It's 5.05 and welcome in to a Thursday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT, I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you. We are keeping a close eye on the power struggle that is likely to take place in the North Carolina Senate in the coming months and through the remainder of this year after Senate leader Phil Berger's loss in the 2026 primary has set off early maneuvering among Republicans over who will succeed him as the president pro tem, the leader of the North Carolina Senate. Berger, the Republican from Rockingham County, has served as the president pro tem since 2011, making him the chamber's longest-serving leader. During his tenure, he has played a central role in shaping the Senate's agenda and guiding Republican policy priorities as the party gained and has maintained control of the GA since 2011.
The 2010 midterm elections is where they took control, many of them being sworn in in early January of 2011. Senate leadership has remained unusually stable for decades. Mitch Kokai, who is our senior political analyst over at the John Locke Foundation, said, quote, the Senate president pro temp job has emerged over the past three decades as a major power position in North Carolina politics, with just two men, Democrat Mark Baznight and Republican Phil Berger, holding the post since 1993. Many might label the top Senate leadership post as the most powerful job in state government. The timeline for selecting his successor does remain unclear.
While discussions about potential candidates have already begun, it is not clear yet whether a leadership vote will take place later in the 2026 session, the short session that we're in right now, or be deferred until the start of the next legislative term in January of 2027. Andy Jackson, who is the director of the John Locke Foundation Civitas Center for Public Integrity, outlined how the President pro temp plays a central role in shaping legislative outcomes throughout the North Carolina General Assembly. telling the Carolina Journal, the president pro tem assigns senators to committees, appoints members to state boards and commissions, and hires professional legislative staff. Those levers of power give the Senate leader significant influence over state policy. The transition also raises questions about the extent of Berger's successor's influence and how candidates may distinguish themselves from current leadership.
Mitch Kokai said that it remains unclear whether Berger's successor will wield the same level of influence and power over state government, saying it's not clear that the next Senate leader will wield the same amount of power as either Baznite or Berger, but it's clear that the next leader will have a chance to play a major role in shaping North Carolina public policy for years to come. He also noted that the Political Balancing Act is effacing these potential candidates, saying, quote, those who are interested in the post will have to be careful. While Berger is still in office, it would be unwise to spend too much time talking about making significant changes in Senate operations. But it is likely that candidates will have to differentiate themselves from the current leadership team in some respects. Unless a candidate stakes out a position as Phil Berger 2.0, he or she will have to explain any plans to make the Senate a better place than it is today.
Based on their own comments and Carolina Journal's conversation with political insiders, several Republican senators have emerged as potential contenders or have at least signaled their interest in those positions. We'll start off with Senator Ralph Heist, he, the Republican out of Mitchell County, a longtime ally of Berger. Heist maintains a strong position within the Republican caucus with veteran lawmakers. The current Deputy President Pro Tem has already stated that he intends to seek the role of Senate leader, Senate President Pro Tem, in the months to come. Heist recently told North Carolina Insider, quote, I will put my name forward for consideration by our caucus.
However, my focus right now is the continuation of this session under Phil's leadership and honoring his service to North Carolina. The session for d the the season for deciding the next president pro tem of the senate is after we have concluded our work for this session. Heiss is serving his sixth term representing Senate District 47, which includes portions of Western North Carolina. He co-chairs the Senate Appropriations/slash Base Budget Committee, Redistricting and Election Committee, as well as the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Information Technology. He has also played a leading role in the legislature's most recent redistricting efforts.
We heard a lot from Senator Ralph Heiss when that debate and conversation was going on throughout parts of the latter parts, I should say, of 2025. Another individual throwing their hat into the race, Senator Mike Lee, the Republican from New Hanover County, where he currently serves as the Senate Majority Leader. His role places him at the center of the chamber's policy and messaging efforts. He has been a member of Senate leadership for several terms and continues to work closely with top Republicans on legislative priorities. Lee represents a competitive swing district, however, a factor that many are saying could weigh into leadership considerations.
