- [McCullen] The Senate votes to limit new mandates on health insurance companies, and House leaders suggest cryptocurrency could be a good investment option for the state.

This is State Lines.

[resolute music] - [Announcer] Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you, who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.

[resolute music continues] [resolute music continues] - Welcome back to State Lines, everyone, I'm Kelly McCullen.

Joining me today, a true all-star panel.

Political strategist, Morgan Jackson, is right beside me.

Beside him, Democratic Senator, Jay Chaudhuri, he represents Wake County.

To his right, we call it C3, Representative Matthew Winslow of Franklin and Vance Counties.

And our good friend, the Capital Bureau Chief, a fancy, high-level title for The News & Observer, Dawn Vaughan.

Welcome, everybody.

Happy New Year, Morgan.

- How about happy Valentine's Day?

[all laughing] - I'm wishing everyone who hasn't been on since the new year, and I can't remember who's been on.

We're now, what, six weeks into this thing.

I think you've been back.

But we've had a good week to have the legislature.

And good week to have you welcome back off the campaign trail.

- Absolutely.

- Good to see you.

North Carolina Senate Republicans and three Democrats approved legislation that would cap the number of mandates that the state can impose on health insurance companies.

This bill would allow new mandates, as long as a current mandate is eliminated.

Then the new mandate would need full state funding for implementation to become effective.

The bill sponsor is saying, "Families covered by the state health plan and the state health plan itself needs cost relief."

Democrats have said, "Healthcare mandates ensure families get covered for medical issues that insurance companies would, otherwise, not cover," Dawn.

Pretty clear, two sides of this debate, and of all the bills, this one is the one that goes through first.

Of the bigger stuff.

- Yeah, well, it was the first actual action day at the legislature of votes in the Senate.

What stood out to me, and Senator Chaudhuri I'm sure could talk more about this too, is the difference in the Senate Democratic vote.

So it was former Senate Democratic leader, Blue, Senator Lowe, and Senator Gladys Robinson, who all voted for this with Republicans.

And the argument from the debate I heard on the floor is about, you know, the debate against is, don't end up removing something that's important for something else.

The debate for, you know, kind of centered around, we need to control costs and you don't want to get this too big, and them wanting to limit the number.

- I want to move to the Senator.

I do really go around the horn, but this is a Senate bill for now, and Representative Winslow, it's going to be on your desk here soon enough for consideration.

But Senator Chaudhuri, your make on this bill, it did pull over some bipartisan support, at least a small amount.

- I mean, it did.

I think the sense is the bill is not going to go anywhere in all deference to the House members.

But I think the bill raises a couple of issues.

I mean, I think one everybody is in agreement that health healthcare costs are out of control.

I think the question is how do you address it?

And some of the points that were made was, number one, this bill was not comprehensive.

I mean, there was half the private insurance marketplace that was left out.

So, tackling half a loaf just doesn't work.

Secondly, as Dawn talked about, you got to define what essential healthcare is.

And the examples that were given was if you're going to, you know, submit, if you're going to add, say, breast cancer screening coverage, are you're going to get rid of testing, you know, for babies when they are born?

So, it creates kind of a zero-sum healthcare system, which is not great.

I think there's also a faulty assumption about healthcare mandates increasing costs because child immunization is probably one of the greatest examples of where you save money down the line.

So, I commend the caucus.

You know, Senator Burgin, I've got a lot of respect for him.

I think it's a great way to kick off the conversation about healthcare costs.

This bill's not the way.

- Well, this bill is just one piece of it.

It has to go through the House.

It would be changed.

So any bill passing one chamber is effectively dead on arrival 'cause the minute you change it, it's a new legislation.

The discussion is open though.

What do House Republicans think?

- Oh, we just passed the Senate bill just fine.

They sent the bill.

We sent it back, you know, so.

- Don't believe that.

- And just loved it.

- But that's technically true.

People go, "The bill's dead."

Well, no, you- - It's not.

It's an opportunity for discussion is what it is.

And I agree.

I'm glad Senator Burgin's working on it because we do have a healthcare issue and cost.

