school started to change what type of education it was providing, we were simply asking questions to figure out. You know, where's this going? What are you teaching the kids? How is it different than what you promised? And once the question started to be asked, then the school cut the kids out and said, Well, okay, you know, you don't agree with us, so you're out.
And I think that that's something that could be ironed out to a greater extent once this case gets through the state Supreme Court and we get to see some sort of ruling. There might be some more clarity about what sorts of rights parents do have when they're in a private school and they think the private school has done something differently than what was expected. Had the parents enrolled and said yes to exactly what Charlotte Lattin is proposing, no one would have any problem with that because that's basically parents making the choice to. their kids into the situation that Charlotte Lattin Had and saying that they liked that, which presumably most of the other parents at Charlotte Latin are fine with. But in this case, what the turpids are saying is we were promised one thing, it wasn't delivered.
When we started asking questions about why it wasn't being delivered, then they gave us the boot. And those oral arguments are set to take place on Wednesday. We'll keep an eye on this legal challenge over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. But that's going to do it for a Monday edition. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT.
We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on News Talk 11, 10, and 99.3, WBT.
