[bright music] - [Kelly] The Riggs-Griffin State Supreme Court Race is over just as the 2026 State Supreme Court race gets underway.

And it's a legislative session full of gun law tweaks, including legislation that passed this week.

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.

- Welcome to "State Lines."

I'm Kelly McCullen.

Joining me today, great group of friends and colleagues, Dawn Vaughan of "The News & Observer" in seat one.

To her right, Orange County Representative, Allen Buansi.

Senator Ben Benton Sawrey of Johnston County and C3 and WUNC Radios.

Colin Campbell, fresh off a week at the General Assembly.

Good to see you, sir.

Good to see you, Representative, Senator.

- Good to see you.

- Are we ready?

A lot to talk about.

- Absolutely.

- Yeah.

- Hundreds of bills, I get to pick what, five or six and grill you on them.

We don't even start in the general assembly this week.

We start with the North Carolina Supreme Court race where Associate Justice Allison Riggs has officially won reelection.

Her 734 vote victory was confirmed after a federal judge ordered the State Board of Elections to certify this race.

Republican Challenger Jefferson Griffin conceded following that federal court order.

The ruling says state election laws can certainly be changed for future races, but seeking changes after an election and then targeting democratic counties, primarily unconstitutional, Dawn, and so with that, it's over.

- I guess so, yeah.

And I thought the timing was really interesting that Griffin decided to concede at 10:00 AM when the State Board of Elections meeting was starting, which is its own different drama that's playing out.

I think maybe we'll see some legislation around this somehow.

So it's over, the race is finally over, the issue, probably not.

- Representative Buansi, what do you make of this race?

I know Allison Riggs made, and Democrats made hay of it on social media, but there's a kitchen table issue.

The air seemed to come out of the balloon as month after month went by, and this wound its way through state and then federal court.

- Yes, well, this is a huge victory for the people of North Carolina.

I think it's vindication for just a lot of the blood, sweat and tears that went into the debate around this challenge.

I mean, to me, it's unfortunate that it took six months past the election to get this all sorted out, as well as millions of dollars.

But in the end, it's a celebration for the people in North Carolina to see that our election system was protected.

- Senator Sawrey, one noteworthy comment in that court ruling here, an attorney was, you know, the state can change its election laws going forward, but don't look backward and take otherwise what would be legal votes and find a reason to disqualify them when the voter didn't have, I guess, a fair chance.

Is that a good read of a federal court ruling?

And I think this was a Trump-appointed judge.

- I think so.

I think it was a three-judge panel.

There are two Trump-appointed judges on the panel at the federal level.

There's a federal precedent.

I think it's the personnel principle that talks about changes with respect to elections as you get close to an election.

I think Dawn mentioned changes of legislation.

I'm not sure that there's really legislation that's needed to fix this or not.

But what I have confidence in is we have a new state board of elections in North Carolina.

We have a new director.

I think the state courts acknowledged there were issues with the registration process in the past.

It's been known.

It's been litigated.

Nothing was done about it.

And certainly, the court made a decision.

They ruled Judge Griffin's concession was very gracious, graceful.

He was certainly entitled to pursue his rights and remedies, and the rule of law has prevailed in this case and an order was entered.

But yes, we need to make sure there's consistency with respect to the registration process, what's being communicated to the voters.

I have every confidence the new State Board of Elections is going to do that.

The new Director Sam Hayes, he's gonna do a great job.

He's well-respected, well-versed in election law.

Auditor Boliek has things under control I think with the State Board of Elections.

So we should not see a circumstance like this again in the future.

If there is a need for legislation, I'm sure we'll take a look at it.

But right now with a new administration in place, I'm confident that future elections will be without this confusion and controversy.

- So Justice Riggs takes her seat and then the new Board of elections takes its majority seat now under new leadership.

Does this stay a Raleigh issue or does it get out to the ordinary kitchen table of a North Carolina family?

- You know, I think that's the question because people have some level of fatigue on this issue.

