It's 5.05. A good Tuesday morning to you, and welcome into the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 1110, 99.3 WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you.
Well, as predicted by many that followed the redistricting battle that took place last week in the North Carolina General Assembly, legal challenges have begun to fly in both federal and state court in North Carolina. Let's start off here. Plaintiffs in an existing North Carolina federal redistricting lawsuit want to supplement their existing complaint to cover the state's new congressional maps. The plaintiffs working with Democrat operative Mark Elias' law firm filed paperwork to challenge the new maps late last week, right after they were officially approved by the North Carolina General Assembly. A three-judge panel held a trial this summer in two consolidated cases challenging North Carolina's 2023 congressional and legislative election maps.
That panel has not yet issued a ruling in that case.
Now, however, the plaintiffs in one of the suits, identified as Williams v. Blackwell, are asking the judges' permission to file a supplemental complaint. That 47-page document challenges the congressional maps that the Republican-led General Assembly approved last week under Senate Bill 249. state legislative leaders defending the ca the congressional maps, quote, do not oppose the motion for a supplemental complaint according to a new court filing. Reading through some of the um uh Legal documents and some of the back and forth between some of the parties in here.
The complaint reads as follows: North Carolina gained a congressional district after the 2020 census almost entirely due to an increase in the state's minority population. But the General Assembly has gone to great lengths to ensure that the increase in minority population does not translate into any increase in minority electoral opportunity. In a service of successive redistricting maps, the General Assembly has systematically rolled back minority voting strength across the state. The complaint goes on to say Senate Bill 249 repeats the constitutional violations of the 2023 plan, unconstitutionally diluting black voting strength in the Piedmont Triad and Mecklenburg, and then doubles down on them by further dismantling the first congressional district, a historic black opportunity district in the northeastern part of the state. It reads, quote, CD1, referring to Congressional District 1, is home to many heavily black counties, including several that compose North Carolina's black belt, which has played an outsized role in the state's civil right history.
The 2025 plan was designed to prevent that from happening, the plaintiff's lawyers wrote, reading that the plan dismantles the black opportunity that District 1 is Congressional District One has by moving several counties with significant black populations out of the district. And into Congressional District 3, trading them for severely, primarily white counties, diluting the black vote in both districts. Under the 2025 plan, the complaint reads: black voters are extremely unlikely to elect a candidate of their choice in either district. The complaint rejects the notion that the changes were a quote mere side effect of a partisan gerrymander. With one of the plaintiffs writing, whatever the General Assembly partisan aims to do, they have once again chosen to target black neighborhoods and communities to achieve them.
The Fourth Circuit has made it clear that while using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election, a state legislator acting on such motivation engages in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. The complaint also argues that the new maps violate the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. That court filing late last week arrived a day after a three-judge panel overseeing the two redistricting lawsuits asked parties in the case for information about the impact of the new congressional maps that were approved by the North Carolina General Assembly. U.S. Appeal Court Judge Allison Jones Rushing and U.S.
District Judge Richard Myers conducted a six-day trial covering both cases this summer. Republican presidents appointed all three judges. The judges wrote in a text order last week: The North Carolina General Assembly has enacted Senate Bill 249 into law, which creates a new congressional map for the state of North Carolina. The parties are directed to file briefs no more than 10 pages by 5 p.m. on Monday.
October the 27th, that was yesterday, addressing the effects of this development, including potential mootness on the claims submitted to this court and in these consolidated cases.
So you've got that legal challenge that is taking place already, an ongoing legal challenge in some congressional maps and maps covering the North Carolina General Assembly. And with that, well, the North Carolina State Board of Elections is telling courts that they need to have legal issues surrounding these congressional maps finalized by December the 1st of this year to avoid administrative delays for the 2026 election. You might be wondering why that is the case.
Well, candidate filing for these congressional districts, the newly redrawn 1st and 3rd district, are taking place in early December. That is when candidates will have to file all of the proper paperwork with either a local or State Board of Election, of course, federal paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to be eligible to run in those contests. A primary, if there is one, in any of those congressional races, will take place in March of next year, and will, of course, all wrap up in November of next year with a general election. The Election Board indicated that it takes no position on the impact of new maps or on the ongoing consolidated federal redistricting lawsuit, nor does the board take position on the redistricting plaintiff's request to add a new map to the existing court dispute.
