To the Editor:

This fall's election will include six proposed amendments to the NC Constitution. All were drafted exclusively by the General Assembly without public hearings or debate. None of these amendments is needed, and all should be opposed by voters. 

Two amendments are designed to reduce the power of the governor and to shift appointment powers to the legislature. The first reduces the size of the Board of Ethics and Election Enforcement, and transfers appointment power from the governor to the legislature; the second removes the governor’s power to appoint judges to fill vacancies and effectively transfers that power to the legislature.

According to The Charlotte Observer, Sept. 5, 2018: "All five of NC’s living former governors unite against constitutional amendments.” 

“Don't hijack our constitution," said former Gov. Pat McCrory at a gathering of all five of North Carolina's living former governors. The group convened to warn voters about constitutional amendments that would shift power to the legislature.”

Another amendment is a continuation of the legislature’s efforts through regulations and what has now been determined by the courts as illegal partisan gerrymandering of voting districts: to suppress voting rights and reduce effectiveness of minority and urban voters. We are being asked to vote on an amendment to require photo ID for in person voting. And the regulations and specific language will only be written — by the legislature — if and when the amendment is approved! We don’t even know what is being proposed and how it will be implemented. It has been shown repeatedly that voter fraud is essentially non-existent, or is so small as to be irrelevant — but that voter ID regulations routinely have the greatest impact on those with the fewest advantages: people in lower income groups, urban environments and minority populations.  

One proposed amendment seeks to reduce the maximum income tax rate to 7 percent from the 10 percent it is today. This amendment will have absolutely no impact on anyone’s tax bill, since the rate currently is 5.499 percent. It only has the effect of tying the hands of policy makers in the future — and perhaps protecting the rich from a future progressive tax structure where rates might increase on the highest brackets of income. A reduction in maximum allowable tax is designed to have an emotional, populist appeal — but this addresses another non-existent problem and can only be viewed as a cynical way to get voters in the mode of approving amendments. 

A similar amendment addressing a non-issue is one “to protect the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife.” These are rights that already exist under North Carolina law and certainly don’t require a constitutional amendment. This can only be seen as a transparent effort to put an amendment on the ballot which will entice a “yes” vote — sort of like creating an amendment to protect the right to eat apple pie. This is not what the constitution, or the amendment process, is meant for, and should be rejected accordingly. 

The final proposed amendment is one to highlight, add to, or enumerate rights for victims of crime.  gain, most of what is called for are things that already exist, such as rights to be informed of judicial process; to consult with prosecutors, to be treated with respect, to be informed of judicial outcomes. In general, it is another “sounds like it might make sense” amendment, but far from what should actually rise to the level of requiring a change to the Constitution.

Thoughtful voters should oppose all six amendments. And we should expect the legislature to focus on building our state’s economy, protecting our environment and improving people’s lives — not pushing any measure they can think of to entrench power or cement partisan divides. The Constitution should not be a political football.  

Dan Chasins

Cashiers