The legislature is running roughshod over our constitution, pushing through new measures to restrict voting, undermine our separation of powers, and nickel and dime consumers. These are unprecedented, unnecessary, politically-driven, and hurt our state. Many are nothing more than a “blank-check” to allow partisan politicians to do as they please.

North Carolina Must Stand Against These Attacks on Our Constitution and Vote “Against.”

1. Undermine Separation of Powers (“Clarify Board Appointments”)
This amendment would fundamentally alter the balance of power in state government, giving the legislature exclusive control over how you can vote, the cost of your energy bill, and the quality of your drinking water. This dangerous measure would essentially rewrite the constitution to exclude all North Carolinians but a few politicians from
making decisions about what is in the best interest of the state.

4. Nickel-and-Dime the Middle Class (“Cap Income Taxes at 7%”)
North Carolina has some of the lowest income taxes in the southeast, while property taxes, sales taxes, local taxes, and fees have all grown. This amendment continues to nickel-and-dime consumers to protect the wealthy while starving resources for public schools and hand tying the state from responding to future economic downturns.

5. Unintended Consequences for Crime Victims (“Marsy’s Law”)
North Carolina already has robust victims’ rights laws – changing the state constitution is unnecessary. This measure also has unintended consequences on victims’ ability to have their day in court, as only wealthy people with private attorneys could intervene in criminal prosecutions which could delay justice for everyone.

6. Playing Politics with Hunting Laws (“Protect the Right to Hunt and Fish”)
No rights are being threatened, but Republicans hope this amendment will lure voters to the polls. We shouldn’t change our state constitution based on politics, and we shouldn’t reward partisan politicians for putting this on the ballot.


Any attempt to change our Constitution should be deliberate and bipartisan. The public has only voted on seven amendments in the last twenty years. Now, we’re forced to vote on nearly as many in one election.

It’s not enough to stand against a few of the amendments when the effort behind each of them is partisan politics. North Carolina must send a loud message by voting “against” each of the proposed constitutional amendments.




Please read and share

Send to your friends, hit the Facebook and Twitter buttons, get the word out!



The Durham Democratic Party votes to #nixallsix

NC Constitutional amendments.

I do not get as emotional as some and tend to form my opinions based upon facts OBTAINED FROM ALL SIDES of an issue rather than speculation. People who have a single view input are incapable of forming any opinion contrary to that single view.

That being said, my view with respect to the constitutional Amendments parallels yours in most but not all respects but for different reasons.

1. The " Ethics and Elections" amendment is ridiculous. Having a committee with an even number of members both both major parties invites only one result and that is gridlock. Nothing will ever be ethically evaluated. Human nature indicates the the ethics of the opposing party the governor are more likely to be investigated and since the party of the governor changes from time to time in North Carolina, every unethical party member is more likely to eventually have their turn in the barrel. THE VOTE TO THIS RIDICULOUS AMENDMENT SHOULD BE NO !!

2. The Judicial Appointments amendment is also ridiculous. The proposed alternative is complex, can be frustrated by any party and almost anybody and assures that there will never be another appointment between elections. The appointed Justice should; however, stand for election at the next opportunity. THE VOTE SHOULD BE NO.

3. The U.S. Constitution clearly provides: Article I, Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the People of the several States; Article I, Section 8, that the Congress shall have the power to: "To establish an uniform rule of naturalization"; Article IV,Section 2. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities in the several States"; Fourteenth Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the the jurisdiction thereof , are citizens of the United States"; Fifteenth Amendment, Section 1. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude".
It is therefore absolutely clear that the right to vote only extends to citizens and one can only be a citizen by birth or naturalization. It is therefore ridiculous to assert that we cannot determine if someone is a citizen at he time they vote.
The Supreme Court has not decided otherwise but only that a citizen should have freely accessible means to show citizenship. THIS AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE APPROVED. VOTE YES. If the legislature does not afterwards promptly provide for easy and free ability to show citizenship, it could be held unconstitutional.
4. I am always in favor of tax caps. As has been said many times, the power to tax is the power to destroy. There should be no state income tax in excess of 7% for anyone. The idea that if the state wants more money, it can only use regressive taxes is a non-starter. The state can do that with or without approval of this amendment. I would also be in favor of restricting other kinds of taxes with the only exception being a true (not arguable) state of emergency not within the already available revenue sources. VOTE YES.