We've been talking about it for months.

People are probably glad it's over one way or the other.

But as Senator Sawrey mentioned, the issues around exactly how you administer elections on this level, what do you do about photo IDs for overseas military voters?

What do you do about people who are registered to vote here but maybe they never lived in North Carolina?

Those are all things that the new State Board of Elections will grapple with.

Obviously Republicans in the Legislature weren't happy with how the Democratic majority on that board dealt with those issues last year.

We can sort of expect the Republican majority is now maybe gonna go a different direction and we'll see some agreement on those issues before the next election.

But these are all kinda down-in-the-weeds aspects of election administration.

I'm not sure the broader public's gonna pay that close of attention.

- They might notice the partisan factor I guess because Karen Brinson-Bell, the Board of Elections Director, lost her job and the person with the new job, Sam Hayes, was General Counsel for Republican House Speaker Destin Hall and worked for former Speaker Moore before that.

So people might want to know why that there are political parties attached to some of these roles and of course, the balance of the Board was majority Democrat, now it's majority Republican.

They may not have even known that there is a partisan aspect to who controls elections.

- Why would it be a partisan issue now?

It was a Democratic majority, it was a partisan board then.

- Right, exactly.

- As I pointed out earlier this week.

- Just people talking about it, like I don't know how much the average person thinks about, "Oh, I wonder who's on my State Board of Elections?"

But it certainly has shined a much brighter light on that.

- Yeah, we still have a system where one party controls the majority of the refs for an election and then there's no representation from unaffiliated voters, third parties that are I think are what, 38% of the electorate now?

So it's probably not a great system either way you stack it, the way it was before this month, the way it is now.

- Representative Watson.

- Yeah, one quick word I'll say about the State Board of Elections.

This is something that has been working for North Carolina for many years when it was under the Governor's Office.

So my attitude is don't fix something if it's not broken and in this case, I think this was an exercise in doing just that.

Now I will say about, going back to the Supreme Court race, that challenge that we saw from Griffin was unprecedented and I don't want that to be understated because that election was decided in accordance with the laws that were in place at the time and the fact that we had voters who were questioned, especially our uniformed voters overseas, that's very troubling.

So I hope that moving forward, we can trust our elections process.

It's not unusual in North Carolina to have races this close.

We've had Supreme Court races decided- - Like you said, if it's not broke, why change it?

That's a great question.

Some Republicans thought it was broken.

- Well, you've seen examples of partisan decisions coming out of the State Board of Elections over the past five years even.

You saw during the COVID election process the settlements that were occurring behind closed doors that might have been in contradiction with North Carolina state law.

What power did they have to make those agreements?

Those were very partisan decisions that were being made.

You saw I believe it was the 2022 election with the decision with respect to Senator Bobby Hanig's challenger in that race.

You know, a unanimous decision in one county had deemed her ineligible to run for that seat, and the State Board of Elections reverses that decision in what I thought was a questionable move.

So there are instances where the State Board of Elections has engaged in a very partisan decision-making process.

I'm confident that's gonna change.

It needs to change because voters in North Carolina need to have confidence in the election outcomes.

- All right, and how many attorneys are working for the speaker in the Senate pro tempore?

There's like a never-ending stream of someone to plug into a leadership position in the state.

Any comment on that?

But they do put 'em in there.

But you know what?

It isn't over, 'cause attention now turns to the '26 State Supreme Court race.

It may be hotter than the '24 race.

Anita Earls will be seeking reelection, and State Representative Sarah Stevens of Surry County says she's running in the Republican primary for that Earl seat.

Stevens was first elected in 2009.

She currently chairs North Carolina House's Judiciary II and Elections Law Committees, and Jefferson Griffin is floating out there now as an aggrieved GOP candidate, Colin.

Now, this is the, Riggs-Griffin was interesting.

This could be a whole different scale when you throw in the Nickel-Tillis-Cooper race.