We may not agree on how to fix the system.

I think we all can agree on things like we need transparency in pricing.

You know, that's a big help.

Competition, those things help drive down pricing.

I saw a study that came out, I don't know, last year sometime that said we're in the top five in the country for healthcare costs.

So certainly I'm glad that the Senate has taken a lead on trying to get those costs down.

- Any idea how you could possibly get costs down?

I mean, just as a person who's elevated to a big chair status, is there anything you can do, or is it really an unknown?

- Well, if you remember Trump first in office, he says, "Let's see transparency in pricing," right?

Show us how much it's gonna cost.

If you need knee repair, can you go out there and shop it to other places?

And you look at, you know, "Hey, I don't just want the best service.

I also want the best price."

- Morgan, that's a third rail in a lot of ways on the lobbying side of the legislature.

Only one gubernatorial candidate dared touch that before he decided to run, and it really hurt him in the Republican primary with financial support and other means.

The Democrats wouldn't touch it either.

What's the solution to opening the books up?

Or does it not need to be?

Can we trust our hospitals to bill fairly?

- No, listen, I think it has to be holistic, and I think both or all three, what everybody's saying, is very true.

And I think there's a broad agreement that healthcare costs are, families are struggling.

And healthcare costs are a large part of sort of the economic anxiety that families are feeling these days, whether it is hospital or doctor's visits or prescription drugs.

All of those things are continuing to increase in price and put pressure on everybody's pocketbooks.

Listen, I think it has to be a holistic discussion with everything on the table because one of these things, any one of them by themself, is not gonna drive the needle or move the needle and drive the cost down the way that the public is looking for or that our elected folks are looking for.

So I think, you know, and I think Jay made a great point, and I do wanna say this.

One of the issues about mandates, I understand the thought process behind it, but when you're screening for colorectal cancer or other kind of cancers, and you find it early, you are drastically reducing the cost of treatment for a late-stage colon cancer.

- Tough issue.

It's been there since my entire life, the healthcare debate.

State House Speaker Destin Hall has a proposal to allow the state to invest in cryptocurrency.

The eye's really on Bitcoin.

Speaker Hall's plan would allow, it doesn't appear necessarily to demand, that the state treasurer make these investments.

It would cap the investment in crypto to 10% of any given portfolio.

And right now, the way the bill seems to be written, the only qualifying cryptocurrency would in fact be Bitcoin.

Should the treasury invest in crypto, it would be through investment funds.

Representative Winslow, Governor Stein says, "You know what?

Let's take a look at it."

You're not demanding anything, and it opens up a portfolio option.

But Bitcoin, that was supposed to get around the man, and you are the man.

[host and panelists laugh] - Good point.

Well, we're modernizing, right?

We wanna stay up with the times.

If not, you get left behind.

And I think it's a great idea to start thinking about these ideas.

And it doesn't limit investments in the state.

And so if you're looking at a portfolio that's growing 30, 50% over time on average, why shouldn't the state be investing in it?

Why can't we get a better return on the dollar?

We ask our private investors to do the same thing.

We should be able to do the same.

Plus, it helps with things like our pension system.

We wanna make sure we continue to have the strongest pension system in the state, and we have to invest it well.

- And Bitcoin is a good example of doing that.

- Senator Chaudhuri, I don't know the state law regarding what the treasurer can and can't do.

Was there some law somewhere that said he cannot invest in crypto?

I thought they had fair flexibility.

- Yeah, I think it's a good question.

I mean, look, as someone that's worked in the State Treasurer's Office for six and a half years, I actually don't even think the legislation is required, because I think you can trade.

I think the treasurer has that authority to include that as part of his investment portfolio.

I think, as Representative Winslow said, I don't think it's a bad idea, but, I mean, ultimately, pension, you know, you're gonna invest for the pension in 30 and 50-year cycles, right?

And so I think it's important that that be part of the diversification.

What I liked about the legislation is I think it said you couldn't invest in Bitcoin unless you had at least $750 million in assets, which I think probably deters anybody from making investments that may be somewhat more suspect.