In a statement on social media just the same day, or the day after I should say, that in which Senate leader Phil Berger officially conceded the race to Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page in that very close primary in portions of northern Guilford and Rockingham County, Lee acknowledged ongoing discussions about Senate leadership and signaled his interest in the role, writing in a post on X, quote, For more than two decades of service, including fifteen years as President pro tempore, Senate Leader Berger has led with discipline, integrity and an unwavering commitment to North Carolina. His impact on our state and our institution will be felt for generations. I am aware that conversations have begun about future leadership of the Senate. I respect those who are engaging in those discussions, and I am prepared to step forward to provide the leadership needed to meet the challenges ahead and to guide the Senate into the next chapter. But today is not about the next chapter, it is about recognizing and appreciating the extraordinary leadership of Senator Berger.
There will be an opportunity and an appropriate time for those discussions. For now, we pause to thank a leader who has given so much to this state and to the Senate. That was written back on March the 25th and posted on X via Senator Michael Lee's official social media account. On to Senator Todd Johnson, the Republican from Union County. Johnson, unlike Heiss and Lee, is a newer member of the chamber and is not closely aligned with Berger's inner circle.
He has drawn widespread attention for his vocal opposition to school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, with Johnson also indicating he plans to seek the role of the president and leader of the North Carolina Senate. Though his name is not in immediate focus, it remains on the upcoming session and passing a budget. In a recent interview with Brett Jensen right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9. WBT, Johnson said, quote, There will come a time later in this session to transition more into this race, and I do plan to throw my name in. I am very interested in the position, but for now, Johnson said he is, quote, hyper-focused on coming into session and getting a budget across the finish line.
Johnson praised Berger's tenure, but also noted some significant policy differences, saying Senator Berger has been a great servant to this state for many years and was able to do some amazing things. I don't agree on everything, but North Carolina has been in a great position for the past 16 years because of his leadership.
Some other individuals who have not formally announced their bids, but there is some chatter happening, include Senator Amy Gailey, the Republican from Alamance County. While she has not formally announced that bid, her name is also set to be considered, insiders have told Carolina Journal. Gailey is a member of the Senate leadership team and a very close ally of Phil Berger. She has been involved in advancing key Republican priorities and could represent some level of continuity within the chamber's existing leadership structure. If selected, she would be the first woman to serve as the Senate president pro tem.
Final individuals. We are talking about this morning, Senator Brent Jackson, the Republican out of Samson County. While Jackson has also not publicly announced a bid for the position, sources within the North Carolina Senate told Carolina Journal that his name has been mentioned as a potential contender. He brings a strong base in eastern North Carolina, particularly within the state's agricultural community, which does remain the state's largest business. Jackson has served as one of the Senate's key budget negotiators and has helped shape spending decisions within Raleigh.
While he has not been part of the chamber's top leadership in recent years, his influence and regional influence could factor into any leadership discussion and decision that takes place. The leadership transition comes as lawmakers face several high stakes policy issues, including finalizing a state budget, managing the ongoing rollout of Medicaid expansion and addressing education policy as well as larger policy debates. Differences between the North Carolina House and Senate on those issues have already surfaced in recent sessions, with Dr. Andy Jackson telling the Carolina Journal: whomever fills this position will heavily influence what policies are advanced in the General Assembly. The main reason that the legislature did not pass a budget last year was a conflict between the Senate and House leadership.
A change in Senate leadership could also affect how negotiations unfold between the new chambers, particularly on those major issues like budgeting and policy disagreements that have stalled legislation in the past. While Heiss, Johnson, and Lee have emerged as early frontrunners to succeed Berger, Insiders Tell Carolina Journal that the field remains very fluid, with key decisions on timing and Republican caucus support remaining unsettled. The General Assembly's legislative session is expected to begin coming up here in just a couple of weeks on April the 21st. And again, it is not immediately clear as to how quickly these conversations will begin to take place.