- Yeah, the Senate race is gonna come into this.

I mean, those will be the two things we're watching into next year is the State Supreme Court race and the US Senate race, and both are gonna have a lot of money, a lot of spending, and a lot of interest from candidates.

Certainly, Anita Earls is one of the more left-leaning members of the court and has been since she's been on there, previously worked for Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

So lots of attack ads coming her way, no matter who the Republican candidate is.

Sarah Stevens, who, fairly prominent as a state lawmaker, now in that race.

You know, if Griffin had conceded right after the election, only lost by 700 votes, I think he might be a likely contender for Republicans to have another go at it.

Given all the publicity this has gotten, I think he may be seen as damaged goods and Republicans may want somebody who hasn't been embroiled in this election saga to be their standard-bearer.

Regardless of what happens, the Supreme Court majority is not gonna change next year.

It's gonna be 2028 before Democrats could conceivably take back majority, but certainly they want to keep the seats they've got right now, which is only two seats.

- Senator, I've talked to some prominent GOP campaign consultants.

They don't believe Jefferson Griffin's damaged goods at all, even though he fought this fight and ultimately conceded.

Is he ripe to come back against Sarah Stevens?

I mean, she's a 15, 16-year legislator.

- Sure.

- Look, Jefferson's a great judge.

I think he'd be an excellent candidate in 2026 and that's what he wants to do.

He's had a very long, difficult election, so I think he's entitled to take some time and make up his mind with how he wants to proceed forward.

Sarah Stevens would be and is a great candidate for this particular seat though.

I've known Sarah during my time in the General Assembly.

She's a hard worker.

She's been a lawyer for 40 years.

She's litigated cases.

She's made laws.

She understands the difference between what the General Assembly's role is and what the court's role is.

I know that she has been courted by people around the state for this particular seat, and I think that she's the right person to go after and run against Anita Earls in this particular case.

I mean, Anita Earls, I mean, she's run maybe one, two campaigns.

Sarah Stevens has been on the ballot for, you know, almost two decades at this point.

She is a shrewd campaigner.

She knows how to raise money and she's got connections state-wide.

I would not write her off in 2026.

I think she's got a great shot to take that seat from Justice Earls.

- Representative Buansi, let's talk about Anita Earls.

This may be the race where judicial candidates can literally take the gloves off, quit faking like there's some sort of non-partisanship.

She's out there touring with Anderson Clayton of the Democratic Party, doing town halls, giving these town halls.

If that's not a campaign event, I don't know what you call it, community events.

So, with this race coming up, how does she compare with anyone the GOP might throw her way for reelection?

- Yeah.

Well, I mean, '26 is a big year.

I do think that Justice Earls, she does provide balance, and, you know, on a Supreme Court bench that, right now, only has two Democrats, we are badly in need of balance.

I've known her to be someone who's fair-minded, open-minded, and just a fair arbiter of the law.

- What do you make of her activities on social media, things that the GOP find is red meat to go after her in a general election?

- Well, I think one thing that we need more of is, you know, more accessibility to voters.

So, I mean, her getting out there, that's good, because voters need to be able to see, hear from their electeds, even our Supreme Court justices.

I think that's the way that you just let voters know that you're one, a real person, but then two, that you're responsive to whatever their concerns may be on both ends of the spectrum.

And so that's what she's out there doing.

She's answering questions, she's addressing concerns from folks of all different political stripes.

- Earls has, you know, more name recognition, of course, you know, the incumbent, and she's been out there longer.

Stevens maybe in the general assembly bubble, in her own district, Stevens did have a leadership role in the Republican House caucus.

She was speaker.

For a time, the caucus chose not to have her in that position again.

It sets her, so she would have, you know, more of an uphill battle to get her name out there.

- And election law will be part of it.

They're both steeped in election law, at least from a policy perspective.

So it could be a, I won't say a fun race.

It could be a grueling race, an exhausting race, and give you a reason to hang around journalism for another couple of years.

