- [Kelly] State lawmakers pass a criminal justice reform package called Iryna's Law and Medicaid cuts are on the horizon as a deal to replenish Medicaid funding in our state stalls in Raleigh.

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.

[gentle music] ♪ - Welcome back to "State Lines", I'm Kelly McCullen.

Pull up a chair for the next half hour because joining us today, Dawn Vaughan of the "News & Observer".

WUNC Radio's Colin Campbell.

Former North Carolina State Senator and President of NC Capital Strategies, big title, Jim Perry back for another appearance.

And our good friend, former North Carolina State Senator and future who knows what, Mary Wills Bode.

Mary Wills, good to have you back.

- Thanks, thanks for having me back.

- Well, it's a good week to have you back 'cause we're gonna need your expertise and your analysis because North Carolina legislators convened this week to address some major issues, including passage of Iryna's Law, which is a criminal justice reform plan.

Cashless bail would be eliminated for many crimes.

Judges and magistrates would face new restrictions on setting pretrial release conditions.

More criminal suspects could be held for a few days for mental health evaluations.

And a late amendment to this bill seeks to restart and streamline executions in North Carolina that caused some Democrats to walk out.

But the bill passed both the House and Senate, Dawn, with what I counted as veto proof majority, so.

- Yes.

- Where do you wanna start on Iryna Zarutska's Law?

- Right, so Iryna Zarutska is the woman, you know, victim of fatal stabbing on Charlotte Light Rail in late August.

And I think, you know, it became a huge national story.

And so Senate Leader Phil Berger and House Speaker Destin Hall, before even this past week's session, had a press conference, told reporters that they were working on basically an omnibus crime bill with various things that they see as a way to prevent this in the future, or things that could have prevented it.

Of course, it's political, it's campaign season too.

Michael Whatley who is running for US Senate was at the same press conference, even though he is not a state lawmaker, you know, painting it as Democrat soft on crime policies.

But it got a lot of Democratic support until Berger introduced this amendment, which caused the group of Senate Democrats, some of them to, I mean, I'm sitting in the back of the Senate and then we hear excused absences for Senator Batch.

And then we're like, what's going on?

So the Senate was kind of quiet, you know, the debate, Senator Mohammed, you know, was unhappy about introducing the amendment because this had bipartisan support.

The House debate, as the House does, was much lengthier.

People were more upset, but also a lot of Democrats still voted for it.

- We'll dive a little deeper into the death penalty amendment.

Colin, this legislature can make deals and pass big bills seemingly when it wants to.

And Iryna's Law passed that bar.

They did get a lot done, it appears.

- Yeah, and it seems like this was the sort of thing that, you know, all the different solutions that were proposed by Republicans after this incident in Charlotte seemed to have gotten into this bill.

Everything from changing the rules for pretrial release, whether, you know, you get out on bail or not, whether you can get out just with a written promise to appear.

Additional prosecutors from the Charlotte area, some things related to involuntary commitment and mental health seemed to all be sort of rolled into this bill.

And then the main thing that became controversial was the piece with the death penalty.

If you'd taken that out, I think you would've had a very strong bipartisan vote in both chambers and it seemed to be where things were headed.

But now because you have that piece in there, it's much more of a partisan battle and it's something you're gonna see messaged in probably next year's election.

- Jim, when you're putting together a huge comprehensive bill like this is it split into parts where one part may- one group may handle magistrates, one may handle cashless bail, or do the top leaders get together and do this and then hand it down?

How does the process work when you're trying to cobble together so many pieces of legislation into one?

- Sure, so I think it's different for all pieces of legislation.

You know, you've got some folks who have been working on some of these issues for a number of years.

Danny Britt is always a go-to person in the Senate on any criminal justice reform changes.

Senator Brad Overcash has been joining in.

But I think Senator Berger made it very clear a few weeks ago that he was working on something related to this and working on something related to the death penalty.

It did not institute the death penalty in North Carolina.

We've had it for years.

We've had a defacto moratorium on there.

I think the last execution was probably when Governor Easley was in office.

And I think Governor Cooper was the Attorney General at that time.

But, you know, through a series of challenges and lawsuits, it's just been a little more difficult to move forward.

So this amendment said, "Hey, if there are problems with this, just find another way to implement it."

So it's not a new penalty.

- Mary Wills, the governor, a proud Democrat and a strong one at that, he seemed to be in alignment on many, many parts of this criminal justice reform bill.

What does that say?

Set aside, we'll get to the death penalties in our next little mini segment of this show.

