Carolina Journal Radio No. 759: Medicaid program remaining within budget as changes approach

From Cherokee to current attack and the largest city to the smallest and from the statehouse into the schoolhouse Carolina Journal radio your weekly news magazine discussing North Carolina's most of public policy events and issues welcome to Carolina Journal radio why Michiko got during the next hour Donna Martinez that I will explore some major issues affecting our state. The trump administration is pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement is also dumped the so-called clean power plan but will check with the climate expert who says there's no reason to worry. It's no shock when Democrats complain about the way Republicans run the North Carolina Gen. assembly will highlight one instance in which the complaint is spot on target get a college campus have both free-speech and safe spaces. Wake Forest University professor says yes, you'll hear his explanation will talk about the two known candidates for North Carolina's 2018 state Supreme Court election.

Those topics are just ahead. First, Donna Martinez joins us with the Carolina Journal headline Medicaid accounts for 16% of spending and North Carolina's general operating budget for behemoth program which is a joint program of the federal government and the states will cost North Carolina taxpayers roughly $3.7 billion for the 20 1718 fiscal year in mid-November, we learned that the Medicaid system in our state.

Once notorious for running over budget will now be staying with in its budget and doing it for the fourth year in a row, and way is associate editor of Carolina Journal he covers healthcare for the paper and that website and he joins us now to talk about this newsstand. Welcome back, considering the history of Medicaid in North Carolina for years and years and years up until recently this really is amazing will really is when the McCrory ministration first took office. They held a press conference almost immediately describing the travails of the system. It was $2 billion underfunded for about four years running the contracts of people can account for those lax administrative oversight. It was just totally chaotic and there's been a very systematic approach.

Since that time with the Republican-controlled legislature to rain.

That in and make it more accountable now, even though it will be with in the budget for another year. This program actually is growing. Why is that was always going on in the states growing populations growing is just part is just natural.

Some of his programmatic sometimes the legislature to weeks different programs that will allow more people to gain coverage, but interestingly also noted that 26 counties have not increased enrollment growth in recent past really so thinking there might be that the economy is improving. Jobs are more available people working now and don't require the social safety net gets me to my next question help us understand Medicaid. Really, what's the profile of the person who is covered by Medicaid with a range of programs or range of people who are covered so it's basically you think of it as poor age, blind, and disabled children, single mothers I mentioned at the top Dan that it's going to cost North Carolina taxpayers $3.7 billion for the current fiscal year, the feds provide money for this as well. So this is a much larger more expensive program than even that right federal program I believe contributes about 60% of the total spending so much more than what the state provides to this is a huge number of people doing sensitive about how many people in North Carolina are covered by the yes we do. In fact, is this growing last year was about 1.9 million.1.9 million people, and this year it's slightly over 2,000,003 little over 3% increase in the enrollment.

Considering that we have about 10 million people are selling a state that is a huge number very very covered by the program so the budget is essentially stabilized even of the program is growing in predictability folks have always said that was an important factor for this so that seems to be relatively under control but there are changes coming to this program. Dan even writing about them.

A Carolina Journal.com. Let's talk first about what's known as integrated care what's happening with what services are presently administered. You have two different systems one that works for physical care persons bodily issues is behavioral healthcare, mental illness, substance abuse, things of those major operate under two separate systems. Also, you have all your patient services and services, but no administration and so forth have two different systems. So under integrated care they will put those two systems under one umbrella so that the person gets complete tear Comprehensive Care and the physician will know better how to address the whole person rather than having people in different areas intentionally to sets treatment. Doctors and nurses etc. not really knowing specifically what the other group is doing right.

So when you look integrated care may be of physical issues are associated with mental health and vice versa. That won't get necessarily address if you have two separate systems.

So when it goes under one roof. The doctors will know the whole history of the person and how best to treat them fiscally tentatively know if I going to integrated care will have any ramifications for the budget or do they think maybe that saves the money at all or is it strictly about just trying to have a better care, better outcome for the patient will surely live better care and better outcomes that should save money and of itself because they are accessing care less, presumably right so so this whole switch moving into managed care whole notion of that is for better outcomes. Right now we have a fee for service system which pays providers for every visit every procedure, every prescription and I can be very costly so switching to managed-care they will instead have a capitated rate which means there is a ceiling on an physician or the provider group will get a set amount flat fee every month. They will have to find a way to provide all the services and then they will be judged on whether or not the outcomes are better so that in itself is a driver for moving costs down, and that is a big change. In fact, among the members of the legislature. They're not monolithic on and what they think about that some people think it's a good idea Sam don't help us understand what some of the conversation is among those legislators will still lose the discussion about whether or not to move the managed-care because that will have people.