[panelists laughs] - We still don't even know like the official candidates in the U.S. Senate race, so we'll see what that ends up.

That'll have a lot of money involved- - The US Senate race, and I'm worried about the Supreme Court right now.

We know Tillis is in, or he's at least running for re-election.

Look at the primary.

All right, State House, you passed a bill this week that could change graduation requirements for high school math.

The house proposes allowing students to replace one of four math credits with a possible computer science credit, and then it would require the UNC system to accept those new high school math standards.

Supporters say our students should be studying the courses they truly need to help them launch and keep a career that may not be higher level courses.

Democrats say the GOP might be dumbing down math in high school.

The courses that stand to be affected could be pre-calculus and advanced algebra.

Here's some debate.

- We are lowering now the standards for students in North Carolina, and we're requiring our UNC system to lower its standards.

That is not the pathway that I think we should be going down.

I mean, lowering our standards for math and then requiring our wonderful UNC system to lower their standards does not seem to be the way that we should be going.

- In working with the UNC Board of Governors, the design would be that the UNC system would, and I certainly will push back on the fact that we're lowering the standards.

I'd say what we're doing is getting more realistic about where we are in the world today and not continuing down a failing mechanism that is not working for our students.

When 70% of our students in high school are not on grade level for math, one, 70%.

- Representative Buansi, this is one of those issues, if I listen to one side, I can shake my head, and listen to the other side, I can shake my head yes as well.

So are students, in some way, studying courses in math and science and other areas that might be not within alignment with where that student's headed for a career?

- It may not be in alignment, but that's all right.

I mean, the fact is, in terms of the math three requirement, this is something that all UNC system colleges and universities require as part of a minimum standard for admission, as well as a lot of colleges and universities in surrounding states.

And so, you know, the way I see it, everything that we study is not gonna directly lead to a certain career.

Now, there's a lot of value in being well-rounded.

I'm a former high school football coach.

I'm not the greatest at math, [chuckles] but I will say that math is a big part of making sure that our student athletes are well-rounded, making sure that after college or after high school, whatever career they might pursue, that they have some, you know, basic skills, basic knowhow, whether it's math, whether it's reading English, science.

They need that, and the other thing I'll just say about that bill too is that the effective date on it is for the next school year.

Now there are some schools that start in July.

What that means for them, I mean, do they have to hire different teachers to accommodate the new requirements of that bill?

Especially with swapping out math three for computer science.

Does that mean they have to let go of folks?

I mean... - That's a, it's not, it's not law yet.

So I mean, it could be slowed down greatly, you know?

So.

- But that's currently written.

I mean, people would've to make some hard decisions pretty soon.

- Senator, sorry.

Why not just add computer science and leave math alone?

I got that question at home.

As a matter of fact.

Why, why mess with the math?

Let 'em take the math and just say you're gonna take a computer class.

I took typing back in the day.

- Sure.

- Pete's sake.

- I mean, there's a finite amount of time during the day.

I mean, the, the curriculum is rigid.

It's very structured.

I give Representative Willis and the, the other bill sponsors in the house a lot of credit for this.

It's a very forward thinking bill.

You know, before coming on the show, I hopped onto a generative AI program and asked the question of how many jobs by 2050 will require computer science or artificial intelligence training.

And they suggested that 60% of jobs in the US labor market will be impacted and require some type of knowledge of prompt generation or computer science.

You know, it's 2025.

We've got to be forward thinking about this so we can continue to prepare our students to be in the workforce.

Artificial intelligence is here, our students are using it.

We need to make sure that they're trained and understand how to do so responsibly and ethically.

If they want to pursue more math, they certainly can.

We're giving them an option to do so.

But if the, the students gonna graduate, maybe go on to a two year trade school or go into the, the labor force immediately after it makes sense for them to have some training in artificial intelligence and computer science because it's going to impact so many jobs in North Carolina by the time they're reaching the peak of their career.