However, it is something that we are tracking very closely over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com, and here on the Carolina Journal News Out, we'll bring you the latest as soon as we get more information. It's 23 minutes past the hour. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 WBT. We are keeping an eye on some hurricane recovery efforts in North Carolina this morning, as there is set to be an interesting meeting taking place later on this morning. 10 o'clock, the General Assembly gavels in for the Government Operations Subcommittee on Hurricane Response and Recovery.
While there is no agenda for the meeting, yet it is not immediately clear who will be in front of this committee. There is likely going to be some tough questions asked of lawmakers to whoever is attending that meeting. We will be keeping an eye on that throughout the day over at CarolinaJournal.com. In some other news, Rutherford County has been reimbursed to nearly $10 million for Helene recovery. Rutherford County had been allocated $9.39 million in federal emergency money.
Management Agency, also known as FEMA funding, to reimburse for debris removal and emergency response work in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene. The funding has been earmarked to support cleanup projects across the county, including debris removal and clearing waterways. U.S. Representative Tim Moore, the Republican out of North Carolina's 14th congressional seat, said in a press release, quote, Rutherford County worked quickly to remove debris in the wake of Hurricane Helene to keep folks safe and increase vehicle access to areas that were hit the hardest. It is great news that they'll be reimbursed more than $9 million for work that they've already done to help their community recover.
Of that $9.39 million, $1.6 million has been allocated for debris removal in waterways across the county with more than 19,000 cubic yards of vegetation debris, as well as tree limbs and trees from waterways, ditches, and canals. That work restored flow in critical water channels and addressed initial safety concerns following the storm. That project was funded with 100% federal cost sharing, meaning that while the county had to expense those dollars, 1.5% $3.6 million immediately. The federal government has given them 100% reimbursement. An additional $3.7 million was also allocated for the removal of debris across roads, public property, and right-of-ways.
With this, more than 75,000 cubic yards of limbs, trees, and vegetation debris are supporting ongoing recovery efforts and restoring access through the county. That project is funded at a 90% federal cost share. With the cost there, total cost there being $4.16 million, the county responsible for 10% of that funding. Finally, making up our nearly $10 million, $4.03 million is allocated for the continued removal of debris and waterways during later phases of hurricane recovery. That project included the removal of more than 20,000 cubic yards of hazardous trees and vegetation debris from continued waterways throughout the county.
That is also a 90% federal cost share with a final total cost of $4.48 million. All three of those projects are funded under Section 407 of the Robert T. Stafford Act. This announcement follows a March the 25th letter from North Carolina's Republican delegation to the brand new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen, urging him to release pending FEMA funding that is designated for Hurricane Helene. Additionally, $3.57 million in FEMA funding was awarded to Burke County in early March, allocated for flood mitigation and Hurricane Helene recovery efforts.
Burke County also falls within Congressman Tim Moore's district.
So one of the things that we have been keeping a very close eye on over the last year is the unfortunate slow trickle of money from agencies like FEMA at the federal level into many of the counties, many of the areas in western North Carolina that were hit so hard from the devastation of Hurricane Helene. Crazy to think that the storm affected those areas more than a year and a half ago. We'll be approaching that two-year anniversary of the event coming up in September of this year. Obviously, a lot of work still to be done at FEMA and under DHS to continue to get money flowing out of the feds into the local governments here across the state of North Carolina. Also, a lot of work continuing at the state.
Level as well. As I mentioned just a couple of minutes ago, the North Carolina General Assembly's Government Operations Subcommittee on Hurricane Response and Recovery is meeting at 10 o'clock in Raleigh today. The chairs of that committee is Senator Brent Jackson, talked about him a little bit earlier, and as well as Representative Brendan Jones, the Republican out of Columbus County, will be chairing that meeting today. As state lawmakers will likely be dealing with either a full budget or a set of mini-budgets in the coming weeks, as they are expected back in Raleigh towards the end of April, figuring out exactly how much more money is needed to be doled out to Western North Carolina. They will likely learn some of that in their meeting coming up today.