The people who would deliver no services generally will be big insurance companies corporate entities and so some people don't like that notion. They think that the for-profit entry into the healthcare market is not a good idea. On the other side. People say look, we been doing is public stuff forever costs are not coming down things are improving. So we moved to this other system will have more control there will be metrics put in place guidelines of people have to meet, so though have to be on the call Smith or not it's a competitive bidding process for those people who get the contract with the statement for not meeting the demands put forth in the risk losing the contract. The next year and frankly, patients will complain if they feel like they are getting the care that they believe that they deserve you going going to the doctor so that in and of itself could come a key factor whether patients are satisfied with due process rights was all patient driven as the whole reason for this change over Dan with these changes, both going to integrated care and moving to managed-care versus fee-for-service kind of timing are we talking about this and and in the legislature simply just make the decision to do this. Are there other entities since Medicaid is a federal state program know they can just make the decision, nor can DHHS make the decision, which is the Health and Human Services the first so they will be submitting a waiver application to the federal government with the next few weeks. Hopefully they're looking at getting that approved by February, after which time they will put out request for proposals from the different entities. It would implement these broad networks and possibly by sometime in 2019 2019 launched the program so the first step, though, is getting that approval of a waiver from the federal government to make these changes at the state that's right, and all indications are this point that the feds are looking very favorably on the plan while it is a fascinating story and infects every North Carolinian because taxpayers have a huge investment time in this and of course the patients do as well.

Dan way is covering healthcare for Carolina Journal.com. And of course in the monthly print edition as well. Thinking is much more Carolina Journal radio to come in just a moment government plays a key role in your life affecting your paycheck the way you educate your kids the way you do business. How can you tell if government is doing a good job making the right choices. Spending tax dollars wisely. Carolina Journal.com tackles those questions every day. The John Locke foundation publishes Carolina Journal imprint each month and on the web each day at Carolina. Journal.com you'll find exclusive investigative reports on topics.

No one else is covering what else a rundown of the best new stories, editorials and opinion columns in North Carolina. John Hood's daily Journal news stories and important public events@carolinajournal.tv and the voices of the newsmakers themselves at Carolina Journal radio imprint on the air and on the web. You can find the information you need@carolinajournal.com welcome back to Carolina Journal radio I Michiko got the truck administration pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement trumps Environmental Protection Agency has nixed the clean power plan which was sold as a way to help address climate change.

So with those major changes in policy as the world now on its way to overheating. Joining us to help answer the question is Dr. Patrick Michaels. He's director of the Center for the study of science at the Cato Institute is also a climatologist and the author of Luke warming the new climate science that changes everything.

Welcome back to the program answer to you is that the world is on its way to Luke warming is what is been doing for quite some time, which means it's not warming up. We hear quite a bit about the dangers of climate change in the if the truck administration makes these changes were going to be setting ourselves up for all kinds of problems of the future is any truth that the well you can use the EPA's own model called the model for the assessment of greenhouse gas induced climate change.

If the listeners are really clever, though realize the acronym for the model is magic you use the magic model to see how much warming would be prevented if the United States dropped its emissions to zero and kept them there until the year 2100. It's about 2 to 3/10 of a degree Celsius that assumes an expected warming of over 3� that's wrong. It's not can warm up that much because it's just not warming up that much. So the United States yeah were contributor, but on the on the flip side of this, absent any real attempt to reduce greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide. What nation on earth has reduced its emissions more than any other I think I have a guess, but I will let you answer the good old USA maps because we been substituting natural gas or coal for power generation after gases now much more efficient with regard to the cost of power generation, and it produces about half as much carbon dioxide per unit energy to get out of it. What's not to like in these changes were not necessarily made because of any desire to reduce emissions. Well, there may because of the desire for good old profit you can produce power cheaper. You can produce power cleaner. You don't have to to scrub out sulfate and nitrogen oxides out of the plant.

