When I'm in the mood for something sweet and hot, do I wait hoping my husband walks in dressed in tight tennis shorts and a dozen roses? No, I hit Hardy's for the new made-from-scratch hot honey biscuit. Krispy chicken, that hot honey, and that sweet prize. Just $3.99 for limited time. Or the ham-breaded hot honey chicken sandwich with crispy bacon and melted Swiss on a brioche bun.
Hardy's new hot honey menu. Price and participation may vary. Tax not included, not valid for use within a combo or in combination with any other offer or discount. It's 505 and welcome in to a Friday 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 start off in a recap of a very busy week in the North Carolina General Assembly. A sweeping election bill that had already stalled out once after public backlash cleared another major hurdle this week in the House Rules Committee, but not without significant minority opposition, concerns from members previously seen as open to the legislation, and potential signs that the legislation may be running out of time before lawmakers leave Raleigh coming up here in the next couple of weeks. This legislation we've talked about in pretty great detail over the last couple of weeks. House Bill 958, which is titled Election Law Changes, funny enough, it passed the House Rules Committee in a 14-year-old To 9 vote on Wednesday after lawmakers adopted another committee substitute and amended the bill.
The vote included opposition from Representative Tricia Cotham, the Republican from Mecklenburg County, a key House Republican whose vote could matter if Josh Stein vetoes the measure should it reach his desk, which is still a couple of steps ahead of where things are right now. After the meeting, Representative Cotham expressed concerns that the bill could harm military families, citing ambiguity in the language and the potential for some unintended consequences moving forward. Two other members whose votes have been pivotal in past veto override fights, Representatives Carla Cunningham, the unaffiliated voter, or a member I should say, from Mecklenburg County, and Representative Shelley Willingham, the Democrat from Edgecombe County, also voiced concerns during the meeting after previously signaling some openness to the bill. Those two names sound familiar.
Well, it was both Cotham and Willingham that were absent in Raleigh this week on the House floor that allowed Republicans to override four vetoes signed by the governor. That happening on Wednesday afternoon in Raleigh. The measure was reported favorably from the House Rules Committee and is currently listed on the General Assembly for a June 30th House floor date. But it was not added to the House calendar on Wednesday afternoon for immediate floor action, despite having cleared rules earlier in the day. For those that are not familiar and do not follow the process that closely, the last step before a piece of legislation makes its way to either the House or Senate floor for a full vote is both the Senate and House Rules Committee.
Once it receives a favorable report from there, it is almost immediately added to the calendar for the governing body and typically debated within just a day or two in that committee or on the after leaving the committee on the full floor.
However, as just noted, that did not happen with this election bill. Multiple sources familiar with the discussions told Carolina Journal there is continuing Republican concern about the legislation. The bill, which has been repeatedly rewritten, would make wide-ranging changes to election administration, ballot counting, voter registration, county and state elections. Boards, military and overseas voting, campaign finance, and post-election audits. The continued rewriting and visible dissent in the House Rules Committee this week raises questions about whether House Bill 958 can pass both chambers before the end of the legislative session.
Even if the House passes the bill, it would still have to move through the Senate. If amended there, the measure could require further House concurrence or further action from the North Carolina House before it would inevitably, if it gets to that point, make its way to the governor's desk for a signature, which almost certainly would not happen. The House Rules meeting itself was briefly interrupted by protesters opposed to the legislation. As Representative Hugh Blackwell, the Republican from Burke County, who's one of the bill's primary sponsors, began explaining the amendment. Protesters stood up in the room holding signs saying, you represent us and chanting shame.
It was not long after that that House Rules Chairman John. John Bell, the Republican from Wayne County, paused the meeting and ordered the committee room cleared of members of the public who were not presenting the bill. When the meeting resumed, Blackwell said that the amendment made three primary changes. One clarified affidavit language for people returning absentee ballots on behalf of voters. Another removed a requirement that certain ballots be kept in fireproof safe or fireproof areas, replacing with language requiring locked and secure storage.
And a third revision of the language restricted certain election officials from engaging in partisan political activity. Blackwell said that the bill has been through multiple versions and that sponsors had worked uh with some of the uh critics, some of the individuals against the legislation to improve it. During the committee meeting, Representative Blackwell said we've been working on this since last year. It's been through a number of iterations.