We'll have a complete and total coverage of that over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. And of course, we'll bring you the latest coming up here tomorrow morning on a Friday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's 5:35. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. I'm Nick Craig.
Good Thursday morning to you. Big legal questions are now brewing in the state of North Carolina as a coalition of groups from across the political spectrum are weighing in on an interesting legal case that could reshape how the state treats a firearm possession for convicted felons. To walk through some of those details this morning, Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, you've been keeping a close eye on this case as it goes through the legal system here across the Tar Heels State. What's the latest that you're tracking?
This case, Nick, has now reached the North Carolina Supreme Court, and we have a defendant, a fellow named Eric James Ducker, who wants to challenge North Carolina's law banning firearm possession by felons. He's been ruled against in the lower court levels, including the State Court of Appeals, had a unanimous opinion against him, saying that North Carolina's law against firearm possession by felons complies with all of the Supreme Court Second Amendment precedents. Ducker disagrees. Ducker is challenging this. He's saying that, look, based on what the U.S.
Supreme Court has said in the Bruin case and in the Rahimi case, which came out a couple of years later, means that for a state Gun restriction to stand. It really has to be narrowly tailored, and there has to be a very close review over whether the law actually infringes on someone's Second Amendment rights. And as this case now is proceeding to the North Carolina Supreme Court, the defendant, Ducker, is getting some interesting help. First, we saw a friend of the court or Amicus brief come in from two groups that don't always work together. They occasionally do, but they're on different political sides, the ACLU of North Carolina, which often deals with liberal and left of center issues, and the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian group.
So the ACLU wrote a brief, and Cato supported the brief, joined the brief, basically supporting Ducker, the defendant, and saying that in this case, the Court of Appeals opinion did not. Follow the correct procedure and should have done much more to see whether Mr. Ducker's rights were violated. One of the things that came out during the course of this was that he was convicted in 2023, and it was based on the fact that he had been convicted of a felony back in 2009, so 14 years earlier, for attempted fleeing arrest.
So not necessarily a violent crime. Certainly it was a felony, but not a violent crime. And then later was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2018. And the argument is that perhaps this is not the type of felony crime that should Force a person to be able to give up Second Amendment rights.
So that is one of the arguments that was made. Then, after that initial brief from the ACLU and the Cato Institute, we saw another brief a few days later from Grassroots North Carolina, which is North Carolina's leading state-level gun rights group. uh you know you've got the nra that's the big national group but the the big north carolina group that has pushed over and over again in uh in recent years for uh less restriction on gun ownership and more rights for gun owners has been this group grassroots north carolina and that group is also supporting ducker saying that basically the opening of their brief is that because of over criminalization and over-regulation, there can be a lot more opportunity for someone to be convicted of a felony. And that doesn't necessarily mean that all of those people should have their gun rights taken away. And that like the ACLU and like the Cato Institute, Grassroots North Carolina believes the appeals court.
did not follow the proper procedure to see whether North Carolina's law was too overbroad in blocking all felons from being able to possess guns. And Mitch, you just highlighted on this because the argument, as I understand it, essentially in this case, hinges on the fact of nonviolent felonies that are committed by individuals, as you noted in this case, an individual fleeing law enforcement, which I will accurately say is probably never a good idea as it relates to trying to get on with your day-to-day life. But this would be a situation where we're talking about a nonviolent felony, no battery, no assault, nothing of that nature that rises to the level of, oh, this is a dangerous person that should not potentially have the right to bear arms and have those Second Amendment rights. Is that how I'm understanding the case as it's laid out? Yes, and I think there would be a possibility for someone to argue that maybe perhaps this crime, which is a felony, and nothing within the court documents is saying that shouldn't have been a felony.