Because natural gas doesn't burn to that coal has always residuals unit so yeah it's just people wanted outcompete other people in the power market. So the changes in policy that been put in place since the Donald Trump entered the White House will have no noticeable impact on the climate. Paris would've had no noticeable impact.

Anyway, if every country on earth does what they say they were going to do with Paris, and assuming more warming is forecasting is actually going to happen. The Paris agreement with save around 2/10 of a degree. See if warming globally. That's it. It doesn't do anything.

And everybody knows it and the only reason the Paris supporters claim that it would reduce emissions so much as they erroneously blame every last bit of warming since the Industrial Revolution. Human beings. Everyone who studied this knows that's not so. That way they get an inflated savings figure. But really, the fact of the matter is have one ball that much. We are chatting with Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute also the author of Luke warming the new climate science that changes everything. So we continue to hear despite what you're just saying that global warming or climate change. Whichever term is used is this long-term problem and we're just avoiding dealing with it in the United States is is part of the problem what your response would people continue to make such a big deal about this last scientific paper I presented, which was last month of air and waste management Association. I showed that because we are going to be exporting so much natural gas and because countries in which the error is really dirty, like China are becoming affluent and as they become affluent the people demand environmental protection what's going to happen is earth to be a large switch away from coal for power generation globally and you start adding up all the numbers you realize that by the year 2100. We are going to warm less then the Paris agreement would allow other words, were going to meet the Paris agreement with or without the Paris agreement and Donald Trump was perfectly right in saying bad deal for the United States.

After all, were reducing our missions anyway and we want to export this technology to the world is good for us in these changes you're alluding to our happening because of economic changes and not because of government mandate absolutely, and I will tell you the I keep on hearing these arguments that go solar and wind are as cheap as fossil power while they're not. If they were people would be closing fossil power plants and putting in on dependable weekend wind doesn't blow all the time.

There some places were when power is good like North Texas were all time on the sun doesn't shine all the time so that power plants not to be real efficient either point of the matter is if it work capable of competing with these other large dent sources. It would be doing it and it would be doing it without a push from the taxpayers. One thing we often hear is about the consensus among scientists about global warming.

You are a scientist and in fact a climatologist� Just a scientist, but someone who actually has worked on these issues.

What, if anything, is the real consensus about what's happening all this is a great story.

I hope we have enough time for this. It has been revealed that the climate models are all to know was made to mimic the climate of the 20th century this was that this was not general knowledge. It came out in science magazine I guess.

About nine or 10 months ago in a big paper came out talking about model tuning of that we don't even know what's been done to the models because the graduate students work on these things don't take notes but we do know this models are tuned to achieve what is called in his landmark paper and anticipated acceptable range of change. In other words, it's not the objective model that makes the forecast for global warming. It's the subjective modeler who decides what's right. Go figure. Based the world's energy policy based people's lives on that. I hope not. And so these are people who basically have have a reason to want to see some global warming who are building this into the model.

Of course, the problem is if the first model group ever says it's going to warm 3� and they have a lot of prestige.

Nobody can come out with a model says it's only the warm 1�. Oh by the way, there are 105 climate models in the UN's latest report and audit for our wrong. One of them is got it right and it doesn't show very much warming at all and you tell the special prosecutor because it's the Russian model. Oh, and some sort of Russian collusion. So, in the brief amount of time that we have left if people here continued commentary about the dangers of global warming what you want them to know while they're already turning it off. You can only tell people that the world can and so many times and when I notice the sun keeps rising. The content of discount these predictions, you know, had like three big hurricanes in one year. No big deal.

We went was 12 years without a category three crossing US coast climate changes.

Climate stays the same and the warming rate.

Ron will get us about 1.51.6 degrees by the end of the century Dr. Patrick Michaels. He is the director of the Center for the study of science at the Cato Institute, thanks much for joining us will have on Carolina journal radio just if you the freedom we got great news to share with you now. You can find the latest news, views, and research from conservative groups all across the state. All in one place North Carolina conservative.com one-stop shopping for North Carolina St. movement North Carolina conservative.com. You'll find links to John Locke foundation blogs on the days news Carolina journal.com reporting and quick takes Carolina journal radio interviews TV interviews featuring CJ reporters and Locke foundation analyst plus opinion pieces and reports on higher education. All of that from the Pope Center for higher education policy commentary and polling data cost Institute and news and views from the North Carolina family policy Council.