- The line is graying with educational policy, 'cause there's bills coming from Republicans that I would say 10 years ago Democrats would write off outright.

Now it's sort of, well, we don't know if we like it, but let's talk about it.

This is one of those cases where, you know, radio and TV guys don't need advanced calculus.

Let's just do it that way.

- It's probably very useless to my current job, but- - I can relate to, I can relate to someone saying, Kelly, you sure you wanna do calculus?

You're gonna go into radio.

And so what do you make of this bill?

I mean, it's, you got a kid, you know.

- Yeah I mean it seems like on some level it makes sense, but I understand sort of the arguments against it that, you know, the colleges have, and universities have these admission standards and a lot of students in North Carolina are looking at colleges and universities all across the country.

And if the curriculum here doesn't match what the colleges are looking for, does that create some kind of disadvantage?

I mean, we're sort of at the stage where our country needs a broader look at, you know, how do we approach high school education?

What classes do you really need?

I think maybe personal finance might be more useful to people than calculus.

In a lot of ways computer science might be more useful, but when you do it state by state, then it's a little bit hard to sort of make sure the colleges, universities in line in terms of what they look for, what they want from students who are looking for admission once they graduate.

- Don, lots of policy and bills are out there, but when it comes down to making it, making a bill a law that fundamentally changes public education, it gets tough at that point.

- Well, my hair's perked up during this debate because I'm a parent of a high schooler.

- That's right.

- And I, it probably wouldn't impact, you know, well he's still in high school, but, and he's in pre-calculus.

And one thing I learned as as a parent is that you can't fit in all the classes you wanna take and when something's an elective.

I honestly was surprised that physics is an elective in high school.

Not required.

I'm a product of Virginia schools.

I'm glad I took physics.

I, I don't know if I use it now.

You know, I mean, when you are a teenager, you don't know what you're gonna do the rest of your life.

I wasn't thinking in, in trigonometry class that I would, you know, write about the budget decades later, but, and I don't remember anything from trig either, but, you know, it's that foundation there.

You don't know what the rest of your life is gonna be.

So I think that should factor in when you're thinking about, you know, what do we want our state's high schoolers to take away, whether they pursue that in higher education or not.

- If Republicans pass the bill to say Republicans are gonna push this bill through, if it happens, can our schools pivot that quickly, add that computer science teacher?

Or are they already existing on campus ready to engage?

- Well, I think that they're there.

We're already talking about it.

We've had this conversation in past sessions.

I think most school systems are looking at computer science courses, and we can certainly pivot.

I mean, we have the tools and the resources to do so in North Carolina.

The curriculum is there, and our university programs are already looking at ways to implement this statewide and across the country.

- All right, I got two more topics.

I don't know if we'll get to both of them, but one of your favorite, Senator Sawrey, talk about gun bills.

I mean, I know, we talk about issues we talk about quite often.

Well, why is that?

Because lawmakers partially address bills addressing gun ownership again this week following a trend of addressing gun laws earlier this legislative session.

So they don't go away.

The House approved legislation that could create a concealed carry permit for a lifetime.

The Senate has already passed bills to remove concealed carry permitting, and House Speaker Dustin Hall says his chamber could address that constitutional carry bill.

The House and Senate have passed separate bills that could allow private school teachers and volunteers to carry weapons on private school campuses under certain circumstances.

It does seem that...

I'm looking at this philosophically at this point, not analyzing any one bill.

Whether you hate Donald Trump or love Donald Trump, he did say, "One big, beautiful bill.

Wrap it all up."

Why do gun laws always seem to elude a big, beautiful bill in favor of small incremental steps, either towards regulating or deregulating gun ownership?

- Great question.

I think though they're much different policy topics, right?

I mean, constitutional carry, doing away with the concealed carry permit, is a very different issue.

I mean, you see the bill.

It's a large bill.

It has a lot of provisions in it.

Senator Jarvis's bill on private school security, very different topic of conversation that deals with schools on church grounds and the loophole there.