But I think there could be an argument that perhaps this type of crime would be one that would disqualify someone from owning guns, but that the appeals court didn't really go through the type of review that would show that this is the type of crime that should disqualify people from gun ownership. Basically, the appeals court's opinion was that North Carolina has a legitimate interest because of public safety in stopping felons from owning guns. And that is something that has been a long tradition in North Carolina. And what the arguments from the ACLU, Cato, and Grassroots North Carolina are essentially that this is not the way that things are supposed to be reviewed. In the post-Bruin world, and we're talking about B-R-U-E-N, which is the Supreme Court precedent from 2022, that after that ruling came out, That courts have to be very careful to see whether a particular restriction on gun ownership is taking away Second Amendment rights in a way that is unconstitutional.
And that for a court to be able to make that judgment, it's very case-specific, and there has to be a very stringent review of what's being done.
So, my guess is: had the appeals court said, All right, we're taking a very close look at the specifics of this case, and we believe that this felony conviction of fleeing to elude arrest is the type of crime that should stop people from having guns. You might still see an appeal, but you'd have a very different argument from these groups, and perhaps not all three groups would go along with this and say, all right, well, they gave the appeals court gave a very A very detailed review explained why they thought this was the type of felony that should disqualify someone from a gun. And so that's fine. The basic argument is that the appeals court got it wrong in how this has to be reviewed, and that there are certain types of felonies. And probably at least some of the folks who are backing Ducker would say that this is a felony that should not force someone to have to give up their gun rights.
Mitch, and obviously some of this is still probably pretty far away, but if the state's highest score, if that's what we're talking about, the North Carolina Supreme Court, if they ultimately decide to side with Ducker on this case, would this be just relevant for him and his conviction? Would this have sort of a trickle-down effect for other nonviolent crime as it relates to felonies across the state? What are the real-world implications of something like this? It really would depend on how the Supreme Court wants to write the argument. We've seen in some other cases where the Supreme Court rules in favor of a plaintiff, but doesn't really give any kind of definitive reasoning.
They basically just kick it back to the trial court or the Court of Appeals and say, you got it wrong. Look at what we said in this other case and try again. If it's that type of ruling, then we really don't know what the long-term implications would be. But the Supreme Court could. Take advantage of this if it wants to change the rules.
And maybe the Supreme Court doesn't. Maybe the Supreme Court says, no, the appeals court got it right. And we're just taking this case to affirm that the appeals court got it right. But if they want to change the rules, what they might want to do is say, look, we are looking at the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Bruin case as modified or enhanced by the Rahimi case.
And based on that, this is what. A trial court needs to do now if you have a felon who has been charged with owning a gun as a felon, and this is what you would have to do to say that this charge can stand, or that potentially the Supreme Court could also decide that the existing law as it is is unconstitutional, and that would force the General Assembly to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that would withstand constitutional scrutiny.
So, the answer to your question really is going to depend on how the Supreme Court decides to address this case and whether it wants to use it as an opportunity to really spell out what North Carolina's laws on gun ownership mean, or whether they really are just going to kick it back to a lower court and say, you got it wrong, now get it right. Mitch, I think this might be a good opportunity to remind our audience that just because you have something going through the court system in North Carolina and you request the state's high court to take a look at something, it does not mean that they have to. It does not mean that they necessarily do on every single case. And so, is it safe to assume that they at least have something to say on this case, even if it's just as simple as you noted? Hey, appeals court, you got this thing wrong.
Go back to the drawing board and use some of this stuff. I mean, is that a fair assessment to draw not only with this case, but many of the others that we talk about as it relates to the state's high court? Yes, that's a good general proposition, but in the specifics of this court case, yes, we definitely know that the state Supreme Court wants to say something about it because we're at the point now where briefs are being filed and the state Supreme Court has not scheduled it for oral arguments, but there is a sense that the state Supreme Court wants to say something about this case. It's just not clear at this point what the court wants to say. It could be something very simple.
I mean, the one option is they disagree about what they want to do and basically say that the review was improvidently allowed, which means they basically say, we shouldn't have taken this case in the first place. We're not going to say anything. That could happen. Or they could say, you know, based on what the state Supreme Court has said before, appeals court, you got it wrong. And so you should go back and look at what we've said in other cases.