That's right, all of that, all in one place North Carolina conservative.com that's North Carolina spelled out conservative.com North Carolina conservative.com. Log on today. North Carolina is changing not just day-to-day but outward to our minute to minute and 2nd to 2nd, you keep up with the changes, especially the ones that affect you, your family, your home, your job, make the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal part of your social media diet on Facebook like the John Locke foundation like Carolina. Journal follow us on Twitter at John Locke in C and at Carolina journal news, insights and analysis you'll find nowhere else. Thanks to the experts at the John Locke foundation and thanks to the first-class investigative reporting of Carolina journal. Don't wait for the morning newspaper. Don't wait for the evening news if it's happening now it's happening here the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal. Have you covered with up to the second information like us on Facebook the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal follow us on Twitter at John Locke NC and at Carolina journal did you know you can now advance freedom and free markets just by shopping with Amazon it's true online shopping is now a great way to support the John Locke foundation just shot using the Amazon smile program and designate the work foundation to receive a portion of your purchase amount that's right you shop and Amazon donates money to assess the John Locke foundation. So here's how it works. Log on to smile.amazon.com Amazon smile.

It's the same Amazon you know same products same prices is much better. Amazon donates .5% of the price of your eligible purchases to pass the John Locke foundation to try it. Be sure to designate the Locke foundation is a nonprofit, you want to support. It's that easy. So now not only will you enjoy what you buy will also support freedom. Don't forget log on to smile.amazon.com today by something nice and help defend freedom, help support the John Locke foundation will get back Carolina journal radio hi Michiko guy members of the minority party often make extravagant claims about abuse of power by the majority in the North Carolina Gen. assembly. But sometimes the complaints are valid some point we start to look at how we are now treating conference reports.

That's House Democratic leader Darren Jackson. He applied his general concern about legislative conference reports to one specific case for Senate Bill 6656 is a perfect illustration of the judicial primaries for every judgeship in North Carolina. That's a big deal. By any measure, it was never in any previous version of Bill 656 that I saw is not related to any previous version of 656 is not been filed as a bill or offered as an amendment by any member of this body or the Senate as best as I can tell you of eliminating judicial primaries was never worked on a regular committee with the opportunity to hear public input and most importantly, the members of this body had no opportunities to make any amendments basically leadership made a decision about what would be in Senate Bill 656.

The rest of us have no say Jackson pointed to a specific statehouse rule that supposed to block this type of action.

Rule 40 4B says the only matters that are disputed between the chamber shall be considered by the conferees but it only operates if the Senate has a similar rule which of course I don't mix our rule observe is not the way the Democrats used to do things we did not bind ourselves to what the Senate since the FairPlay was back in the day so my question is why would we do so today I talked to people here much longer than I have been lobbyist legislators and staff all agree the conference reports have never been abuse the way they routinely use now. What's the big deal you say and justifies the means. Sometimes just come in will get things going to not waste a lot of time well the big deal is. We adopt rules to protect all hundred 20 of us. The rules give us all a voice and a role in that process. My role was sometimes to stand up and point out when you're using those rules. If the builders conference and houses a and the cynicism the then we had a role in a washer will in the conference report comes back with C. That's what happened in this deal with the elimination of judicial primaries for five people made a decision. The rest of us are spectators were not representatives. That's Darren Jackson, leader of the state House Democrats. He's raising concerns about the way Republicans used a recent legislative conference report use that report to help cancel all primary elections in North Carolina is 2018 judicial race will return with more Carolina journal radio with a moment really influence you either have it or you don't and at the John Locke foundation. We do, and that's not bluster in a private survey of more than 250 North Carolina political insiders 87% said we influence them either a great deal a good amount. So while others talk and complain. We get to work providing research solutions and help our team analyzes the pressing issues of the day jobs, healthcare, education, and more. We look for effective ways to give you more freedom, more options, more control.

Our goal is to transform North Carolina into a growing, thriving economic powerhouse that is the envy of every other state. Our research is actually help policymakers make decisions and ensure you keep more of what you earn. Expand your choice of schools for your kids.

