[intro music] - [Kelly] North Carolina Senate Democrats opened the abortion debate with legislation that would keep the promise of Roe v. Wade.

A key Republican renews the push to legalize medical marijuana use.

And education's in the news.

It's School Choice Week, and there's a call coming to fully fund the court-ordered Leandro Plan.

This is "State Lines".

- [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] - Hello again, welcome to "State Lines".

I'm Kelly McCullen.

Joined this week by Donna King of the Carolina Journal, Senator Vickie Sawyer, Iredell County, Representative Ashton Clemmons of Guilford County, and our good friend Joe Stewart, political analyst extraordinaire, and a man of Raleigh.

[group chuckles] Thank you so much for- - [Joe Stewart] Thanks.

- coming in and getting it started.

It's been a busy week.

It's good to have you two on in the legislature.

Wake County Senator Sidney Batch kicked off the 2023 abortion debate this week.

She's filed legislation along with the Democrats that would require Roe versus Wade and the Casey court cases be respected if, and should, new state legislation be drawn on abortion.

It's a one page bill.

It would prevent the state of North Carolina from imposing an undue burden on women choosing, "Whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability."

The proposal would promise not to affect laws regarding conscious protection.

So Donna- - [Donna] Mm-hmm.

- first reading- - Sure.

- does it mean much?

It's out there.

- Sure.

- It's got our attention.

- Of course.

- Tell us about this bill.

- Yeah, so - This whole issue for 2023.

- Yeah, of course.

Democrats in the North Carolina General Assembly, both in the Senate and the House, have run parallel bills that would codify.

It would put into state law, Casey, the results of Casey and Roe, which of course we know was overturned by the US Supreme Court over the summer.

In this case it would put it into state law.

Now I think all of the Senate Democrats have signed on.

Most of the House Democrats have signed on.

There are a few notable Democrats that have at this point not signed on to co-sponsor this bill.

So I think what we're seeing is, and the conscious objection piece is, conscious protection is important, because in that case it would mean that a provider, a doctor, would be allowed to, you know, from his own conscience, not perform or refer for an abortion in that case.

So I think what we're really seeing is this.

You know, very first day of business of the session Democrats are saying, "Okay, this is, we're gonna stake our flag here.

This is a really important issue to to us."

And it comes, as there may be more legislation that tries to reduce the waiting, reduce the gestational point for abortion.

- Senator Sawyer, your thoughts?

Democratic bill in an overwhelmingly GOP-majority Senate, did it get your attention?

Did you read it?

Did you care?

- Well, is this, anyone talking about abortion these days?

[group chuckles] I had no idea, especially as a Republican woman.

It seems like I, everywhere I walk around in Raleigh, there's a spotlight on all of us that have that Republican label behind our name.

But, you know, this is a very interesting approach.

And I understand that they are putting their flag in the sand.

However we can all gnash our teeth about what it means and what's going on.

Really there's only about one or two people who are gonna decide actually what the abortion law looks like.

And that is a House Democrat.

So we can talk about if you wanna have heartbeat, or if you don't wanna have it at all.

And we can gnash and fight amongst ourselves as Republicans, but unless we have one Democrat in the House who's willing to overturn the objection of the governor, then this all for naught.

- Representative Clemmons, she's talking about your team.

- She is.

- If one crosses over, and we're assuming the vetoes are happening- - Yeah.

- Democrats lose this one.

What's the sentiment?

The flag is in the ground for you.

- Yeah, I think Donna did a good job of summarizing why Democrats started the session with this bill.

And that the primary first sponsors are Robert Reeves in the House and Senator Dan Blue.

And we have different rules in signing on.

So we are working and believe we will get sign on from the Democratic caucus.

And I believe we are putting the flag in the ground that we believe the government should not be interfering as women make their own health choices.

And as someone who's watched a lot of women make those choices that are excruciating for many women, personal family members included.

And as a mom to a daughter, I want them and their doctors to make those decisions.