Or even in the context of another Supreme Court ruling that doesn't. Have to deal with the Second Amendment, but has to do with other fundamental rights. They might say, Appeals Court, you got it wrong. And look at what we said in this other case on this other topic, and that could inform a better decision. Or they could make it easier on everyone and just say, We've taken the case.
Now we, as the Supreme Court, are going to write something that will tell everyone what we mean and what gun rights in North Carolina, based on the U.S. Supreme Court precedent and now our new North Carolina precedent, what they mean here in this state.
Well, a litany of different options that you just laid out there, Mitch, for the state's high court. An interesting group of individuals, typically not on the same side of an issue, filing these friends of court briefs. It's a very interesting story to follow. We've got a lot of more of the illegal jargon and all of that over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. We appreciate the update this morning.
Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. No. You know what they say. Early Bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with Verbo.
Because early gets you closer to the action, whether it's waves lapping at the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks, well, whatever you want it to.
so you can all enjoy the payoff come summer with Verbo's early booking deals. Rise and shine. Average savings $141. Select homes only. Good morning again.
It's 553. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT, turning our attention back to some statewide news this morning. State education officials presented upbeat math scores at a joint legislative education oversight committee late last week.
However, Republican lawmakers are challenging whether the numbers tell a different story and are asking whether students have materials that they need for continued improvement. At the meeting, officials from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, that is DPI, reported consistent improvements in grade level proficiency as well as college and career readiness from third through eighth grade over the past three school years. That stands alongside the National Assessment of Education Progress, known as NAIP, gains for both fourth and eighth graders between 2022 and 2020. The percentage of fourth graders scoring at or above proficiency on the NAPE score rose from 35% in 2022 to 41% in 2024, while eighth grade proficiency climbed from 25% to 31% over the same period. Dr.
Christy Day, who is the director of the Office of Teaching and Learning at DPI, said we're not where we want to be, but progress is happening. The presentation was an update on the state's ongoing K through 12 math standard revision with a second public draft of the new standards expected coming up here in just the next couple of weeks. But committee members were quick to reframe those numbers. Representative Hugh Blackwell, the Republican from Burke County, pointed to DPI's own presentation showing that college and career readiness is declining as students move through the system. From roughly 40% of third graders performing at the level they need to to around 30% of eighth graders, with Blackwell saying during the committee hearing, quote, that does not seem to be positive to me.
He also noted that the data begins in the 22-23 school year, the height of the COVID recovery period, noting the fact that we're growing maybe from the COVID period. Is not exactly reassuring to me. He also pressed DPI officials on the ACT results, noting that roughly a third of North Carolina's 11th graders score at college and career-ready level on the exam, meaning two-thirds, well, they don't. Representative Brian Biggs, the Republican from Randolph County, offered a blunter reading of the data, saying, It's kind of disconcerting to see those numbers continuing to go down. The kids are not failing.
We failed the kids when we kept them out of school. And as I said in 2020, when I was on the school board, Representative David Willis, the Republican from Union County, also jumped in on the conversation, focusing on a different problem, what students are actually being handed in class. Telling the committee, obviously, when the state moved away from textbooks in the mid-2013-ish timeframe, we lost a lot of high-quality materials. Whether you're in Murphy or Manio, what a teacher puts in front of those students should be the same high-quality level across the board. Saying, I think we need to take a very hard look at returning to textbooks in K through 5 education.
DPI did, to their credit, acknowledge some of those concerns, saying that the agency is revisiting its instructional materials throughout the review process, with officials saying that they also concede that the state lacks a math diagnosis screener equivalent to what exists for reading. You can read additional details on this hearing that took place within the North Carolina General Assembly late last week. The headline over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com, is North Carolina lawmakers push back on DPI's math report call for return to textbooks. Again, those details over at CarolinaJournal.com. That's going to do it for a Thursday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour.
WBT News is next. Followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 WBT.