Widen your job opportunities and improve your access to doctors. The recipe for stability and a bright future.

The John lock foundation were dedicated to making North Carolina first and freedom were dedicated to you. Welcome back Carolina journal radio hi Michiko guy should college campuses support unfettered free speech.

Sure, should they create so-called safe spaces for students. Is this an either or issue.

Wake Forest University professor James Otteson offered an interesting response during a recent University for Sweden as a free speech versus safe spaces to help people often think of how they talk about that.

There's a there's a conflict between the two. Here's how I would put that University's job is to create a safe space for free speech.

That's what it is and we we all operate in lots of different community so I'm a professor husband and father. We all have these different roles. We have different communities that were parts of even over individual people.

We have these different communities and sometimes are different norms that apply to the different communities what's got what goes on at the University think about the lives of students.

So you come out of your minor your living with your parents or under the tutelage of somebody what you that your parents are, where your guardians what do they do the whole time you're going up there telling you what to do. My children can attest, we tell you what to do this again this year.

Bedtime just about everything were telling you what to do when students graduate from college.

What are they going to do that and get a job and wherever they get a job what's going to happen to get told what to do.

This is the period where they get to explore, so I think the job of the main job of the University is to create a safe space for free speech like other communities. Otteson says University should provide students with the bedrock that they can count on which of the University provided students that they can count, but I think we should say to every student is whatever your background wherever you come from whatever beliefs you have. We are going to value you as an individual and as a person, regardless of whatever crazy ideas you get in your head. We are still going to value. We are going to listen to you where you respect you and working to value.

Once we say that now that we can say is now go take risks with your thoughts. Once students understand we make a credible case, I think.

And that's not easy.

It's easier said than done, but we make a credible case to all of our students that yes this is a space where we are not to hold your crazy idea that you can entertain for five minutes against you forever were not going to judge.

I sometimes have to tell my students and I think that if I give them a great I give you on your paper is my judgment of person no just great on paper we're talking to judge you as a person your hole your humanity based on some ID that you can entertain once we can credibly say that the students then I think we can demand of students is now take risks. Now is the time when it's okay for you to go ahead and contemplate and talk about, and debate all of the ideas that you're not to be able really to talk about every rest your life you get to spend still having to constrain yourself because you're working rehabs of the responsibilities here is the time.

I think we should not think of these things is an contents free speech and safe spaces. I think we should see them as being complementary. That's Wake Forest University economist James Otteson speaking at a recent conference in Winston-Salem. He offered more observations about the value of free speech often are afraid of ideas and perspectives.

We don't know anything about.

And if the only familiarity we have with views that are different from ours, but we got from twitter or from a blog post, then we don't really understand those ideas and so we can envision all sorts of monsters and demons are mine.

One of the things it's important I think about the safe space for free speech is to defang and demystify different views encountering different views don't hurt you talk about violence in speech, they don't hurt you the way violence can they might be uncomfortable but I think the mind is like a muscle is to be exercised, stretched order for the groanings the exercise and stretch and I think if we fear or are afraid of ideas that are different from ours and nothing to cause all sorts of barriers and in the end will be the when, if ever, does speech step over the line. When is it unacceptable on campus. We can imagine, if you imagine spectrum disinterested provision of information on the one answers verbal information that doesn't bother anybody violence or coercion or attacks on the other. So the question is where does that on that continuum does speech get to the tipping point. Maybe if not violence, incitement to violence and people get paid different views about what I would say is so and maybe I have a higher tolerance for hearing different views having gone to the University Chicago. So when I was at the Chicago I told some of my students. This is a brand-new graduate student. The Orissa Chicago. I the practice. Then, as now is that if you're a PhD student any written dissertation.

The last thing you do before you get your degrees, you have a public defense of your dissertation help. Just think about that now public defense. Anybody can go on so I attended one of graduate students who was in my department, and we got it. I was new and she was on her way out and that was the most harrowing XPi I don't know how she made it out of that experience, I thought it was horrible the way they treated her attack, calling her confused and maybe she wasn't up to the task in can she really even understand the words she herself is writing in his things like that which I thought well holy cow, why did he let her get this part.