And I believe there's overwhelming support from Democrats in the House and Senate, but from North Carolinians.

And even across the country we've seen red and blue states vote that way in the past since Roe, which has brought this to the forefront for all of us, and why we're talking about it at the length and amount we are.

So yes, I do believe we all know it's going to be the issue, I think, of the beginning of the session.

And wanted to say early where we stand on it as share caucuses.

- Joe, last week, or two weeks ago, they opened the session.

It was all smiles.

We could work together.

And then the Senate Bill 3.

I think the first one's the rules.

And then the third one of 2000 bills, abortion, Joe.

Off to a collegial start, aren't we?

- Yeah, I often say, "The first day of the session you get sworn in, and the rest of the days of the session you get sworn at."

[group chuckles] - Ah!

It's a good one.

[laughs] - And When it comes to the issue of abortion, if you think of it as a matter of public policy, and the state is trying to determine what is the appropriate policy, this is one issue people feel very strongly about, either on a moral or religious basis, or they believe it's about rights and how you make sure that you're protecting the rights of a woman.

So very few people are ambivalent about this issue, but we do know this.

As a matter of public policy, undoubtedly both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature are thinking, "How does this issue play out with voters in 2024?"

They will want to know what the legislature did on this issue.

And to some extent, looking at public opinion research.

That all-important constituency of voters that are somewhat in the middle say, "Yes, we feel there need to be some guardrails on this particular issue, but there need to be exceptions for cases where something horrifically bad has happened to the woman, and abortion is an important choice for her to be able to make."

So we'll see.

If it is possible to come to a point of consensus on this between Democrats and Republicans on a relatively quick basis, maybe it doesn't cast a long shadow over the rest of the legislative session.

But again, it's an issue about which people feel very strongly.

- No doubt about it.

Long session, too.

We wanna see what the Republicans come out with.

That's where the details will be hashed out.

And for subsequent shows here on "State Lines", the proposal to authorize cannabis use, or marijuana use, for medicinal purposes is revived for 2023.

You'll hear it called the Compassionate Care Act.

A doctor's written order would allow patients of defined diseases and chronic symptoms to legally purchase and then possess marijuana or THC-containing products.

Cancer, terminal illnesses, Crohn's Disease, clinically diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder are actually listed in the bill text.

So look up the Senate bill up at ncleg.gov.

This bill would authorize the State Department of Health and Human Services to operate the distribution system for medical marijuana.

Senator Sawyer, we'll kick this off with you.

Your thoughts on medical marijuana and is coming from a conservative caucus.

- Yeah, it is a conservative caucus.

When I was appointed in '18, elected in '19, I did not think that I would be talking about and voting for medical marijuana, but yet here we are.

And in fact, I voted to approve that bill last session, and it got mired into the house.

Senator Bill Rabon, a very powerful, compassionate man, our Rules Chairman is the champion along with Senator Michael Lee.

Both of them have really put some stringent guardrails around this legislation and it can be characterized as some of the strictest law across the nation about how to handle this.

Interesting enough, though it did get caught up in the House last time, the Senate does plan to move this bill forward, but it seems like that's behind the times.

I'm not sure if Santa Claus has ever been polled in North Carolina, but I think he would be tied as popularity to medical marijuana.

I mean, it seems like this state really is excited to get this treatment for these critical cases and have it in a legal way.

- But Ashton, last year, the House wasn't excited about passing medical marijuana.

Over a dozen representatives were somehow not there on the vote, and it lost by a just very narrow margin.

What's the sentiment for medical marijuana?

- Yeah, so actually in the House, we never took up the legislation.

So I think our next topic is the vote you were talking about.

And I will definitely speak that the House Democrats hope that this legislation comes forth.

And I know there are Republicans across the aisle in our chamber who do as well.

You know, if there are people suffering, like think of the list of things that you just talked about, terminal illness, cancer, and we have a safe, structured way to help ease their suffering, why would we not want to do that?