- I think it's clear Bitcoin's not going anywhere, Morgan, but the governor, of all things he can ignore, has a lot on his plate.

He did come out and said, "You know, I think I like this idea, at least parts of it."

- Well, it's very much like what Representative Winslow said, it's all about modernization.

We have to keep it with the times.

I think everybody knows when you look at some of these cryptocurrency, especially Bitcoin, the performance it's had, some of the stability it's had, not all of them fall into that.

I mean, you know, as the advertisements say, fortune favors the bold until it doesn't.

[Jay chuckling] You know, and I think we saw that with some of the crashing in the crypto markets, I guess it was last year, but all in all, you should have the ability to invest in things, and to diversify the state pension fund.

And anything that can increase the size and the wealth of the pension fund is a good idea as long as there are appropriate controls on there so that you're not gambling with the state's money.

- And from what I'm seeing, you seem very comfortable with this coming out of the Senate.

You're okay with it?

- I mean, I don't, I mean, giving the state treasurer authority is one thing, whether he exercises that authority is the more important question, and so, I mean, I have trust in the state treasurer.

He's gonna make the right decision with his investment staff, whether to invest or not.

- Dawn, what amazes me is I remember last year, there were bills being filed to prevent the state from getting involved in a federal cryptocurrency, and there's a lot of skepticism.

New House speaker, we wondered what would be prioritized.

It's the younger generation, they said.

First thing out of the gate, well, appears to be Bitcoin.

That's pretty interesting.

- I was surprised, really.

I mean, I feel like, you know, Speaker Halls, when he was rules chair, immigration was kind of his big issue, so we've already been watching, you know, what is this gonna be?

So that it came out so, so quickly, I thought that was interesting that was his choice.

I think there's, obviously, there's risk involved, and what others have said about don't risk too much of the people's money, 'cause they'll, I mean, obviously, hold you accountable for that, so we'll see what else Hall has next.

I mean, like we were saying, it's just the action is just now starting, and obviously, if it's Hall, or if it's Senate Leader Berger, if they're behind any sort of proposed legislation, it's pretty much gonna happen unless there's a sticking point with the other chamber.

- Shifting towards unemployment insurance, North Carolina is revisiting benefits with discussions this time around about increasing unemployment check amounts.

Republicans reformed the unemployment system over a decade ago.

North Carolina required a federal law to avoid insolvency, because the Great Recession hit, and caught pretty much every state off guard, to be honest.

That meant large reductions in unemployment benefits.

The trust fund is currently strong in our state, it's still growing and it's paying out, so increasing benefits seemed to have bipartisan support, Senator Chaudhuri, at least in the State House at this time, and we'll work our way around the horn.

Unemployment benefits', like, 350 bucks a week, and it's growing.

How do they, Republicans, get the balance right?

- Well, a couple things.

Number one, it's important to remind your viewers that in 2013, the Republican General Assembly cut the benefits down to $350, and we have one of the lowest unemployment benefit rates in the country.

But secondly, I think really with bipartisan support and the recognition of what is happening in Western North Carolina, there was an effort by democratic legislators to increase it to $450, which got bipartisan support.

I think it's a good first step.

It may not be enough, as we all remember.

I mean, Governor Cooper through his Executive Order, actually had a unemployment benefit payment that was $600 a week.

I think it's still a good first step, but you know, I just know, I just read that in the Asheville area, their unemployment rate is increased by 2.6%, which is one of the highest of metro areas.

So I think that's an issue that we really need to tackle, and I think what our unemployment benefit payments are, becomes really important as part of the solution.

- Representative Winslow, to your point, Julia Howard, she did go for, I think from 350 to 400 at this point to pass some legislation, got good bipartisan support.

This issue hasn't gotten bare knuckles, but nothing about Helene recovery in legislation inspired has gotten too partisan so far.

So what's the vibe like when you're looking at adjusting benefits?

Republicans going up in benefits, not stable or down.

- Well, you know, Representative Howard, this has been an issue for her for several years, and she's the longest serving member in the House, and we all respect her very, very much.

And so she's been working diligently on this and trying to increase the benefits.