However, regardless of that still, several members said that the changes did not go far enough for their support. Representative Almost Quick, the Democrat from Guilford County, said he would oppose the bill because repeated changes to election law can create confusion for voters and election workers across the state. Quick said in part, our elections in North Carolina deserve some normalcy and some level of predictability. These constant changes are confusing to us as legislators, so certainly it would be confusing to the general public. Representative Cynthia Ball, the Democrat from Wake County, thanked Blackwell for working with members on the changes, but said that there were still some serious problems that remained from her vantage point, saying in part, what I think we all want is for every eligible voter to be able to vote and know when they can vote and where they can vote and what they have to do to be able to vote that day or with an absentee ballot.
Representative Willingham said that he had initially been inclined to support the bill, but had been moved by concerns from military voters and by questions about assigning new audit duties to the state auditor. Willingham said publicly during the meeting, I've gotten quite a few phone calls from military people. As a matter of fact, I got a call from a friend of mine that I haven't heard from in 30 years. He's in the military and he was telling me that he was. upset about this legislation.
Willingham also questioned whether the state auditors should be tasked with auditing county board of elections, noting that many small towns already struggle to obtain timely audits. Willingham said, at this time right now, I feel like I will probably end up voting against the bill. Blackwell responded that the audit provision was requested by the auditor's office and that counties would be selected at random over a six-year period of time. And noted, and some argue, that the auditor's office already has the authority and, as he does, have a very broad authority here in the state of North Carolina.
However, this legislation would outline the process in which the auditor would go through the process of auditing county board of elections.
So, one of the big holdups on military and overseas voting, Representative Blackwell carrying the bill said that it was intended to comply with a recent court ruling regarding voters who have never resided in North Carolina. You've heard us talk about with Dr. Andy Jackson and Mitch Cokey, these individuals known as never residents here in North Carolina, which have been the purpose of significant legal challenge. Blackwell said that military voters who previously resided in the state would be eligible to vote and could use the same forms of photo identification. Identification that they have been using in the past and that others have been using.
No changes for them at all. Representative Cunningham also warned that while some provisions may be positive, the volume of change could make some voters uneasy. Cunningham asked during the meeting, most of the public are not as in tune as we are.
So I can see the nervousness of these changes constantly changing. What I do know, what I do have to do is go to vote as an average everyday citizen. It's constantly changing. And so I have some grave concerns about this because we have been picking it up and picking down at this legislation where right now most people are probably nervous and scared. House Bill 958 was originally filed all the way back in April of 2025 and has moved and stopped and starts periods of time since then.
It was reported favorably by the House Rules Committee in June and July of last year, was withdrawn and re-referred and was rewritten again and revived this month. In the latest rules, the vote suggests withdrawn and re-referred and was rewritten again and revived this month. In the latest rules, the vote suggested that the bill is still alive.
However, as I noted, that 14 to 9 committee split, Cotham's opposition, concerns from Cunningham and Willingham, and continued negotiations among Republicans in Raleigh leave this bill's path relatively unclear as of this morning. This would be a major piece of legislation for Republicans to carry across the finish line. We will be keeping an eye on this as lawmakers are expected to make their way back to Raleigh in what is supposed to be the final week before a major break leading up to the November general election. The House calendar only had lawmakers there at the latest coming up next Thursday. That is July the 2nd.
However, still without a budget, it is likely that the lawmakers will be back at some point in the month of July, if in fact they do want to move forward with the budget. If they choose not to, I guess they could be done sometime next week.
So we will be keeping a very close Close eye on this. Continued coverage over on our website this morning. CarolinaJournal.com. Andrew Pomerance has got the story with the headline: Election Bill clears House Rules but faces GOP concerns, bipartisan pushback. Granger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them.
And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog, H back on its last leg? If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Granger for quality products, easy reordering, and 24-7 support. Call 1-800-GRA, clickgranger.com, or just stop by.