However, the lawyers for the State Board wrote, As the State Board has previously stated in this case, if changes to current district maps are made as a result of this litigation, the impact on the elections calendar will depend on the scope and timing of such order. To accommodate changes to the current map without delaying any administrative dates or deadlines for ballot preparation and distribution for the March 2026 primary, the State Board would need to receive the new map by December the 1st, 2025, which is approximately six weeks before absentee voting is set to begin for the March primary. As I mentioned that this is in response to those plaintiffs working with Democrat uh uh operative Mark Elias' law firm, who challenged uh some of these maps, or at least filed paperwork late last week to try and challenge uh this new map as it relates to The first and third congressional district, both of those in northeastern North Carolina or eastern North Carolina, depending on the area that you are looking at, that 47-page document challenges those maps that the General Assembly approved through Senate Bill 249.
So, looking at what is expected to come up in the coming weeks and months as it relates to this new congressional map, these two new congressional districts drawn by the North Carolina General Assembly, we do have this one ongoing lawsuit that is looking like it will be amended to add the new congressional maps, part of Senate Bill 249, approved by the North Carolina General Assembly. We also have some new information this morning coming in from the state conference of the NAACP and Common Cause, who are hoping to challenge some of those maps as well.
So, we are, again, as predicted, as we chatted with experts, including Dr. Andy Jackson from the The John Log Foundation that there would likely be some significant legal challenges against the maps drawn by the Republican-led General Assembly. The million-dollar question this morning: will any of these legal challenges garner any significant support from the courts ahead of this early December deadline when candidate filing opens? It seemingly would indicate that once that candidate filing opens, it will be very hard for the courts to step in and either block or stop those maps that go into effect. As we have seen in years past, these legal challenges over maps, whether we're talking about congressional maps, North Carolina House, or Senate maps.
uh lawsuits can take quite some time and it is something that is uh potentially likely to roll out well after the election that will take place in November of next year. We'll get into some details on this NAACP common cause legal challenge as well coming up here in just a couple of minutes. It's 5:21. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 1110-993 WBT. Continuing our coverage this morning of some legal challenges against congressional maps drawn by the North Carolina General Assembly last week.
Extensive coverage here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. If you missed our shows last week, I would encourage you to go and check out the Carolina Journal News Hour podcast. Spent a lot of time hearing from lawmakers, members of the public, and individuals, again, on both sides of the political aisle debating the new congressional map in Raleigh last week. Contrary to some of the accusations from groups and from lawmakers, the Republican-led General Assembly was successful and able to move forward with approving the new map, which will make changes and shift around some of the counties in both the first and third congressional districts. Those are in the northeast and eastern half of our State.
Unlike regular legislation that you see work its way through the North Carolina General Assembly, Democrat Governor and Josh Stein does not have the ability and did not have the ability to block or veto or stop those maps from going into effect. Once both the House and Senate approved them, which they did last week, they did officially go into effect. That has prompted some of these new legal challenges. The second one that we're following this morning, the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Common Cause hoped to challenge the new map as well as part of an existing federal redistricting lawsuit, according to a court filing Monday afternoon. A three-judge panel conducted a six-day trial this summer, combining two lawsuits that challenge North Carolina's congressional and legislative maps that were used in last year's election.
As we've talked about, the panel has not yet issued a decision in that case. One set of plaintiffs working with Democrat operative Mark Elias. Law firm in a case titled Williams v. Blackwell had already filed a request to file a supplemental complaint targeting the congressional maps as we just talked about. Those maps are tied to Senate Bill 249 and redraw two eastern North Carolina congressional districts.
Both with the new redraw are designed to elect Republicans, hopefully, for the GOP, as what they're trying to do is give themselves an 11 to 3 majority in the North in the state House delegation that is sent from North Carolina to Washington, D.C. That would mean a net gain of one seat for Republicans in Raleigh.
Now, the second set of plaintiffs in the case of NAACP versus Berger wrote in a legal challenge on Monday, quote, an intent to file in short order a motion for leave to supplement their First Amendment complaint, appending a proposed supplemental complaint setting forth allegations related to the enactment of Senate Bill 249 and challenging the mid-decade redrawing and configuration of Congressional Districts 1 and 3 according to the court filing. Lawyers in the case wrote, as will be set forth in a proposed supplemental complaint, the changes in Senate Bill 249 have caused a significant drop in the black voting age population of Congressional District 1. As a consequence and as demonstrated by past electoral data, it is unlikely that black voters will overcome the extreme white block voting in this area to successfully elect a candidate of their choice under this new, even more dilutive configuration. The court filing continued by saying, since the enactment of Senate Bill 249 has only furthered and indeed worsened the same allegation of voting dilution and harm caused by the 2023 congressional plan as identified in the First Amendment complaint, this case is not moot. The Williams plaintiffs, as we covered, filed a separate brief on Monday as well, arguing that the case is also not moot.