But what does it say that they did come out with a bill that had bipartisan support to a large degree and the governor shaking his head like he could get along with a lot of this?

- Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, I think the governor said yesterday he's still reviewing it.

He's still gonna take the time to, you know, do research and think about whether he's gonna sign this bill into law or not.

But I think what we're seeing is there is a lot of bipartisan support.

We all wanna live in safe communities.

We all wanna address mental health issues in our criminal justice system.

And, you know, I am glad to see that we are coming together to address those issues.

I think there's been a lot of rhetoric to suggest otherwise with Democrats.

And the votes this week certainly do show that there is a lot of broad bipartisan support to really dig in and do the work to make sure that our communities are safe.

- Dawn, a few critics will say the bill does address holding people back, reviewing their mental health, giving them evaluation to see if they need to be held longer.

No funding for mental health, the critics are pointing that out very, very quickly.

Does it matter?

- I was actually thinking about the money aspect to this, and I think it's really a part of the reason it has all this support, is because it also addresses, you know, mental health, which Democrats will always bring up whenever there's some sort of crime bill too.

And, of course, Republicans as well.

But when reporters talked to Senate Leader Berger after session, I believe someone had brought that up about the funding and what if, or maybe it was Speaker Hall saying, like, "Well, what if there aren't enough beds?

And how do you handle that?"

And Berger said, "Well, we'll, you know, look at that down."

So, but, you know, we still don't have a big budget.

So you could add something in there that would give more funding for this.

Because if you tell somebody to do something, yes, they'll do it if it's the law, but they still needed the actual space and the beds and the staff and everything like that.

- I heard nothing about a state budget bill or anything else additional.

Another mini budget, I guess, sort of passed through.

So has this swamped the idea of a comprehensive budget being passed?

- For the moment.

I think there's still a possibility they could come back in October.

And certainly the Medicaid issue that we may talk about later on this show is gonna be something that they may try to resolve then with another mini budget.

But it does seem like the hopes for a broader budget compromise this season are just really kind of withering on the vine.

And certainly this sucked a lot of the energy outta the room to get this bill across the finish line.

- I don't think Senate Leader Berger and Speaker Hall have, like.

They're pretty, I feel like they're deep in their trenches and not wanting to move about, you know, taxes being the biggest thing.

- Jim, I wanna dive a little bit more deeply into the death penalty debate in this state, the Iryna's Law appeared to have broad bipartisan support, not just bipartisan support.

That was until Senate Republicans tacked on that amendment that would restart executions as well as explore multiple execution options to, Jim, you're right, they had announced weeks ago they'd seek a review of execution procedures with an eye towards restarting them.

The first version of Iryna's Law legislation Sunday night didn't contain anything about executions.

And then when it's added, Sydney Batch picks up the flag and a lot of Democrats walk out the door.

So, you're right, it was teed off a couple of weeks ago.

It was held back in the bill and then dropped as a, I won't say last minute, it implies sneakiness.

- And there was a small provision in the bill that dealt with the death penalty, but the larger effort to restart it was in this amendment.

- To use the right words, it just came out as an amendment on Monday when it could have been baked in two weeks ago.

What are the politics behind that?

- I can't speak to any particulars.

- But we want you to.

- I'm not sitting in the caucus, so I can't tell you that, but I do wanna point out a few things.

North Carolina's had the death penalty for many, many years.

The state took it from local governments in 1910.

They used to do executions locally, hangings, and, you know, and they continue.

The pause that happened, if we go back to 2006, was actually a concern from the medical community about doctors participating.

And they came up with rules that said, hey, if you do this, there's a chance we could take your license.

And that was challenged in court and was seen as exceeding their authority.

But while all this was going on, you know, we saw the Racial Justice Act in what, 2009?

It was repealed in '13, in 2015, they passed additional laws trying to get that corrected.

And then we had a court case in 2020, a Supreme Court case that indicated that those people who had been convicted when the Racial Justice Act was in effect, that that would still apply to them.

They could still have that challenge.

So you've got this backlog of over a hundred people on death row waiting for that.

But there have been attempts to free up that backlog and to know that that level of punishment was available in North Carolina.

It's been slowed over time.

This amendment did not quote, bring back the death penalty.

It's always been here.

It simply says, if fault is found with the way it's done in North Carolina, look to other states, see what they have done, and implement that.

Just go another route.

I've got the amendment with me.

That's what it says.

It's not an introduction of the death penalty.

Some people are very emotional about that topic, just like others that we face.

And then other people, and this is regardless of party, some are comfortable and think that, you know, that is certainly an appropriate level of punishment for certain offenses.