Granger for the ones who get it done. Good morning again. It's 521. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT, and some other statewide news. This morning, seven months after receiving full federal recognition, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina has officially voted not to move forward with a proposed casino development off of Interstate 95 in Robeson County.
According to unofficial election results from the Lumbee Tribe Elections Board, voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposed amendment with roughly 62% voting against it. The measure received a little over 3,300 votes in favor and more than 5,500 votes against. Tribal Chairman John Lowry, who also represents Robeson County as a Republican in the North Carolina General Assembly, expressed disappointment in the vote, but noted that the people have spoken. Lowry took to uh social media this week after the vote and wrote, A majority of the Lumbee people have spoken and they have said no to progress and have decided to stay with the status quo or simply staying with w the way that things are. As a federally recognized Indian tribe, we had the opportunity, like so many of our brothers and sister tribes, to exercise our sovereign rights to the fullest and generate billions of dollars to assist our tribal members and lift this entire region.
This decision by the majority of the Lumbee voters is historic and ensures that we will not move forward with gaming. The proposed amendment would have created a constitutional framework for gaming within the Lumbee Tribe. The measure would have authorized tribal leaders to negotiate gaming compacts, regulate gaming operations, and oversee any future gaming enterprises. It also would have removed a requirement that gaming-related ordinances receive approval from the tribe's general membership through a referendum. Instead, placing that authority with tribal leadership.
Under current tribal rules, referendums, as I just mentioned. Require participation from at least 30% of eligible tribal members to be valid. Constitutional amendments, however, only require a simple majority of votes cast and are not subject to any minimum participation threshold. And with the turnout, at least as we understand it right now, with the nearly 9,000 or a little over 9,000 votes that were cast in this election this week, that did not even reach that 30% threshold. Supporters of the project estimate that the casino could have created anywhere between 2,700 and more than 3,500 full-time jobs in the area with priority hiring given to Lumbee tribal members with salaries projected to range from approximately $45,000 a year to more than $300,000 annually, depending on the position.
Under federal law, gaming revenues would be dedicated to specific purposes, including tribal government operations, education, Healthcare, housing, public safety initiatives, economic development projects, as well as more within the tribe. But because tribal gaming revenue is not subject to federal or state income taxes, the tribe would keep all earnings that would have been generated by the casino. The tribal leader in John Lowry said that he will support the majority's opinion and not bring the issue forward again before his term expires, which is said to happen in about 18 months. The Lumbee Tribe received full federal recognition in December of 2025. Shortly afterward, the tribe purchased approximately 240 acres of land along Interstate 95.
They spent about $6 million on that, which would have been the site of this proposed casino and entertainment complex. As of right now, the details that we are aware of and that we are following, that is not slated to happen and potentially will not come up for any more significant or serious discussion for the next 18 months. We've got Some renderings of this major facility and some additional details on that vote by the Lumbee Tribe membership this week. Those details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Look for the story with the headline, Lumbee Tribe Votes Against I-95 Casino in Robeson County.
In some other statewide news, a new statewide poll has across the board good news for Democrats in North Carolina. Former Democrat Governor Roy Cooper leads former RNC Chairman Michael Watley by 14 points in the state's open U.S. Senate race, with President Donald Trump's approval remaining underwater and Democrats ahead on nearly every ballot test. The results are from the latest Catawba College YouGov survey, which was released just this week. In the poll, Cooper drew 48% support to Watley's 34%, with 15% of voters remaining undecided.
The margin is largely unchanged from March, where Cooper's led at that point by 15%. According to Michael Blitzer, the director of Catawba College's Center for North Carolina Politics and Public Service, he said Cooper's advantage is not simply a function of Democratic support. His lead is driven by independents who currently support him by more than two to one over Michael Watley. That independent vote can often be a decisive factor in statewide elections in North Carolina. Independents back Cooper 50 to 23 percent, with nearly a quarter still undecided.
Cooper held 83 percent of his own party, while Watley took 77 percent of Republicans. The race bifurcated along views of the president. Two-thirds of those who approve of President Donald Trump intend to vote were for Watley, while 77% of those who disapprove of the president's actions are favoring Cooper. The poll also showed some other divergence in the various survey groups on gender, with women favoring Cooper by 20 points, 49 to 29, with men split more narrowly, 46 in favor of Watley to 40% against. Regionally, Cooper led by 37 points among city voters and by 11 in rural areas and by 5 within urban suburban areas across the state.