In 2013, the Trust Fund was bankrupt.

The state owed the feds $2.2 billion.

Since then, we've paid off the $2.2 billion, and that was roughly $6 billion.

Because of good planning and stewardship, we can afford to increase the benefits.

So she's been pushing for 400 to $450 a month for unemployment.

And you're right, the people out west, they need it.

And so at this is a good opportunity to start working on it, and it does have bipartisan support.

- A fair question I heard in committee this week was, I forget which was a Democratic Representative asked this question, "At what point is the Trust Fund big enough that you raise payout so that it matches the inflows, doesn't harm your Trust Fund, but it breaks even."

Is is that a difficult formula to come up with?

- I don't know.

- [Howard] Or is it a good idea, I should say, from your perspective?

- Yeah.

Maybe, I think it depends on what the need is.

Because we don't want it to be a welfare system.

We wanna do is help people up in a bad situation.

You know, we all go through tough times in life and we don't want it where it's something that people look at it, "Oh, it's better for me to sit at home and collect a check," versus, "This is what I just need to get me through a tough time."

- The Fiscal Research Division said that it's still on a growth trajectory, so it should be fine because Howard, it was Representative Deb Butler, I think Representative Longest were among those asking, you know, initially Representative Howard wanted the 400 and they said, "Well, what about 450?

Are you open to that?

If we're asking the Senate, let's just ask the Senate."

And she said, "Okay."

So it definitely has bipartisan support for just over, you know, statewide.

But it was great, when I wrote about it, I found this file photo from a, you know, 10, 12 years ago with, with Howard [group laughs] and you know, much younger other folks.

And when Pat McCrory was Governor, where it's this big ceremony where they, you know, they paid off the debt.

So, and people are worried about what could happen.

But I asked Senate Leader Berger, if he supports it, and he does.

He wants, and now not necessarily the 450, but he agrees it's time.

But with that caution that nobody wants to be where the state was, you know, a decade ago in the Recession.

- Morgan, what was it about Hurricane Helene that has made, in your opinion, from your perspective, Republicans look at certain safety net programs to say, you know, "We were conservative for a decade and now the time is right to expand work with Josh Stein and work with the democratic minority."

- Listen, I think Helene has been such a historic catastrophic damage.

I mean, you're talking about $60 billion of some of the assessments of damage out there on West North Carolina, which is, it's just not used to having this kind of, I mean, yes, the East North Carolina has hurricanes much more, but they're a little, also more accustomed to it, even though it's still difficult.

But West North Carolina has never faced anything like this.

And I think that's been one thing that has opened a lot of people's eyes.

And, you know, when you get back to the actual price of it, one of the points I wanna make is, you know, they set it at $350 in 2013.

Now just imagine how much more expensive everything is 11 years later.

$350, try living on that.

Agreed, this is a program to help people who have fallen on hard times where their job has changed or closed or factories closed or something like that, to give them a step to find something else.

But you can't make it on $350 a week if you've got a family.

I think it was hard in 2013, but it is dang near impossible in 2025.

- And from bipartisanship, I have to take a partisan issue and bring it into this show.

Wouldn't be fun politics if I did not.

So Governor Stein, Morgan, you might know about this, is suing Republicans.

He wants his powers reclaimed.

You know, he lost them through legislation in late 2024.

Stein's legal team argues, governor should retain the ability to appoint judges and members of the State Utilities Commission mainly.

And he's pointing to his comfortable victory in November as proof that the people are behind him to have such powers.

From there, Morgan, where does this go?

You've claimed it's unconstitutional, the people are behind Governor Stein, but then they're also behind almost a super majority legislator, so what gives?

- It is when you gerrymander it, when they can draw their own, you can do that.

But, you know, Stein runs statewide and is elected by everyone.

And so this is a nine-year fight, in all due honesty.

It is not a three-month fight.

The legislature since the Democratic governor was elected in 2016 when Governor Cooper was elected, has tried very much to usurp the executive authority and has been rejected most times, even by Republican courts, Republican controlled courts at the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

So we'll see where this lawsuit, the precedent that is out there now currently that has been set by the Supreme Court generally favors Stein's arguments that these are executive functions that are given to the governor in the Constitution and they aren't legislative actions.