I know that the Senate worked very closely on looking at what's happening nationally and having a law that makes sense for our state that is safe.

And I certainly hope we bring it up in the House for a discussion and debate and vote.

- And that will be the house Republican leaders ultimately decide that calendar and whether a bill will be discussed or debated.

It's not wide open you're guaranteed to get your bill.

- No.

I mean, certainly the Rules Chairman and the Speaker work to decide what bills move and when, and they will ultimately make that decision.

I'm sure they're having many discussions on their bills they would like moved.

That's kinda how it works.

But I certainly believe that there's vast support for it in our chamber as well.

- Joe, with your experience, let's clarify this.

I'm ahead of myself here.

The betting bill was very, very tight.

There was not a vote at all taken on the House, but in the Senate, they really liked the miracle marijuana bill.

So how does one chamber love it and the other one go, "We're not touching?"

- Well, Senator Sawyer alluded to this, and sometimes regardless of partisan stripe or ideology, where you stand is based on where you sit.

And Senator Rabon has had a personal experience with regard to this and in terms of his own cancer and found that the medicinal marijuana was an enormously beneficial and therapeutic way for him to deal with some of the side effects he was experiencing as a result of the chemotherapy.

It's a very hard argument to make against someone that can tell a firsthand account of why this is so important.

On the other side of it, there are voices in the legislature that are concerned this simply becomes a threshold to recreational marijuana legalization in the state and concerns about that in terms of the implications for North Carolina being in the dope business, as far as that goes.

But, I think there is a lot of supporting argument that there is a benefit to certain folks that are experiencing terribly horrific diseases, that it's beneficial for many reasons.

It eases the suffering, it eases the pain, many times it overcomes the symptoms and side effects that you get from chemotherapy in cancer treatments.

It seems to me that the state has successfully somehow managed to be in the liquor business for quite a few years now, and so we undoubtedly can figure out how appropriately and with the right safeguards make it possible for people who legitimately need marijuana for a medical condition to receive it safely and to keep it from being used incidentally, recreationally by people trying to abuse the system.

- Plenty of debate on the liquor business in North Carolina too.

I'm sure that'll be another topic.

- You can take Joe's vote in the house.

Donna, very quickly on this issue.

I'm struck by this.

There are Republicans that are libertarian minded, there are Republicans who are social conservative minded.

They are not libertarian.

This one wedges through there.

- Well, I mean, I think a lot of the discussion about it is about a free market.

That's part of why there are a lot of supporters for it.

One of the things that was floated a little bit in the House, the bill got kind of caught up in House rules last time.

And they had floated the idea of perhaps we create a trigger law that says, okay, as soon as the FDA approves it for medicinal use for these purposes, North Carolina automatically would, because at this point the FDA has not approved it for these uses or any others.

And so that is one of the things.

While there are a few limited THC based medications, I think there's three.

So North Carolina would then, in a trigger law say, okay, FDA checks, signs off on it, we will too.

I think some of the hesitation is not necessarily about the treatment compassionate care for this.

That's more about we've had a tremendous amount of out-of-state influence lobbyists that want to build this industry.

And we don't necessarily know exactly what's gonna be in it.

It's about controlling the quality, and there's limited licenses.

It's not like there's gonna be a ton of people that are able to distribute it.

The dispensaries are gonna be controlled by 12, I think, licenses.

And so the way the the industry will evolve is really more the rub, I think, than the concept itself.

- Well, we'll keep watching it.

Credit to our colleague Colin Campbell.

Joe, coming to you on this one.

He reported in the NC Tribune this week, and other media outlets, but I'm gonna give a nod to my friend.

Look for some key House Republican leaders to reintroduce a sports betting bill in our state.

Sports betting, this is the one that narrowly failed, a single vote in the General Assembly back in 2022.

Since then, Colin reported that 10 yes votes in the House have either left office or gone to the Senate, and 10 no votes are gone from the House as well.