The state. Watley led by five in those surrounding areas and other communities across North Carolina. The Senate numbers came against a political backdrop that Blitzer described as a classic midterm referendum on the president, with the president's approval in the most recent Catawba College poll sitting at 43%, with 54 disapproving. That's virtually the same as this same poll back in March, where the numbers were 42.55.
So essentially, no significant movement there at all. Bitzer said, This year appears to be setting up as a classic midterm environment, a referendum on the President and his party. Cooper has a commanding portion of those North Carolinians who disapprove of the president, which is a majority of the likely voters so far. Democrat Governor Josh Stein, by contrast, posted a 53% approval rating, including 53% of Independents and 36% of Republicans, a pretty strong number there. The survey also found signs that Republican voters are redefining how they see themselves.
In October of 2025 and January of 2026, 55% of self-described GOP-aligned respondents called themselves more supporters of Trump than the Republican Party. But by June, that survey had recorded a 24-point swing towards party identification. Among Trump's own 2024 voters, the share identifying as Trump Republicans fell from 60% in January of this year to just 43% in June. Bitzer said Republicans fell from 60% in January of this year to just 43% in June. Bitzer said GOP voters remain overwhelmingly Republican, but many appear less likely than they were six months ago to define themselves primarily through their support of President Donald Trump.
He pointed to suburban and female respondents as the driver of what he called a cooling towards a Trump-centered identity. This is one of many polls that we will be keeping a very close eye on as we race towards November, the major midterm election taking place here in North Carolina. You can read the entirety of the poll, get some more detail this morning. Head on over to our website, CarolinaJournal.com. You'll see the story with the headline, poll.
Cooper holds 14-point lead over Watley as Trump stays underwater. It's 5.38. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM. WBT, I'm Nick Craig. Good Friday morning to you.
For those that are not familiar, we have a pretty lengthy early voting period here in the state of North Carolina, typically kicking off in the middle part of October ahead of Election Day in November. And for those that aren't familiar, if you happen to die or somehow be disqualified from being able to vote between when you casted your ballot during early voting and Election Day, your ballot is actually not supposed to count. That was the premise of a very lengthy North Carolina State Board of Elections meeting this week. To walk us through some of the details this morning, Teresa Opeka, CarolinaJournal.com, joins us on the news hour. Teresa, this multi-hour marathon meeting earlier this week dealt with some members of the Wake County Board of Elections.
Can you walk us through some of the details as you understand them? Sure. Good morning, Nick. Thanks for having me. Yeah, and marathon session it was.
So the North Carolina State Board of Elections voted unanimously to censure two Wake County Board of Elections members, Greg Flynn and Jerry Cohen, for counting the votes of three deceased voters who voted prior to the general election in November 2024. As you just mentioned, about early voting, that's what they did. Primarily, they mailed in these ballots so they can get them in ahead of time. Unfortunately, the three people in question You know, pretty much knew that they were going to be passing away, you know, anytime soon, maybe not necessarily before the election, but they wanted to make their vote heard and make their vote counted. And that's what they did.
So that was the subject of this hearing, which was brought up from a decision made by an administrative law judge Linda Nelson that came in February, February 24th. She stated that the state elections board violated its own rules and had to conduct a new hearing into local election board members. And we can get into the details in a moment on that. Yeah, and so Teresa, again, this process is one that in this case for individuals, regardless of whatever the issue is. And I mentioned, obviously, dying and being deceased makes that vote not eligible if it is between that early voting and election day period.
But also, for example, if you are convicted of a felony and lose your voting privileges, same situation applies. This is not necessarily a unique situation. This is state law, as I understand it. It has been state law for quite some period of time here in North Carolina. If you vote before Election Day and something happens with you or to you between that period of time, which is typically just a couple of weeks, your vote is not supposed to count.
Okay. Yeah, and there was a directive issued, which is they mentioned this several times. It was a memorandum that was revised December 15th of 2023, and that directs county election boards to remove ballots cast by voters who voted early in person or by absentee ballot and died before the day of election.