They really had that opinion. The pastor and the pastor because, well, this is just what we do at Chicago okay well if you're if that's your experience will then you learn to adapt to something like has an experience like you asked about targeting so let's think about that when people target other people. So here's something that the Chicago principles distinguish between they say we are willing to potentially punish conduct were not willing to punish speech that presumes a kind of bright line between what is some speech actually and incitement were tantamount to conduct here's my again philosophical answer to that. It depends, I think so. I think that there is no single principle or single mechanical rule will allow you to adjudicate that in every case. I think sometimes you need to have good judgment. Are there cases in which what people are saying are flirting with or going over the line of just talking about ideas but actually incitement to violence are we always agree on what those are, no, that does mean we shouldn't think about them and there will be cases where people of good faith disagree so, I think, in my view, we should err on the side of letting people speak unless it's clearly a case where is leading to incitement to violence and when we had that that you one example to think about this.

Some of you may know a woman named Ion Hersey Lee Somali former Muslim activist I heard her speak once and this is what she said so she gets talks about Islam and men and women in its treatment of women is very controversial as you might and she gets death threats and what she says is here's the difference I SHE says. I often hear people say to me I hate you and I hope you die. That's okay then.

Sometimes she hears. I hate you and I'm going to kill you. That's not okay now.

Sometimes there is it's not clear where one is almost the other or not so do you want to hear people say things like I hate you and I hope you die know you don't but if we have a safe space for free speech and even odious speech like that I think is going to have to be tolerated until it becomes that of that's James Otteson of Wake Forest University is discussing the conflict or compatibility of free speech and safe spaces on college campuses will return with more Carolina journal radio in a moment. Full color throughout every issue more visual storytelling. We've revamped Carolina journal to make it easier to read a new look and a new feel. But one thing hasn't changed and it never will. That is our commitment to truth and transparency in government, you can still count on Carolina journal for investigations into government spending revelations about boondoggles and vetting of corruption. No permission to shine the light on what North Carolina government and the bureaucrats who run it are doing in your name and with your money will never wane and because of that our reach and influence are growing to all of our distribution outlets we reach more than 1 million N. Carolinians every month so make sure you stay informed.

Read the monthly print edition of Carolina journal.

Then check in several times a day, Carolina journal.com that's where you'll find fresh stories, opinion pieces and updates on government politics and your money.

Carolina journal.

We hold government accountable to you. Welcome back to Carolina journal radio I'm Donna Martinez next November, North Carolina voters will choose a member of the North Carolina Supreme Court so far.

Two people are in that race. The person who currently holds the seat Republican Justice Barbara Jackson and Democrat Anita earls, an attorney who meets the southern coalition for social justice, Carolina journal will be covering this race as well as all of the races for 2018. Quite intensively, Rick Anderson joins us now with a look at this particular race will connect the program. Thank you. First of all there's been a lot of talk at the Gen. assembly that changing the way that we elect judges and justices in North Carolina can give us a sense of where we are right now the Senate is considering whether or not it's going to move toward some sort of change in the election process for judges and justices if were going to go to a system that something called merit-based or appointment based system to keep the current system in place or for going to others. There's a constitutional amendment that is been proposed by the chairman of the rules committee of the house and the Senate that would essentially put every judicial race up on the ballot next year.

Convert all the judicial term to two-year terms. That seems to be as such is anything to be a place holders of the get people scared single look really going to do something to change next year about this but as of now is that's where things stand right now were going to have normal order. Next year we will have a one justice on the Supreme Court, whose term will be up this Barbara Jackson's and she will be running for reelection and there are seven members of the North Carolina Supreme Court Senate is her seat that is out so we know right now we have the two people who pronounced at this point what we know about Justice Jackson.

She's this way the first time that she has stood for reelection on the court. She was elected in 2010, she served a trial and all the Court of Appeals before that she is a Republican. There was an academic study was done early part of this decade, attempting to determine the sort of the ideological stance of the just of the judges and justices of the appellate courts North Carolina and she can transition most conservative of the justices she was someone who work in the morning ministration in his final days and also served in private practice in, but has been very active in the Jewish community in North Carolina for better part of August, 25 years and I believe she's also been appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to a particular committee. I believe on the administration of law and justice issues involved in that taking look at this at the system that's correct so she's cheese is very high profile member of the of the judiciary, North Carolina and somebody who's very well respected.

