White Papers and Policy Briefings
What North Carolina’s Annexation Law Reforms mean to You!
Jeanette Doran
Feb 21st, 2012
North Carolina’s annexation laws prior to 2011 were viewed as among the most progressive in the nation; they were held up as a model by Harvard Law School and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Below are a few commonly asked questions about the Annexation Reform Act and the straightforward answers property owners need to know.
Annexation Reforms and the Voting Rights Act
Jeanette Doran
Feb 21st, 2012
During the 2011 Legislative Session, the new majority of the North Carolina General Assembly ushered in a series of dramatic reforms to North Carolina’s municipal annexation laws. While keeping many of the existing procedures in place, the laws made substantive and procedural changes that are likely to slow the expansion of suburban and urban areas in North Carolina. While annexation is frequently viewed as a property rights issue, it also shapes municipal tax-rates, urban planning, and the racial and socio-economic composition of urban areas. As a result of the latter, municipal annexation is a government act closely monitored by the U.S. Department of Justice and federal courts under the Voting Rights Act. This memorandum explores some of the preclearance issues arising under the Voting Rights Act in light of the Annexation Reform Act of 2011.
Can Municipalities Sue the State over Annexation Reform?
Jeanette Doran
Feb 14th, 2012
Several municipal governments in North Carolina have sued the State to challenge annexation reforms enacted in 2011. That litigation has prompted some to ask, can municipalities sue the State? The short answer is “sometimes.” In the case of annexation reform challenges, however, the answer is “yes.” Below is a brief explanation of cities’ and towns’ standing to sue the State.
Common Questions and Straight Answers about Voter ID Bills
Jeanette Doran
Feb 13th, 2012
In the 2011 Legislative Session, both houses of the North Carolina Legislature passed HB 351, which would have required all North Carolinians to present a valid photo I.D. when voting. Soon thereafter, Governor Perdue vetoed the bill objecting on the basis that “those who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right.” The legislature did not override Governor Perdue’s veto. The issue, however, is not completely quashed. Could the legislature constitutionally pass multiple local bills, which are not subject to the governor’s veto, which would require North Carolinians in select areas to show a photo I.D. when voting? Some county commissions have passed resolutions asking the General Assembly to do just that. Below is a discussion of the constitutional questions such a tactic raises.
Why Obamacare’s Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional
Jeanette Doran
Feb 10th, 2012
This report presents excerpts of the arguments set forth in the amicus brief NCICL joined to explain why Congress cannot force individuals to engage in interstate commerce.
The Constitutionality of the Enactment of Session Law 2012-1 (the
Jeanette Doran
Jan 30th, 2012
The first law passed by the General Assembly this year has spawned much debate. Session Law 2012-1, known as the Dues Check-off Bill while pending at the legislature, ends the practice of using the State to collect dues for the North Carolina Association of Educators (“NCAE”). The State had been collecting dues for the NCAE directly from NCAE members’ paychecks. Critics have condemned the General Assembly for enacting Session Law 2012 during what they label a “Midnight Session.” The NCAE has taken their criticism a step further. The NCAE sued. Hours after their lawsuit was filed and following an ex parte hearing at which the State and General Assembly had no lawyers, a Wake County judge issued a temporary restraining order postponing the effective date of the law until a final determination is made as to its constitutionality. The NCAE’s lawsuit has two main components. The first is a challenge to the procedure by which the legislation was adopted. The second is a challenge to the intent and effect of the legislation. This memorandum addresses only the attack on the enactment process. Below is an explanation of why the General Assembly’s conduct, while perhaps not a model of good government, was constitutional.
Amending the State Constitution
Jeanette Doran
Jan 25th, 2012
The North Carolina Constitution provides two ways in which it can be amended: by convention of the people or by legislative initiative. Historically, North Carolina’s constitutional amendments have come by legislative initiative, i.e., a proposal from the General Assembly. The General Assembly prescribes the time and manner the proposed amendment is submitted to voters by setting out such particulars in the session law adopting the proposed amendment. The General Assembly picks the date for the vote on the amendment.
Marriage Amendment
Jeanette Doran
Jan 25th, 2012
This coming May, North Carolina voters will once again have the opportunity to amend North Carolina’s Constitution. The proposed amendment would add a new section to article 14 and define marriage as between one man and one woman. 2011 N.C. Sess. Laws 409. It would also declare marriage as the only domestic legal union recognized in North Carolina – likely barring both same-sex domestic partnerships and civil unions from achieving legal recognition. Legislative debate on the amendment received widespread media attention. Proponents and opponents of the amendment are rallying their troops, and our airwaves are likely to be saturated with campaign messages this spring. But, the language of the amendment itself may be elusive to many North Carolina voters. In fact, the proposed amendment will not even be on the ballot in full, nor does it have to be. This article will look at existing standards and why the ballot language proposed meets minimal due process protections.
Bill v. Resolution: What the People Need to Know
Jeanette Doran
Jan 9th, 2012
Bills and resolutions differ in terms of both substance and procedure. Below is a table highlighting the major differences between a “bill” and a “resolution”.