- Is this a Raleigh debate Mary Wills?

I don't hear many people out in the civilian world just going on and on around the coffee table about the death penalty, whether they oppose it or support it.

It's just, I have not heard it talked about very much except in Raleigh.

- Well, I think that, you know, the death penalty is the government exercising its most serious power, the power of life versus death.

And you know, I know that a lot of people feel like justice should move more quickly, but the reality of the situation is that the wheels of justice were designed to move slowly and methodically.

And so in order to prevent mistakes from being made, right?

And so when we put a shot clock on justice, when we say that the appellate process has to happen in a certain amount of time, we risk executing an innocent person.

And you can't undo that.

And so, you know, I think it does warrant a lot of time and consideration, and I think it is.

a very emotional topic.

And so, you know, to be caught by surprise is, you know, it kind of knocks you off your block a little bit.

And I think it is a subject matter that deserves a lot of conversation in the legislature and it warrants it.

- I think a lot of the concern about this was the way this opened up the door to other forms of execution, whether that be firing squad or bringing back the electric chair if lethal injections not available for one of the reasons that we mentioned.

And I think that created a lot of angst about how this was being brought back, even if it is, Senator Perry has said, like this has been in the law for a long, long time in North Carolina.

- Dawn, this is on the greatest hits album of state issues to debate the last 20 years.

- Yeah, and I think, I mean, it's obviously a political issue.

It's a religious issue for a lot of people too.

And it's the politics of putting the amendment in at the end, you know, if you look like there's support for a bill and there's one more thing you wanna do, run an amendment as a way to, you know, get it across the finish line.

Of course nothing's happened yet is the time, you know, that we're on now.

It's on Stein's desk.

- Yeah, he can, what, ignore it, it becomes law.

He can veto it and there'll be a veto overrun vote on- - Yeah.

And he will not say.

Several reporters have asked him, I think yesterday about it and- - They never say.

- Yeah.

- Such is the game.

Well, the State House and Senate have passed separate bills to address, I believe $319 million shortfall in North Carolina's Medicaid program.

Now, of course, by the way, we do business in our state.

There must be a unified negotiated final bill that will emerge, that did not happen this week.

So Medicaid officials say they'll start reducing reimbursement payments to doctors with higher percentage reductions for both hospitals and nursing homes.

The senate leaders, they're pairing Medicaid funding with funding for a planned state children's hospital.

State House leaders, Colin will not tie the hospital's construction funding to Medicaid.

So there you have it, cuts coming October 1st.

State lawmakers are not expected back until late October.

Is it all about the hospital?

- That seems to be the main sticking point here.

I mean, we're seeing similar issues with a lot of things related to budgets as you get these sort of bargaining chips, taking of hostages, and the process to try to take something like this Medicaid funding, which everybody, Democrat, Republican House Senate agrees, we need to do, we've gotta fund this program and this is the right dollar figure to put on it.

But the Senate sort of took that opportunity to say, well, we also need to get the funding moving for this children's hospital.

We've made some previous commitments on that front.

It needs to happen now.

And the House seems to be taking the approach of, well, maybe we don't need a standalone children's hospital built in Apex.

Maybe taxpayer dollars aren't the right solution for that.

So that seems to have sort of gummed up the works on this.

And as a result, you had two bills pas the house, both with the funding and the funding ain't coming, at least until late October.

And they've called on Stein's administration to slow it down, maybe delay another month.

And Stein has said pretty clearly, "No, we don't think we have the money to continue delaying this."

So what we're gonna see is a lot of potential ripple effects here.

You've got providers that they're worried may pull outta the Medicaid program 'cause what the doctors are being paid isn't enough to justify serving those patients.

Cuts for weight loss drugs that are pretty expensive starting October 1st, Medicaid recipients won't have access to those.

So pretty big effects from this fairly in the weeds funding dispute between the two chambers.

- Well, the hospital though, I mean, it's more than just the house not wanting it in their budget proposal.

It's, you know, Senate leader Berger saying, we had this deal in 2023 that's also tied to the tax fight.

It was, you know, what happened in 2023.

But Speaker Hall, when he was talking to reporters after their one day session said, not just that they don't necessarily want a children's hospital, they're talking about calling back the money.

So I think this is, I mean, that has a lot of repercussions for obviously everyone that's involved with that project and how this is going to play out.

Now with the Medicaid I think it's interesting, also with Hall calling out saying that, well, no, governor Stein and DHHS do have this money.

And so it's this battle of do you, does this deadline need to be October 1st or not?