Meaning that they believe that it's got some legs and it is an important part of their ongoing legal challenge. Republican legislative leaders are defending the challenged congressional districts and legislative maps in court. They agreed in a brief on Monday that most of the case, quote, remains live and ripe for adjudication. GOP lawmakers argue that the originals lawsuit challenges to District 1, however, are in fact now moot. But legislative leaders issued no objection to the plaintiff's challenges of the new District 1 in a supplemental complaint.
So you've got a couple of different parties going in and jumping in on this case. You've got the NAACP and Common Cause. You've got a group of individuals working with Democrat operative Mark Elias, who has made a strong name for himself over the last couple of decades now, going around to various states across the country and engaging in legal challenges as it relates to redistricting, which is exactly what you saw here in North Carolina last week. And you also have the North Carolina General Assembly who filed legal paperwork on Monday saying that this case does remain alive and well and has no serious objections to these new legal challenges being brought forth. All of this ahead of a deadline, according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
They are asking the courts to have any. Potential temporary stays. Or any other sort of legal challenges, at least resolved in some part, by December the 1st of this year, coming up in just four weeks or so, as they do everything in their power to make sure that the administrative deadline is held in place. As I mentioned earlier, candidate filing for these two new congressional districts one and three will take place in early and mid-December. That is why the state board is asking for some of these new maps, or new, or I should say, new maps, singular there, new map, or any sort of challenges from the court to be dealt with by that December the 1st deadline.
If not, presumably, candidate filing will open in mid-December. And once those candidates file, it would be seemingly very hard to put the genie back in the bottle and stop that process.
However, I'll note we have seen something similar in the past back in 2022.
So it is something that we are going to. Keep a very close eye on. We'll be chatting with experts from the John Locke Foundation and CarolinaJournal.com in the coming weeks as we get additional details from either of the parties in this court, whether it's the NAACP, Common Cause, Mark Elias, or the North Carolina General Assembly. We have pretty extensive coverage this morning on all of these different legal challenges over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. A couple of those story headlines, if you'd like to go and read some more.
NAACP to add new NC congressional map to existing lawsuit. That's one of our top stories. Another, election board seeks December 1st resolution of congressional map dispute. And the third, Elias Link plaintiffs seek to challenge new North Carolina congressional maps. Continued coverage and more information available this morning over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com.
It's 536. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 1110, 99.3 WBT, focusing on some national news this morning. The government shutdown does continue in Washington, D.C. this morning, and the North Carolina Democrat Party is releasing a statement as it relates to that government shutdown, writing in part: Nearly a month ago, Republicans shut down the government to avoid fixing the healthcare disaster they created.
Now they're threatening to stop food assistance programs during the shutdown, keeping nearly 40 million Americans from having secure access to meals. In North Carolina, this means approximately 600,000 children and a total of 1.4 million people across our state will have difficulty putting meals on their table every night, let alone for Thanksgiving. Our country cannot continue along this path. It's never been more clear that DC Republicans have lost their sense of priorities. Last week, Trump gave Argentina $40 billion, and this week they're claiming they can't afford to make sure families can eat.
Lifelines that are literally keeping families in North Carolina fed are not pawns that Trump can use to force his agenda down our throats. It's time for them to responsibly open the government, ensure SNAP benefits go out on time, and expend the Affordable Care Act subsidies so that nearly a million working people in North Carolina don't see their insurance premiums double in the next week. Obviously, the government shutdown has been a major political topic. This, of course, a statement coming directly from the North Carolina Democrat parties, the Democrat Party.
However, the Republican Party and Republicans in Washington, D.C., including individuals like House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate leader John Thune, continue to point the finger at Democrats who have now failed in the United States Senate over more than a dozen attempts to reopen the government. Democrats' goal here is to re-litigate some of the ongoings from the One Big Beautiful bill that passed in July of this year. They want to change health care subsidies that were already codified in law there, including adding billions of dollars worth of support to things like the corporation for public broadcasting. Again, things that were already stripped away due to the one big beautiful bill. All eyes will once again be on Washington, D.C.
this week as we get closer to the end of the week and roll the calendar over. into November. This is currently the second longest government shutdown. That has ever taken place in U.S. history from a Republican standpoint.