The State Treasurer’s Life Science Accelerator
Jeanette Doran
Dec 19th, 2011
The following memorandum discusses the constitutional and statutory limitations on investment of state retirement funds. On November 3, 2011, State Treasurer Janet Cowell announced her decision to fund a new Life Sciences Accelerator and make investments in early-stage pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies. The Accelerator has dual purposes of: (1) attaining “a competitive risk-adjusted rate of return” and (2) “support[ing] the economic well-being of the state of North Carolina.” While the State Treasurer may invest retirement funds as authorized by law, Article V, section 6 of the North Carolina Constitution limits the use of the Teachers’, State Employees’, and Local Governmental Employees’ Retirement Funds for any purpose other than retirement system benefits.
Case Briefing: Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC, et al., v. Bennett, et al.,
Jeanette Doran
Jun 30th, 2011
This case briefing by NCICL Senior Staff Attorney Jeanette Doran discusses the legal issues raised in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC, et al., v. Bennett, et al. Doran answers what was at issue, and what it means for North Carolina.
OVERVIEW OF THE WILLIAM S. LEE ACT
Jeanette Doran
Mar 23rd, 2011
The William S. Lee Act (better known as the “Bill Lee Act”) was created in 1996 in order to keep up with similar economic incentive schemes employed by other states since the mid- 1980s. The Bill Lee Act credits generally continued until January 1, 2008. Only those credits for eligible major industries and taxpayers in development zones continued through January 1, 2010. Read more...
N.C. FILM INCENTIVES: A CASH COW FOR HOLLYWOOD
Jeanette Doran
Mar 22nd, 2011
This whitepaper is a brief legal analysis of the unconstitutionality of North Carolina’s film incentives. In short, this memorandum explains the statutory structure for funding payments to film production companies as part of the State’s film incentives scheme. The North Carolina Films Incentives program is riddled with multiple constitutional problems. The memorandum focuses on only one--that money for such payments has not been appropriated as required by the North Carolina Constitution, article V, section 7. Read more...
OVERVIEW OF ARTICLE 3J CREDIT INCENTIVES
Jeanette Doran
Mar 22nd, 2011
On January 1, 2007, the Tax Credits for Growing Businesses Act (known as Article 3J Credits) replaced the Bill Lee Act as a vehicle for delivering economic tax incentives to chosen North Carolina industries.1 Compared to the largess of Golden LEAF, this incentives scheme has not been a large source of fiscal drain on the State; still, the State perpetuates its practice of meddling with the State’s economy to the detriment of free market principles and the robustness that brings. Read more...
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES—QUESTIONABLE EFFICACY AND CONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY
Jeanette Doran
Mar 22nd, 2011
Public debate surrounding the so-called “economic development incentives” has reverberated around the country. These incentives are doled out in a variety of forms, including tax credits, direct cash subsidies and tax exemptions, purportedly designed to stimulate economic development by facilitating location or retention of industry. Economists, attorneys and public officials have long debated the effectiveness of these measures, particularly relative to the cost of incentives. The use of incentives has devolved in to what some consider a tax war with one expert going so far as to describe the incentives competition as a “second Civil War.” Read more...
AN OVERVIEW OF THE GOLDEN LEAF FOUNDATION
Jeanette Doran
Mar 22nd, 2011
How Golden LEAF began and where its funds came from: On November 23, 1998, several states and U.S. territories signed the Master Settlement Agreement with all the major U.S. tobacco corporations in order to settle the actions brought against the corporations for expenses citizens’ use of tobacco products caused the states. North Carolina signed the Master Settlement Agreement thereby settling its lawsuit against tobacco companies in the case of North Carolina v. Philip Morris, Inc., et al. Among other things, under the Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco companies must pay the states a total of $265 billion over a 25-year period to support anti-smoking efforts. Read more...
OVERVIEW OF THE ONE NORTH CAROLINA FUND
Jeanette Doran
Mar 22nd, 2011
Formerly known as the Governor’s Industrial Recruitment Competitiveness Fund, the One North Carolina Fund was created in 2004 to supplement the smorgasbord of economic incentives available at the time. Specifically, it purports to be a “flexible tool” to “achieve uniform regional prosperity” and recruit “high value-added, knowledge-driven industries.” It was first funded with a $20 million appropriation and has historically enjoyed an approximately $10 million recurring annual allotment. Read more...
Memorandum of Law: Response to State Controller McCoy's Memorandum Concerning Interfund Transfer
Jeanette Doran
Mar 15th, 2011
A review of the State Controller’s memorandum dated March 9, 2011, in which he opined that the Governor may transfer funds from the Employment Security Reserve Fund (“ESC Reserve”) without violating the State Constitution reveals the Controller’s memorandum is incomplete and inaccurate. Click the title above to read NCICL's analysis of the Controller’s memorandum. Neither the Governor’s Memorandum of Understanding nor the State Controller’s memorandum offer any specific constitutional or statutory authority for the proposition that the Governor may revise the budget at her whim. No such authority exists.
Memorandum of Law: Budget Transfers
Jeanette Doran
Mar 10th, 2011
Memorandum of Law: Special Objects Clause
Jeanette Doran
Mar 10th, 2011