And at the end of the day, you know, everything that the legislature has done to try to usurp executive authority is about power and control.

It's not about what is the best move for the state.

It is, you're a Democrat, we are Republicans, we wanna take that power away 'cause we want it ourselves.

And the courts have rejected it time and time again, and I'm hoping they will again this time.

- Why should ordinary North Carolinians, Republicans, or Democrats even care about a tussle between legislators wanting to make appointments and a governor making an appointment to certain boards or commissions that they may not read about very often?

- They should care about it because it's constitutional and it's something that is in the Constitution.

The governor is the chief executive officer of the state and is in charge of the stewardship of the state in a number of powers that are given to him directly in the Constitution.

The legislature's trying to take away through legislative action.

That's usurping power.

And that's not something that voters want.

They wouldn't have given Josh Stein 55% to elect him as governor if they didn't want him to be in charge of the state.

- He had a decent campaign team, I think.

- He did, that's what they say.

- Representative Winslow in DC, we have a president who loves executive power.

And the guy before that, Mr. Biden, loved executive power, but in North Carolina, they should share that executive power.

with the legislative branch.

Why?

- Well, in North Carolina it was specifically set up so that the power is closest to the people.

The House and the Senate are elected every two years.

We don't have a choice.

The governor's every four years, we didn't elect a king.

We elected someone to be a steward of what the General Assembly says.

Here's what we're asking to do on behalf of the people.

So that's the big difference.

We're doing things like spreading the power across.

The governor shouldn't have to make all the decisions based on who we appoint.

He should be appointed, who wants to argue that the auditor shouldn't help set the standards and appointments for the Board of Elections?

He's literally the auditor.

The treasurer for the utilities commission.

He's the guy that counts the dollars, he's the one's looking at the people's purse.

What should we put him In charge of appointment's where it's the most important.

- Senator Chaudhuri, to your point, if by chance one day Democrats took power, you'd have that control and even if you had a Democratic governor, I don't know legislators giving much power back.

- Well, I mean, I think you're right.

I mean, in some ways, if you leave the politics out of it, there's always been that tension between the legislative and executive branch.

The legislature here commands great power because of some of the reasons Representative Winslow talked about.

I mean, in some ways, it's a really interesting contrast with what I would say is an executive unitary of power that we're seeing at the presidential level versus legislative unitary power at the state level here, where the legislature is continuing to overreach.

But as Morgan said, this is about the constitution, this is about separation of powers, this is about who can carry, who can pass a law, and who can execute the law.

And I think that's where things get blurred and, you know, Governor Stein is right to sue to reclaim his powers.

- Dawn, this is an academic exercise.

You're here to weigh in very deeply on this.

It's a lot of power.

And the governor can't appoint very many positions, a lot less than he could have prior to December of 2024.

- Well, it's true.

North Carolina is set up for the legislative branch to have, of the three branches, you know, more power than the governor in various ways, but I mean, obviously, it's political.

Republicans elect an auditor.

The Republican super majority decides to give the auditor more power, and the new governor happens to be a Democrat and the Attorney General.

So I think it's clear as far as the political strategy there.

The argument is going to be forever.

And it, I like how you brought up about the state versus federal.

You know, do you want the executive to have all this power or is that legislative branch supposed to say, "Hold up here.

Like we are actually closer to the people," you know, Congress and the General Assembly, and should have more of a say when there's sweeping actions.

- The reason I ask that is a lot of people are supportive of an executive who is weighing in on a legislature that isn't doing perceptually what the people want.

And in this case, it goes back closer to the people per Representative Winslow.

It was a very confusing topic, Morgan.

It's things for lawyers to do.

- It is the Full Employment Act, that's exactly right.

- Well, and nobody votes for somebody because you agree on every single thing they might ever do.

I mean, that's just not true, obviously.

- You been on social media?

North Carolina Supreme Court candidate Jefferson Griffin's challenge of those 60,000 voter registrations and the ballots attached to those now sit before the State Appeals Court.