Watching and listening to some of the commentary last week as senators made their way to the White House Rose Garden for a luncheon, it does not appear that Republicans are going to move on any of the points that Democrats want to add to this ongoing shutdown and say they need to change to reopen the government. Same thing on the other side of the aisle. Democrats do not seem willing to move off of any of the points that they are fighting for as well.
So the stallmate does continue in Washington, D.C. We will continue to track the progress there, and the North Carolina Connection will continue to provide you details and updates right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour, where it's now 5:39 and News Talk 1110-993 WBT. Multiple lawsuits against the former owner of a tire factory in Charlotte could have some broader implications in the business community across the state of North Carolina. To walk us through some of those details this morning, Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, we talk about lawsuits pretty regularly.
Sometimes they're very narrow in individual cases and individual companies and people. And then other times we've got lawsuits that, yes, are focused on one person or one company, but they could have a broader reach across many other industries in North Carolina. What are you following out of Charlotte this morning? This is a case that's more than a decade in the making. What happened was this former tire factory owned by Continental Tire years ago, about 150 different people connected to that plant filed suit saying that they were exposed to asbestos at the plant and it caused them health.
health problems. And so what happened was as these various suits were filed, The plaintiffs in the case and the company decided that they would put together a handful of representative cases, what's called. Bellwether cases to sort of sort out the major issues of the case, and then the bellwether cases would help determine what was going to happen with all of the rest of the suits. As the Continental Tire folks focused on in their latest briefing in this case, they said the idea was if The plaintiffs lose in the bellwether cases, then that's going to really rule out. Anyone else being able to win.
If the plaintiffs win, then that's a signal to other plaintiffs and to the company that. You're probably going to lose the company's probably going to lose the rest of these.
So you ought to start thinking about settling these cases.
Well, what happened was as this case moved, as the various cases moved forward, the court tribunal overseeing the The Industrial Commission overseeing the initial bellwether cases ruled against the plaintiffs, saying that there was not enough evidence that there was asbestos present at a level that would have caused any health problems for these plaintiffs. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, and what Continental Tire is saying is that should have basically ended the case. But what happened was a handful of plaintiffs, and by a handful I'm talking about 13 out of the initial 150 continued to press their case, saying that the Bellwether cases didn't address all of the issues in their particular concerns and complaints. They went forward. The Industrial Commission Threw out their cases saying, No, you know, we've gone through the bellwether cases, you can't move forward.
They appealed once again to the state court of appeals, and this time. Rather than affirming the Industrial Commission, the Court of Appeals split two to one. And the two judges on the majority said that the cases could go forward. They said these bellwether cases did not say that these plaintiffs could not press their claims. They can go forward.
One judge dissented. The judge who dissented was the chief judge, Chris Dillon, said, Look, the Bellwether cases have decided the main issues. This litigation should be over.
So now, as the cases are scheduled to move forward, the 13 cases remaining out of the initial 150 or so, Continental Tire is appealing to the North Carolina Supreme Court. They've filed a petition saying, Look, Supreme Court, please take these cases because you need to. settle whether this bellwether principle is going to survive in the future. If it's not going to work, if plaintiffs are not going to abide by what the Bellwether cases say, then why would anyone ever do this again? It's the whole thing is designed to simplify this legal process.
And they make the larger argument that this could have a potential negative impact on North Carolina's business climate. They've talked about some of the things that help the business climate beyond things like taxes and regulatory reform. There is the idea of having an industrial commission. There is the idea of having a business court that deals with business issues. And one of the other things that's part of this is being allowed to have bellwether cases when you have multiple plaintiffs filing suit.
And if that piece of the process Falls short, that's going to hurt North Carolina's business climate.
Now, of course, this is the argument that the tire company is making to try to help stave off these lawsuits.
So they have definitely have skin in the game, but it is an interesting piece of North Carolina's legal puzzle, and it will be interesting to see whether the North Carolina Supreme Court decides to take the case because of those arguments.
So Mitch, as you talk about these these bellwether cases, do these only come forward when you got a large group of potential plaintiffs in the case you mentioned, around one hundred fifty or so employees? Is that typically when you see these these bellwether cases in North Carolina? Yes, and I don't know the details of how many plaintiffs you would have to have before you'd start considering bellwether cases, but certainly it has to be a large enough number that it makes sense to pick a handful of representative cases to deal with rather than the whole range of cases. And certainly it would seem to make sense when you have about 150 of them that you would not want to have 150 separate trials, that you would try to pick a handful of cases that really cover. Most, if not all, of the major issues.