5. Victim Bill of Rights. I would be in favor of this except for one of the provisions that kills it for me and that is the right to "to be heard" at trial. A trial is for the purpose of determining guilt or innocents. If the victim is to be heard, it should only be for what the victim can add to that question. Victim testimony should not be heard to raise emotion which adds nothing to proof of guilt or innocents but can clearly prejudice a jury toward finding guilt on flimsy proof. After a finding of guilt, such testimony may be relevant for sentencing. VOTE NO.

6. Right to Hunt and Fish. Dunno what this is all about. Clearly should be permitted where there is no undesirable environmental impact. The right should not be abridged just because third parties don't like it. AMBIVALENT. WILL PROBABLY VOTE YES.AFTER I REVIEW WHETHER THE AMENDMENT ALLOWS REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS.


Thanks for the thorough comment

I've decided I can no longer debate the individual amendments on their merit. Regardless of whether one of them or another might have small merit, the fact is, ALL of them are cheap political stunts that have no purpose other than partisan gain. None belong in the constitution, certainly not at a time when the legislature has been thoroughly hijacked by gerrymandering.

Even the amendments you support, Voter ID and tax cap, are solutions in search of a problem. Voter ID would disenfranchises several hundred thousand voters for no reason whatsoever. Even worse, it doesn't even define what kinds of IDs would be acceptable. You might trust the legislature to do that, but I don't. Not even close. And tax cap? That's like handcuffing yourself before jumping off a tall bridge. Just plain dumb.

None of the amendments are necessary. All are political stunts. All would undermine the integrity and workability of our Constitution. I'm voting AGAINST all of them.

PS On getting emotional

I had one more thought in response to your comment.

I readily admit to having an emotional reaction to the damage being done to our state and our government by Republican extremists. They have been explicit in saying their intention is to consolidate political power no matter what, no matter who they screw over, and regardless of the laws that supposedly guide how our legislature operates.

People who are not mad about that, with all due respect, seem to be part of the problem.

Thank you for the reply

We actually sometimes need to be handcuffed and that is what the Constitutions do. It prevents government from running amok. As I previously stated the power to tax is the power to destroy. If our founders had any idea that we would be where we are today, the Federal Constitution would certainly have had more limits on the power to tax. After all, in those days they went nuts because of a few cent tea tax. The Constitution in fact in Article Article I, Section 9 provides "No Capitation, or other direct , Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." In recognition of this Amendment XVI was adopted to allow the Income Tax, but no other direct tax. Sadly the Supreme Court has essentially distinguished Article I, Section 9 out of existence. I know that "Progessives" argue that the Constitution should be a "living document and would apply any way they would desire as to how it would live. The Constitution, through the amendment process, provides it's own way that it should live. The "living document" idea outside of the Amendment Process is exceedingly dangerous to our freedom. James, it may one day be your ox that is gored under this principle and you will not then have the protection afforded by the Constitution.

We are not a democracy and should not be. We are a Constitutional Republic, where the minority no matter what the minority is) is protected against the dictates of the majority. I am sure you do think the majority should vote ti inter or enslave or discriminate against a minority. The only thing that prevents that here is the Constitution.

A few years ago I gave a talk on the Constitution to a sixth grade class. I gave all of them the same amount of play money and to explain the problems with a pure democracy, I noted that there were more females than males. I ask the females if they wanted to vote to take the money from the males. They did so without hesitation.

Again with respect the the "emotion" issue. Emotion clouds judgement. Please explain to me how capping taxes that can be imposed by law transfers power to legislature To the contrary, it restricts the power of the legislature. Just because you do not like Republicans, is no reason to assume that everything they propose is bad by definition. It is only emotion that can arrive at such a result.

With respect to the voting issue, it is ridiculous to assert that we should not be able to determine who is eligible. With a proper ID law, nobody would disenfranchised. That is simply a talking point. If we do not have an appropriate ID law, the law would not survive anyway. Again, I am curious how such a law transfers power to the legislature. i am assuming that ID regulations, that in any case would have to pass Constitutional muster, would remain subject to application by the Executive.

Thank you for your respectful reply

kind regards


Correction above

Fourth paragraph from the bottom should be "do not think".. I assume the slip was not Freudian.