The State Board of Elections is now asking that the Court of Appeals be bypassed in favor of speedy consideration by the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Judge Griffin sits on the Appeals Court.

He is recused.

Democrat Allison Riggs, the current Supreme Court Associate Justice, says she'll be recused when the issue reaches the Supreme Court.

There's still 734 votes separating them with Allison Riggs in the lead.

Well, if Jefferson Griffin hadda gotten his way, Representative Winslow, we would already been at the Supreme Court.

The courts made the state go through this journey.

Are people tired?

- [sighs] You know, I like to think, when we're in politics, everyone's paying attention.

The truth is that when you talk to people in general out in your district, they look at you like who's doing what?

You know, it's unfortunate that we have like the judge races that not enough people are really paying attention.

But we all know the real issue is this coulda been solved a year and a half ago if the Board of Elections did their job.

If they had scrubbed the database and said, "These people are not properly registered," we wouldn't be here today and the decision woulda been made already.

- All right, Senator Chaudhuri, what do you make, you're an attorney, what do you make of this case?

It's calling on challenging precedent.

It's calling in some new theories.

And- - I mean, you know, my non-legal answer frankly is that it just really undermines the confidence that the people of the state have with what they're seeing with elections.

I mean, there's been two recounts.

It's gone to the federal court, it's now at the trial court level.

The state board has reviewed it and we are the, this is the last race in the country that still has not been decided.

And I think for the sake of moving forward, and I mean, I think we can have a legal debate about this, but we can also have a debate about why these 65,000 voters were identified.

But I mean, at some point, we gotta move on and carry on the business of the state, including what the judicial branch needs to focus on.

- Morgan, as a Political Consultant, and you're on the democratic side, so I know you have a strong opinion on this, but politically, if this goes to the Supreme Court, what are the stakes for a court that affirms its majority position versus the same court whose voters are gonna expect, you know, they expect a rejection of Jefferson Griffin.

How do they balance that politically in the academic sense?

- If they're smart, they would listen to the voters.

And what the voters have been very clear about is that Allison Riggs won this race.

And what every single court, every single action, whether federal or state, that has looked at it so far, been through two recounts, et cetera, is that she won and this game is over.

It should be over.

It is shameful that Jefferson Griffin continues to push this crazy legal theory that these voters not register.

When you ask, you know, one of the judges asked the Griffin, Jefferson Griffin team, "Can you identify one voter who was not supposed to be registered," and they can't identify one out of 60,000.

They wanna say the form was wrong and that people didn't fill it out the right way and didn't append their social security and their, or their driver's licenses, and so they shouldn't be able to vote.

A lot of these are Democrats, a lot of these are Republicans, a lot of these unaffiliated.

But it is time for this to be over.

It's time for Jefferson Griffin to finally concede and let this, let it move on.

- In 2026, Anita Earls, a Democrat who seeks reelection to the State Supreme Court.

Are there clouds from 2024 in this and '25 gonna bleed over into that race?

- No, I mean, I think Matthew said it best.

Voters just don't pay a lot of attention at these races.

They are really, I don't, I think a Supreme Court race, it's hard to get voter's attention down in the ballot box to folks.

I mean, yes, really informed, highly partisan voters pay attention, but sort of regular, everyday voters don't, and I don't think they'll make a connection.

I think '26 is gonna be about the National Environment and whether or not it's a good year for Republicans, a good year for Democrats, will have the most bearing on that Supreme Court race.

- 10 seconds, Dawn, does the Supreme Court end this or does it go back to federal court for reconsideration?

- I think they're, I mean, at every level, they're testing it, right?

It's a test case.

So we'll see what happens with that.

But, you know, you don't have to fill out your whole ballot, but they did vote for other people too.

- Panel, thank you so much, we're out of time.

Thank you, first of all for joining us every week.

Email your thoughts to statelines@pbsnc.org.

I'll read every email.

I'm Kelly McCullen, thanks for watching.

I'll see ya next time.

[upbeat music] - [Announcer] Quality Public Television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you, who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.

[upbeat music]