And then, once those are settled, it really gives. All sides, a good idea of how the rest of the cases are going to play out. As I said earlier, if the plaintiffs win, that gives a signal to the defendant, the company, that It looks bad for us. We ought to get into settlement negotiations with everyone else. But if the defendant wins, if the company wins, that should be good news for the company and bad news for the plaintiffs in that you're probably not going to win because these cases that really have the same general types of facts that your case has.
Those cases failed, you're probably not going to succeed when those other cases have failed. It's definitely an interesting story that we are tracking this morning. We'll keep an eye on and see what the North Carolina Supreme Court has to say about it. We appreciate the details this morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
It's 5:52. Good morning again. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, News Talk 11:10-993WBT.
Well, we are continuing to track the ongoing rift between Republicans in the North Carolina House and Senate as we sit here heading towards the end of the month of October. We still are without a full state budget, and it would appear that the stallmate is continuing in Raleigh. An interesting press release yesterday from Senate leader Phil Berger's press department reads as follows. Last week, the North Carolina House of Representatives forced the Senate to return four ineligible bills after nonpartisan staff attorneys determined they could not be considered under the General Assembly's agreed-upon adjournment resolution. Beyond just being ineligible for consideration, the quartet of bills propose additional problems.
First, the House's unprecedented budget gimmick plunges the state into deficit spending by appropriating more than $2 billion. In total, the four bills would result in nearly $600 million worth of reoccurring deficit spending during the fiscal biennium. Beyond the irresponsible spending, the House's proposal breaks the joint budget agreement made between the two chambers back in April by exceeding the spending cap by hundreds of millions of dollars and exhausting the resources necessary to replenish our state's rainy day fund. Senate Appropriations Chairman Brent Jackson, the Republican from Samson, Ralph Heist, the Republican from Mitchell, and Michael Lee, the Republican from New Hanover, said in a joint quote from Senate Leader Phil Berger's press office, quote, it is our duty to pass a responsible, balanced budget. Bringing forth bills that cannot be considered and intentionally busting our state's budget is nothing more than a political stunt.
So again, important to note here, you have Republicans. In control in both chambers, in the House and the Senate. Obviously, former House Speaker and Tim Moore moving up to Washington, D.C., running for Congress. That caused House Speaker, now current House Speaker, Destin Hall, to rise to the position that he is in. And it is, from my vantage point and talking to some folks about this yesterday, very odd to see a statement like this coming out from the North Carolina General Assembly from the Senate, trashing the House, or vice versa.
Again, as both of these chambers are exclusively controlled by the GOP. As we look at this going forward, it would appear that the idea of getting a full set biennium budget at this point would seemingly be incredibly low as this stallmate does continue. We did see last week lawmakers approve another mini budget that included predominantly a lot more spending out in western. North Carolina, as recovery and relief efforts for Hurricane Helene do continue in portions of western North Carolina. There were some other things in that mini budget as well, including some increases in pay for certain state employees, but it was not a full-on extensive budget like you would expect to see here in North Carolina.
So, if this stallmate is going to continue, which would seemingly be the case, as this statement was released just yesterday evening by Senate Leader Phil Berger's press office, we will not be getting a full biennium budget, at least not by the end of this calendar year. It is possible, however, as lawmakers gavel back in in early 2026, they get back to the negotiating table and get a full budget. I don't know that I'd necessarily hold my breath on that. We'll continue to follow the so-called budget progress, if there is any, over on our website this morning, Carolina. journal.com Recapping some of our big political stories this morning across the state, a couple of illegal challenges against new congressional maps drawn by the Republican-led General Assembly.
You've got the state conference of the NAACP, Common Cause, and another set of plaintiffs working with Democrat operative Mark Elias' law firm that are looking to challenge the new congressional map drawn by the legislature last week. At the exact same time, the State Board of Elections is asking the court to keep in mind a December the 1st, 2025 deadline, which would only be about five weeks, four to five weeks from now. As an administrative deadline for the state board of elections to make sure that they can properly open candidate filing in mid-December of this year, as there will potentially have to be midterm elections or primary elections, I should say, for some of these races coming up in March of next year, ahead of that general election taking place in November. We will keep our eyes on these two lawsuits: the commentary from the State Board of Elections and the Republican-led General Assembly, as all of them have filed some sort of a legal briefing over the last couple of days. You can also read some additional coverage on that this morning over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com.
That's going to do it for a Tuesday 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 1110 and 99.3, WBT.