I think you have different coalitions of people that are interested in pushing these various things.

I think you also have some just different members have different ideas about how to advance Second Amendment protections and rights in North Carolina.

We made a major step last session with doing away with the pistol purchase permit, which had a checkered past history in North Carolina.

I still think you see some of that with concealed carry permit in North Carolina.

I'll be interested to see what the House does with our bill.

I do think there's a lot of motivation to take a look at this private school security issue.

There are 31 other states, I believe, that have done this.

We took a look at it with some of the care facilities where churches on the grounds last session.

This further addresses that loophole and is really a security issue for our schools in North Carolina.

- Very short.

As a person who is a senator, you know, you're on the show, and it seems a gun bill always comes up.

That's why I was joking about that.

There's other things you'd love to talk about.

Is there a point when certain issues do overshadow the greater agenda where, yeah, we need to address those bills piecemeal, but media folks like me go for the, we go for that sizzle, not the steak.

- Yeah, no, look, I'd much rather you talk about the SCRIPT act or the HOA Revision Act or something, you know, the sub-basin transfer bill.

When you look at polls, very few people are undecided or have a unknown about a Second Amendment bill or a gun bill or however you wanna frame the topic.

It's similar to, I mean, other hot button social issues.

So it's something that's gonna stay at the forefront.

I think that attention drives a lot of the drafting and some of the legislative process too.

But, you know, as people that are looking at what the general assembly is doing, the vast majority of what we do, these big substantive issues that don't ever seem to make the news from time to time.

- They sure don't.

Representative Buansi, what do you make of the piecemeal gun bills?

Gun ownership is popular, Second Amendment, just varying degrees of how we regulate.

- Yeah, so, well there's a big bill that we debated and passed the House this week, a bill to essentially create lifetime concealed permit caries.

And it's the kind of bill that really concerns me, especially as someone who really cares deeply and truly for public safety.

Essentially, in my opinion, the bill is not a good check on folks.

I mean, yes, there's the second amendment right to own guns and certainly the vast majority of folks who own guns are law abiding good people.

But you know, some of the folks or maybe even one person that slips through the cracks, who has that lifetime concealed carry permit who maybe has developed some kind of mental health impairment that impairs their decision making.

The bill doesn't address that.

And so I'm just really concerned about us loosening reasonable regulations that are designed to make sure that folks are responsible in carrying out that right.

And unfortunately that bill did pass.

I don't know what chances it has on the Senate side, but we need to be about the business of making sure that we're keeping our community safe with measures like concealed carry permits.

- Dawn, times' running out though a lot of these bills come out.

Some of them, you wonder, is it meant to pass or is it meant to just throw some red meat to a base voting group?

- Sure.

- They want to see some gun law action.

- Yeah, I mean I think the Republican base expects there not to be any increase in gun regulations, but I think the debate between Democrats and Republicans, Democrat lawmakers get up there and they're gun owners.

They talk about, you know what polling shows about people wanting, you know, reasonable protections.

America's a violent country.

Guns are a topic that's never gonna go away.

- Last word to you, you got about 20 seconds.

- Yeah, so I think the final word this may come to down to what the sheriffs think about this, whether it's the Senate bill to completely repeal it, the house bill to create a lifetime permit.

Law enforcement is what I think lawmakers will really look towards is what the final decision is on this issue before we get to end the session.

- A lot of these bills will be into the next year's legislative session.

'Cause you just had to pass one chamber this week and you can survive for the next year and a half.

Folks, thank you so much for being on the show.

Always good to have you representative.

Great to have you back.

Always good to see you, Senator Sari.

Colin, thank you so much for your analysis and your expert and experienced insight Dawn.

But more importantly, thank you for watching us here at State Lines.

If you have any thoughts about what we've discussed, email us Statelines@pbsnc.org is the email address.

I'm Kelly McCullen, thanks for watching and I'll see you next time.

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