Well, where do we stand, Joe, on sports betting in North Carolina?

And Jason's saying the representative's gonna be behind this I'm most certain.

Has he got this one whipped, as they say?

The votes, are they counted before he files?

- Well, this is another tough one.

And having been present in the state when the discussion and debate about having a lottery was about, a lot of people had strong feelings on both sides of the aisle.

Some of the folks were saying it's just not appropriate for the state to sanction gambling in this way, other folks feeling as though that as an enterprise of the state was unfairly targeting people of lesser economic standing that would be more likely to engage in these games of chance.

We already have sports betting in North Carolina.

The two casinos in Cherokee offer an on presence sports betting.

And I believe the Catawba Two Kings Casino also has sports betting.

This would make a regulatory standard for online sports betting, but it would also make possible betting in sports arenas in the state where professional athletics are conducted.

The only cautionary tale here is in many instances, these types of enterprises attempted to be regulated and taxed, are seen as a way to generate revenue for the state of North Carolina in a way that doesn't necessitate imposing taxes on people.

Tax is a very hard word.

They probably the best thing we could do in the realm of public policy is make the word tax illegal because it's just, people respond so viscerally when you talk about taxes and, you know taxes are either too high or too low or no one ever says that their baby bear just right.

But the truth is, it's the way the state has of generating the revenue it needs to do the things that people want.

But anytime you tax an enterprise like this the expectation is that it will produce an abundance of resources for the state to do all of the things that it wants to do.

And people see it as a way to accomplish those goals.

Unfortunately, it rarely seems to produce the level of revenue that you would want.

But in this instance, we do have states now around us, Virginia, and Tennessee that have authorized this.

Undoubtedly people are already gambling online and the state's not getting whatever portion of that revenue that it could.

Again, this is one of those issues where people on both sides of the aisle feel strongly for it and against it for whatever reason.

I think the vote will be close but I suspect it'll get through this session.

- [Jim] Representative Clemmons, you're around all the lobbyists and that every, the pro sports teams have high powered representatives walking those halls.

They're pulling at your arms.

What's the tone?

- Yeah, I mean I, I think Joe summarized it well and it's very rare that you bring up a vote that doesn't go as planned and that has split votes in both caucuses.

I mean, I can think probably of less than five in my four years where that's happened.

So, there is a lot of interest on this issue.

I agree.

I think that there will be the votes to get it through.

I think there will be debates of course on what the North Carolina approach should be.

And there is this tension between, as you say people are doing this in our state and how can we be using that to support some of the other things that matter in our state but also how do we make sure that there is a system that's protecting the people who are engaging in it, which right now, you know there's a consumer protection issue to it as well.

So I expect it will be a close vote again.

And I didn't know until now that it was 10 and 10 that left.

So that is just even more excitement I'm sure to be had.

- [Joe] Senator, what are the odds of sports betting passing?

- [Sawyer] Well, let me get on my phone and let me see what we can do, Jim.

You know, interesting.

I was at a reception last night where Jim Blaine was and he presentation on sports betting and the polling around it.

- [Joe] Who's Jim Blaine?

- So Jim Blaine is the someone used to call him the 51st senator, but he he is, you know, a former chief of staff to president Phil Berger now has polling differentiators and also does political campaigns.

But he was presenting the polling that that he had just done.

And really people don't care.

That's the, that's the end of it is that even evangelical Christians who you thought would have a traditional resistance to it are not concerned about sports betting either way.

And I think you've seen that in the caucus.

There's a lot more education amongst our members.

I personally voted for this again.

Oh gosh, I'm admitting all my sins here.

Oh, marijuana and betting.

I mean, what else is next?

But I survived- - We need to tax that.

- We need to tax that, right.

But you know, as someone who's in a very heavily Republican district and voted for those two sins, I won a primary very handedly.

So I think there's this, you know the scare people being scared of being primaried and losing their election.