And we've got a few days.

Council of State is on Tuesday, so I'm good, that's gonna be a really interesting meeting, I feel like, what is Governor Stein gonna say say then, or right as that deadline approaches, because they're not back till the 20th.

There's clearly not a deal.

The Senate does not want to run, you know, Medicaid as a separate bill like the house did.

- Jim, what do we keep hearing Senate leaders talk about?

Oh, we had a deal back two, three years ago.

There's a whole different leadership structure in the house, and if, you know your civics, a deal's a deal only in two year gaps at a time.

So why the nostalgia, you were there.

- Yeah.

- And you were there for that.

- Yeah.

I appreciate you giving me this question.

- Yes, that's fantastic.

- But why the nostalgia?

[people laughing] - My two friends over there with disagreements.

So I think a deal is a deal is a deal not just in two year increments.

I think in society we're accustomed to that.

So, and I will say this for Senator Berger, he is known for keeping his word, right.

You may not like every decision that he makes, but he is known for keeping his word.

So I understand that his core, why this bothers him.

I also understand with Speaker Hall his words that, hey, we are a new general assembly.

We're not bound by that one.

We have a different set of circumstances.

So I can understand my, my friends, their conflict, but like everyone else, I want them to be able to work it out.

We have a fantastic Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I think that Dr.

Sang VI is one of the most brilliant people I've ever met.

And I want him to be able to work with them to figure something out.

- Mary Wils, we wonder why people like you two retire from office.

This is a tough issue.

To his credit, Berger is expressing continuity and he gave a word to at least to Tim Moore.

I can see where there's a disagreement.

- Sure, I understand where the tension exists.

That's, this is just, they're gonna have to just work it out.

As Jim said, this is, you know, speaker Hall wanting to come in with a fresh set of eyes about what his vision is, and, you know, making that work with Senator Berger about what his vision is.

But the reality of the situation in North Carolina is that we have a $391 million shortfall.

And the way that Medicaid is funded, that means we will potentially miss out on $1.1 billion in federal money for those services.

And as Colin pointed out, that means a primary care physician could say in a place like Granville County, say, "I can't make ends meet serving Medicaid patients.

So you know, best of luck.

I wish you well.

You're gonna need to see some go and be seen by someone else."

And that person will likely go to the emergency room where the outcomes are worse, it's more expensive.

And it's very time consuming in that healthcare portal.

- I don't wanna wind you up on that, but I wanna ask you about Planned Parenthood.

- Oh boy.

- We're not talking about this bill could remove state funding, Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood.

And the reason being is the Trump administration allowed the end of federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

Take us on that 'cause that's not being discussed as much, but there are, there are stories about it.

- Sure.

It's the same thing.

It's, we are denying access to critical care, healthcare portals, portals for people.

Planned Parenthood provides critical healthcare for women in North Carolina, whether that be cancer screenings or prenatal healthcare or wellness checks or reproductive healthcare.

And so when we shut down a healthcare portal and make it unavailable to Medicaid recipients, that does not with it do away with the demand for those services.

And so people are now gonna have to go again to the emergency room where they can't be denied for if they're a Medicaid patient.

And that's just going to overwhelm an already very strained healthcare portal.

And so, you know, I was very disappointed to see this in the Senate's legislation.

I hope they will remove it.

I don't think it does right by women in North Carolina who are in desperate need of care.

Dawn, Amy Galey did say you can find these services with other medical providers, just not Planned Parenthood, which is a brand name well known to those who support as well as those who oppose it.

- Right, this is, I mean, you know, Galey's bill and she ran it and the House didn't take it up.

And I did notice that the Senate passed several bills and the House passed several bills and they only found compromise on one mini budget.

Even though the Senate ran several, there are law enforcement raises and Berger was the one who ran that.

So I think it was just the different priorities of people in each chamber, the political violence bill in the House.

Now, whether or not they just put it out there because it was important to them, or they think there's any chance of the other chamber taking it up, I don't know.

Maybe it's something they'll wheel and deal later, you know, when there's any other kind of legislation.

But I do think it would come up again.

Maybe an amendment or something.

- It's a stalemate on this Medicaid issue.

So Planned Parenthood is not defunded, is this virtue signaling by some senators who if they get it, they get it, and if they don't, we'll fight another session over it?

- Yeah, and I think where this issue is certainly gonna continue to come up, this is a pretty strong campaign issue for Republicans to say that taxpayer dollars, even for non abortion services, shouldn't be going to an organization like Planned Parenthood.

So we're gonna hear more talk of it.