So that was the directive that was in question. There were many questions going back and forth about the law, about the state constitution, but that was the latest directive.
So there was a complaint brought up also for Rowan County, but that was not discussed yesterday, or we probably would have been there till midnight watching this, right? Or on Wednesday, rather.
So it was Steve Holland of Weaverville who filed a complaint against the elections board saying that three Wake County Board of Elections members failed to follow that directive. And he requested several hearings previously, and the state board voted three to two along party lines in January 2025. Not to hold a hearing. At that point, the State Board of Elections was made up of three Democrats that include Alwyn Hirsch, Jeff Carmen, and Siobhan Millen, and Republican members Stacey Fore Eggers and Kevin Lewis. We still have Mr.
Eggers and Siobhan Millen and Jeff Carmen on the board right now, but things have flipped to Republicans leading three to two. And Holland subsequently filed another contested case petition challenging what they described as an unlawful decision. And Nelson agreed.
So That's what happened. That's why they had the hearing yesterday. And basically, last year, the state attorney general's office, representing the state board, wanted to dismiss everything. But basically, the judge said, No, you have to hold this hearing. And that's what happened this week.
So, Teresa, what exactly was the issue here? As we've already discussed, and as you mentioned, this numbered memorandum from the State Board of Elections made it abundantly clear, again, this process where somebody votes during early voting, dies before Election Day rolls around, their vote doesn't eat, or their ballot more accurately needs to be removed from the final vote tally. What was the justification for the Wake County Board of Elections to count the votes for these three individuals who died before that period of time? Sure. So there were actually a total of 45 ballots in question, and 42 were thrown out.
Now they had to send challenge letters to Uh, you know, families, next of kin, if unfortunately a person did pass away, and I guess the 42 that were thrown out, nobody responded to or responded saying, Okay, great, I agree, you know, no problem. But there were three in question who did respond and who were adamant that their loved ones' vote should be counted. One was a 96-year-old man, a 78-year-old man, and there was an 18-year-old woman. Wasn't described in my article, but this girl was unfortunately dying of brain cancer and she wanted to vote before she passed away.
So, we heard from you know Flynn and Cohen yesterday how they both heard from these family members pleading, Hey, please count my family members' vote. You know, they were teary-eyed, and that moved them to say, you know, something, their vote should count. Um B basically Cohen was saying it it the directive Really didn't jive with the state's constitution. They didn't think they were breaking any laws at the moment, basically, is what they said. Holland, you know, disagreed and said, you know, no, they weren't being malicious when they were doing it, but they chose not to follow the directives in the memo and asked that the two of them, Cohen and Flynn, be removed from the Wake County Board of Elections.
And he said, you know, it's troubling that similar voters were treated differently. But basically, Flynn said these people cast their votes knowing that they were going to be possibly passing away very soon. And the votes were sacred. They had a duty to treat them as sacred. And it makes them turn around and treat them like way very soon.
And the votes were sacred. They had a duty to treat them as sacred. And it makes them turn around and treat them like felons, worse than felons, and subject the next of kin to essentially is cruel and unusual punishment for somebody who didn't do anything wrong. And again, mentioning Cohen that he strongly believed that the law is not what the numbered memo said, and that the law was in conflict with the state's constitution. And he said, basically, if this triggers a process to look at that, that's fine.
If it helps the grief of these three survivors, then I've done more than anything I've done in several years.
So that's basically what happened at this point. You know, Teresa, it's interesting there, though. You note that there were 45 ballots in total, which seems about on track. Again, the early voting window is relatively short in the grand scheme of things here across the state of North Carolina.
So, for the 42 people, the numbered memorandum was followed. Those ballots for those deceased individuals were removed. But I guess these three, because of their unique or specific story, they were treated differently. To me, that creates a problem if you're not handling all situations, regardless of what the backstory is, in the same and equal manner. Right, and that was Mr.
Holland's complaint. That's exactly what he said. You know, he brought it up that these other voters were treated differently. The Way County Board counted three ballots cast by voters that die before election day while removing numerous others. Same thing, they died before election day.