That fear has gone away when you see folks like me survive.

- When you look at the polling many times the differentiation is age.

The people under the age of 50 have a very different impression of things like gambling and marijuana and other issues that have historically either been partisan, conservative versus liberal.

And so I think even within the Republican base it's that markation of being less than 50.

You have a different I idea about that.

- Yeah, Dawn are Republicans saying let adults, adult.

when it comes to betting on- - I think you're saying more of that again back to the free market thing.

And I will say as a side note, Joe I've never thought taxes were too low.

So, but I do think the votes are there.

I think the appetite's there and the split is not really republican, democrat.

I think the split is more poor county wealthy county because you know members that represent poor counties worry more about this than perhaps ones that represent wealthy counties.

- And I heard that debate way back in the day when I was a reporter down at the legislature.

It never, it never goes away.

Neither does education and the fighting about education.

Well the state board of education seems to be gearing up to ask state budget writers to fully fund what is called the Leandro plan.

It's called a comprehensive plan for public education.

Go back nearly 30 years ago five school systems sued the state and said that inadequate public education funding were robbing students of a sound basic education that was guaranteed by our state constitution.

And Ashton the North Carolina Supreme Court wrote four-three last fall 28 years later to enforce the Leandro plan and told you to fund education.

Picked this ball up 30 year old volleyball game between courts and legislative priorities.

- Yes, yes.

I was in elementary school and that started so here we are, right, 30 years later.

But I mean look, you know, whether it's the Leandro plan or last week the Education Law Center just said North Carolina was 48th in funding level based by per pupil and 50th in the percent of our GDP that we give to education funding.

You know, those are all examples of well-documented over 30 years with new data that we are not investing in our schools in the way that we need to.

And that investment is the most important thing we can do for the continued economic growth of North Carolina.

In my county, we've had the well Randolph would not want me to say it's my county, but in our area in the triad we've had the Toyota announcement and Boom Supersonic's groundbreaking was yesterday.

And when they say why they're coming here, it's because of our workforce and that workforce is directly tried to a strong public education and community college system.

So I'm excited to hear that Republicans and Democrats from the Board of Education are coming together to advocate for increased funding.

The Leandro plan, their comprehensive remedial plan I think it's technically called now presents ways that that money should be spent.

You know, we talk a lot about salaries of teachers and we should and we should make increases there.

And a lot of what they're advocating for is school nurses to get to the national recommended average, counselors, social workers.

We were talking about, you know, our children post covid the increased needs that they have and a lot of what they're advocating for is to support those increased needs.

- Senator Sawyer, how do we add a spoonful of sugar to school funding and make Republicans not recoil it being told what to do by a court - You mean legislators don't like being told what to do?

I had no idea.

- I never met one .

- Something about that power play that always works around.

I started life in this political realm, advocating for public schools through a school bond referendum.

And that's how I became a North Carolina State Senator as a Republican in a Ruby Red County, advocating for more public ed.

But something else that I think is very missed by education leaders is that they should approach us about removing some of the hamstrings in how we fund public ed.

I think it's not necessarily as much about the money, or about the regulations, or the tools that we have, basically, hamstring these local LEAs on being able to manage their funds.

Sorry, you said, "Look like LEAs."

- I'm listening.

I'm listening.

- Yeah, she's right.

I mean, North Carolina has the most complicated school funding formula, and I think there's shared agreement that that's gotta be worked on.

And so I think that's how we really should approach a Republican General Assembly when it comes to public education.

We don't like regulations, but yet, when it comes to public school funding, we regulate just every piece of that because it feels like we're always shifting it.

What is Wake gonna do or what is Met gonna do, while the whole 100 counties suffer from those very political decisions.

- Why can't you two bring your caucuses in your respective chambers and go- - Let's do it, Becky.

- Okay.

That's it.

- We can agree on reducing regulation and giving more freedom to public schools because you don't have to be a genius or an education expert to see that the public schools have different rules and charters.

