Facebook Instagram LinkedIn E-Newsletters Email Blog Twitter


Much has been written over the past ten years about gerrymandering. At this point, it's quite literally been litigated to death, and the word has been exhausted.

But not enough attention has been paid to the districts drawn for the most recent 2020 election.

Many North Carolinians believe that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion is a deal too good to pass up. Most of them are not taking the time to look beyond the partisan talking points.  Why wouldn’t North Carolina want to offer “free” health insurance to more than half a million residents and only pay for 10 percent of the cost, since the feds promise to cover the rest of the tab?

Since I have served in NC Senate I have been hearing that our society may be in the midst of a constitutional crisis. I am reminded by more and more citizens that through their rulings and opinions, often judges are making law from the bench that would otherwise be the duty of the legislature. Perhaps they are right.

Last week in a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that redistricting is a firmly legislative and political matter outside the scope of the courts.

While most of the media coverage surrounding the decision has taken the sensationalist route, with hyperbolic headlines that scream, “Supreme Court Refuses to Outlaw Gerrymandering,” I think it’s important that we take a look at what the opinion of the court actually said.

Two of my Senate colleagues make a very strong case for why a truly bipartisan board of ethics and elections is right for North Carolina. They cite many of the reasons I supported the measure in legislation in November 2016, then after a multitude of court battles, I supported it to be on the ballot next week.