And basically, evidence will demonstrate, this is his quote: evidence will demonstrate materially indistinguishable voters receive different treatment under the same legal framework. Election law cannot mean one thing for some voters and another thing for others. You know, and during that time, we also heard from board members Eggers. He said, since at least the last 25 years, it's been read and interpreted and applied that a voter has to be alive on Election Day in order for that ballot to count.
So he did agree with that. But Millenn argued that nowhere in the memo does it say if a person dies between when they vote on Election Day, that ballot will not count. And that both men made an error in judgment. And just basically, they should have just been given a slap on the hand, not removed from the board. Jeff Carmen agreed with her, said there was ambiguity in the law, and you can't penalize a member when there is confusion between the law and the memo.
So basically, we had. Board member Angela Hawkins, who was she actually was the former director of the Wake County Board of Elections before she became a member of the state board of elections earlier this year. She did make the motion originally to remove Cohen and Flynn, but that motion did fail. And along with Carmen and Millen, we also had Chair DeLuca. You know, he actually voted with them.
So that failed, so they came back. She made the second motion to censure. And that that did unanimously pass. And for those that are not familiar with the phrase or the term censure, it is essentially just a slap on the wrist. There's not really a whole lot of weight that typically carries with a censure motion.
We see this, Teresa, in a variety of different levels of government across the state of North Carolina.
So I guess the more pressing issue, the bigger question moving forward is: okay, what process do we actually follow? Unfortunately, Teresa, whether we like it or not, as we approach November, there will likely be more people across the state that die during that early voting period that have cast a ballot, whether that's absentee by mail or in person during the early voting window. What do these local Board of Elections, all 100 of them, have to do moving forward as we approach November? Right, right.
So, yeah, that's correct about the statement of censure. And I think actually, that's what a point that Hawkins raised. She said basically why she was making the motion is she was concerned that the directive and the memo wouldn't be followed in future elections if other counties don't agree with something on something that was said, maybe in the directive, like you just mentioned, or that could set a precedent for anything. You know, if you don't agree with something, well, then maybe we're not going to follow it.
Well, then what do you follow?
So yeah, it was a little bit of a gray area for some people. And I don't know if Mr. Holland will take further action. We'll just have to stay tuned. But quickly, November will be here before you know it.
It won't feel like it now with the way the summer is being hot and carrying it on, right? But before you know it, November will be here.
So it'll be interesting to see how all those election boards handle a similar situation if it crops up. Yeah, and not only November, Teresa, our very lengthy early voting period that kicks off here in about early or middle parts of October as well. You've got a lot of quotes from this meeting, as you mentioned, a very lengthy meeting this week from the North Carolina State Board of Elections. For folks that want to read some more details here directly from some of the witnesses and board members, where can they go and do that this morning? Sure, they can head on over to CarolinaJournal.com.
We appreciate the update. Teresa Opeka joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. It's 5:55. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour. Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT.
Looking ahead to next week here on the Carolina Journal News Hour, we are going to be keeping very close tabs on the North Carolina General Assembly as we just passed a busy week in Raleigh, as we talked about in great detail on yesterday's program. Four veto overrides conducted successfully by the Republican-led North Carolina House. That leaves one more remaining for this legislative short session, Senate Bill 50. That is a constitutional carry bill here across the state.
However, there does appear to be some significant Republican opposition to moving forward with that, plus the election bill that we talked about a little bit earlier this morning as well. House Bill 958, likely to see that show up. And then, of course, the state budget. We learned a little over a month ago now that lawmakers had come together on some of those top-line numbers under the impression. That over the last couple of weeks, we would have seen a full unveiling of that budget and some of those details.
That has not happened to this point. Could that happen next week? Probably. Hopefully, that is the case.
However, that will likely require lawmakers to have to come back sometime after the July the 4th holiday, just strictly based on timeline for this discussion.
So, we'll be keeping an eye on that, plus any other movement and progress on pieces of legislation that we've been tracking over the last couple of months. As lawmakers are expected to be back in Raleigh as early as Tuesday of next week, we'll be keeping you up to date with all the details right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. That's going to do it for a Friday edition. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you Monday morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT.