And private does it's whole innovative thing.

Donna?

- That's not what the Leandro Plan is actually.

So I think one thing we gotta point out is that if- - It's funding.

- Well one, funding certainly, but it is policy on social, academic, funding also.

And it's six, seven years old now.

In almost 1,000 pages, it mentions the internet twice.

So I think when you say adopt the Leandro Plan, there's a lot more to that statement than just increase funding.

And I think that we're thinking too small.

I think you really need to think bigger.

You need to talk about what can we do to completely change our education system?

The way it's funded, the way it's managed, the way parents and school boards.

We need to push more power down, give them more choice, incorporate what these parents are asking for in some of these school choice pollings.

- How do you not bog down the whole debate by talking the big dream?

- I don't think that's that hard.

- It's 29 years ago.

- No, well, I mean if you implement a six-year-old plan written by a private consulting firm in California, that is way different than letting parents and lawmakers from these areas completely change how this is structured, build in choice, and really have an honest conversation about how North Carolina's public school system came to be designed the way it is in the early 1900s.

That story is disturbing in itself.

So an honest conversation about what parents want, how it started, and how we can completely change how this is structured.

And one thing I do like about it, as a side note, is that this Board of Education recommendation acknowledges that the lawmakers, that the legislators make the decision about appropriations, not a judge.

- Joe, I had consensus.

I had consensus.

- The moment was there.

The moment was there.

- Solved, we had it.

No, but it's that strong of a topic, and people, like all of you who know this issue, boy.

- Well, the good news is no one's for ignorance.

I mean, it's not like there's another side to this.

Like stupidity has hired a lobbyist to come in and say, no, you shouldn't do anything with public education.

The truth is we all are in agreement.

It's about a workforce issue.

It's about making sure our young people are prepared for the jobs of the 21st century economy.

There's a lot of room for disagreement about the approach.

To some extent, and I've said this before, we have this sensitivity that public education is deeply rooted in the model that was established in the third century BC.

That we build a facility, and people come there and get taught.

It's a modern world, and there are lots of different ways to assure that we get the quality education for our young people that we want.

But you've seen here, there's a lot of commonality.

There's a lot of agreement.

I suspect, and this is not a realm that I spend a lot of time in, public education issues, but I do remember something my father said very poignantly, bold his entire adult life.

He said, "You can't knock down all 10 pins with the ball, but if you hit the right three in the right place, it takes out the other seven."

And so to some extent, I gotta imagine in public education issues, if you could address the things you can address, giving people more choices and to detangle the regulations that local school administrators are hamstrung by, you might see the quality of the instruction and the tenure of teachers and other things that are really important to the success in public education be accomplished because you'd gotten some of the underbrush out of the way of the forest.

- We've got about a minute, Donna.

Civitas did a poll, and they say the vast majority of parents in general, all the Democrats are supporting what's called School Choice.

Tell us about that?

Blend that into this.

- Absolutely.

Sure, sure.

So this week, of course, is National School Choice here, and across the country.

A poll of just North Carolina likely voters, which I believe means that they vote in primaries, vast majority of the time.

So those are influential, I think, voters to poll out of 1,000 of 'em, 82% believed the parent or guardian is the one who is best qualified to make a decision about where a child goes to school.

And that's critical 'cause right now, it's decided by an address, unless you're lucky enough to get into a magnet program or you can afford a private school or whatever.

So 82%.

So that's significant.

And when we talk about changing how our education system is structured, building in that parent choice is really important.

- Hurry up, I'm down to 15 seconds.

- All right.

70% support education savings accounts.

And a little more than 70, 60% support the idea of an opportunity scholarship.

So it's a popular issue.

- And you have the last word.

Thank all of you.

We should have gone another half hour, but we can't.

That's our show for this week.

Email us your thoughts, "State Lines" at pbsnc.org.

We'll see you next time.

[bright 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.