Now the second person in this race at this point is Anita earls and Anita earls is an attorney with the southern coalition for social justice and she has a rather high profile because she's been involved in several different public-policy issues of light right because she's one of the lead attorneys for the folks who are challenging the congressional districts, legislative districts, North Carolina, on racial grounds that she is someone who is also with the southern coalition for social justice. For the longest time was a bit essentially a one person operations her and she was someone who has been involved. She was with UNC Center for civil rights. She was involved with all sorts of different serve racial and social justice oriented organizations and started this organization because she wanted to be able to combine all the actions of litigating and at been advocating for social services and advocate for voting rights all sorts of things like that. All in one shop if you will, and so that's why she's running that center. She also was on the state board of elections for a while as well and was one of the people who are urged criminal investigation for Gov. Mike Easley that she also is advocating for a change in how North Carolina collects members of Congress and this is got a lot of attention. This proposal tells about and write short articles published in the nation magazine back at the end of June in which she wanted to switch the way that we elect members of Congress nationwide from a single member districts to a form of proportional representation somewhat is weighted voting system in the way that this would work would be if you were in a state that had six or fewer congressional seats. All of the six would be like that large statewide and if you are in a state that had more than that there will be three, four, five districts, depending on how many step geographical district, depending on how larger congressional delegation was. This was a form of legislation that was introduced and her argument is that gerrymandering is impossible to overcome in redistricting and as long as we have the current system of first past the post plurality winner of of races one person from each geographic district events all the goes in as long as it continues to continue to have problems with underrepresentation by minorities and so this is her answer to that system. North Carolina has 13 congressional price tricks so under that proposal. 13 districts which shrink to 33 right interesting and so she says she wants to do this because it would be more fair. She says it would be more representative of members of different racial and ethnic minorities. Now, as I mentioned, this has gotten a lot of attention is considered to be rather controversy (for those who oppose this idea what essentially is the nut of their argument. Well, there the main thing that they talk about is the fact that with this system that we have right now.

Districts have to be roughly equal in population and because the districts because there's a fixed number of members of the House of Representatives, and therefore a fixed delegation for each state that each member represents about 750,000 people would say. And because of that, they also have to be geographically somewhat tighter supposed to be at least as one of the principles there and so you will have people who are represented in an area who essentially have someone who is supposed to be reflective of their interests. Someone who is a neighbor ADA someone who is that actually belongs to their community and under the system was proposed by the girls that would necessarily be the case. One of these districts would stretch all the way from the northeastern corner of the state through Charlotte how my that's a huge swath North Carolina there was an incredible amount of controversy back in the most recent congressional redistricting. When GK Butterfield the first district whose whose district ran from.

Again, the northeastern corner of the state, all the way to Durham County and there was just a poor event affecting what the voters in Durham have in common with voters and was the city. For instance, this would make this so this would put this resistor on steroids. If you will, because you would have one district essentially covered the southern third of the state, one that would cut southeastern third estate was one that would cover the northern third of the state in the third. It would cover the southwestern part of the state and so to get it would be a very very strange way of doing things would not be unconstitutional by the way, because Congress of the this is � this can be changed by statute, but is something that would certainly make it possible. In her view for someone who say 117% of the vote in a multi-candidate election to go to Congress in which we are really different of real change this and be a fascinating conversation. I suspect this can behead as we get into 2018 and right now Barbara Jackson is the current seat holder on the North Carolina Supreme Court. It is her existing seat is up for election Anita earls. Challenging her.

Rick is a possible more people will be in this race is always possible, but Anita earls has Artie gotten the endorsement of former Gov. Jim Hunt of the state party and so unless other things come out though that she's written that make her a little more radioactive for mainstream Democrats and these may be the tubing can editor-in-chief and Carolina Journal bill again next week for more Carolina Journal radio Carolina Journal radio is a program of the John learn more about the John Locke foundation donations support programs like Carolina Journal radio send email to development John Locke call 1866 jail left info 166-553-4636 Carolina Journal radio nation airline is opinions expressed on this program nearly mentioned on the show or other foundation. Many airline sponsored Carolina radio again