I would be surprised if there's any strong opposition from House Republicans other than that they came to town this week and all had kind of separate agendas and the two chambers just don't seem to be talking much about, you know, what do we wanna get done on this two day session?

They just kind of pursue their own agendas and maybe they catch up to each other later down the road when they come back.

- Jim, this pushes a social cultural issue into the 2026 election cycle.

Congratulations to our lawmakers.

It will be, you know, it's coming back.

- Yeah.

First time ever.

So I can't believe something is coming up like this.

Listen, it, it is politics that is another one of those deeply held issues for some on both sides.

It's a emotional issue and certainly a political issue.

So no surprise it's going to come up.

And I'll just add that, you know, we do operate on a biennium, so there are plenty of time for many things to take place.

- Jim, we'll come back to you on this.

Likely our last topic on this show in late October, when lawmakers come back to Raleigh, the house leadership will have an option, at least to address Senate legislation that would increase penalties for politically motivated violence that the state Senator Todd Johnson's bill would allow prosecutors to seek enhanced penalties.

If a suspect's actions can be linked in any way to political motivation, that means their writings, any online posts, affiliations could be reviewed by prosecutors when charges are filed.

Convicted defendants could forfeit hope for any early parole if he could face higher felony charges with assassinations qualifying for the death penalty.

Jim, now we're slicing into the murder charges.

I never thought it got worse than first degree murder, but if it's first degree murder and it's politically motivated, somehow it's worse than a civilian death.

Is that- - That's my understanding of reviewing the bill that there are aggravating offenses that can be tacked on to it.

Listen, it's a big topic and it's one that I believe we have a great deal of agreement on.

You know, the majority of my friends who served today or have served everyone hit polls and said, "That's not okay."

And you leave it there.

No justifications, you don't go politicizing on the left or the right.

But I do think we have to do our part to tamp down some of this rhetoric and say, "Hey, you know what?

It's okay to be passionate.

It's okay to be emotional, but I don't care what your party is.

I don't care what you believe in.

That crosses a line."

I do wanna call out one of my former colleagues, Senator Jay Chaudhuri.

I saw a post he had made on LinkedIn and it wasn't about Democrats or Republicans, it was about hey, let's stop the madness and figure out how to tamp this down.

I thought it was very appropriate and notable.

- Mary, we all have 20 years of legislative coverage in certain various degrees.

I would say Democrats, Republicans have disagreed in this state wildly.

Even the folks that come to Raleigh to protest what you two have done in the past, I mean, they're beating on pots and pans, they're making noise, being a nuisance, but I've not felt a violent vibe about North Carolina, at least not yet, in its politics.

Am I reading that room correctly?

- I certainly hope so.

I mean, I think that, you know, as formerly elected officials, I think that, I don't mean to speak for you, but we certainly felt that pressure and I know that a lot of people were constantly looking over their shoulders.

And we don't want, I don't wanna live in a world like that.

I don't mean to speak for you guys, but I think that you don't wanna live in a world like that either.

And interestingly enough, Mitt Romney talked a lot in his book about what happens when political leaders feel like their physical harm is imminent.

And we're getting into a dangerous situation, and I think to Jim's point, we all have a responsibility to tone down the rhetoric and do a lot better.

- About 30 seconds for each of you.

From the Capitol Press Corps, you're in the middle of the same rooms with some unpopular politicians.

How does it affect you sitting there thinking about this?

- Well, sure, I mean, our physical safety is, you know, everyone's physical safety is at risk at some point.

And people have a choice to decide how you wanna talk about people you disagree with.

And everything that comes outta your mouth, if you're, you know, like, a massive national figure, state figure, local, you can decide how you wanna talk about other people.

And that's really obviously contributes to all of it.

And I think just what former Senator Perry was saying, that everybody has a responsibility.

- Final word to you, Colin.

Can politicians go after politically violent rhetoric and hold people accountable without sliding back into, "I just disagree with what you said, that's hateful?"

- Yeah, I think that's the challenge is how do you stop just blaming the other side for rhetoric, criticizing specific policy actions, and just say, you know, approaching it from the violence is a step too far, and we all have to sort of come together on that front because you get into dangerous territory where we're all in danger if this becomes the norm.

- That's our show.

Thank you so much, folks.

Great topics, heavy topic.

Jim, good to have you back.

- Thank you.

- We'll have you back again real soon.

Thank you.

Email your thoughts and opinions, statelines@pbsnc.org.

We look forward to seeing you next time.

I'm Kelly McCullen.

Thank you for watching.

[light 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.