Our friend, Mike McShane at AEI, raises the bar for fellow think-tankers and ed wonks by making a young-person's case for ed-reform — with solutions — in five plus minutes.
N.C. Families First, run by fugitive from justice Jay Reiff has just bought more than n $65,000 of issue ads set to run on WTVD from October 7 through October 13.
Reiff worked for former Governor and convicted criminal Mike Easley as his campaign manager in 2000 and 2004. According to an article written by Don Carrington in 2009:
Jay Reiff, Easley’s 2000 and 2004 campaign manager, and the presumed author of several memos outlining the Easley fundraising plan, appeared before the grand jury at the federal courthouse in November. The elections board had attempted to subpoena Reiff but did not succeed because he was working in Virginia at the time and was outside the board’s jurisdiction.
N.C. Families First, under their former name "N.C. Citizens for Progress" spent more than $2.6 million in 2012 for political ads primarily attacking candidate Pat McCrory.
According to State Board of Elections report dated September 14, 2014, Families First was sitting on $1.4 million that is set to be spent in the next few weeks. They are also planning to buy ads on WRAL starting October 7. In documents obtained from the FCC, Families First is planning to spend $43,000 – $98,000 with WRAL each week up until the election.
Families First missed their reporting deadline, they filed an initial electioneering report per GS 163-278.12 more than 10 days after incurring an expense for producing or airing an electioneering communication. This report was filed on September 19, but they show a disbursement date to of September 3.
Notable connections and contributors to N.C. Families First
Dean Debnam, CEO Public Policy Polling $50,000
NC Futures Action Fund (Director Dean Debnam) $105,000 (No Campaign Report at SBOE filed)
Michael Weisel – Treasurer for Families First (Weisel is also Treasurer for N.C. Centers for Protecting Our Schools which contributed $965,000 to Families First)
Yesterday was an eye-opener for me. I traveled to Charlotte to be in the courtroom as a three-judge panel heard arguments in the case brought by a coalition of liberal groups trying to halt certain provisions of the new election reform law. The legislation was passed and signed into law in 2013 and much of it was implemented in last May's primary. The progressive groups, including the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, are seeking to overturn the decision made by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to not issue a preliminary injunction for the November General Election.
The three-judge panel included Judges Henry Floyd, Diana Motz and James Wynn. Judge Wynn essentially took center stage during two hours of arguments and when I closed my eyes I thought that I was in a Moral Monday meeting with the most radical activists working up the crowd. In the middle of one of his tirades, Wynn proclaimed, "Why does the State of North Carolina not want people to vote?" This nonsense came after he made it clear that he didn't like the bill, he didn't like the way it was passed and he blamed the state (namely the legislature) for being in court because they passed the bill in the first place. He also made an aside comment to the state that "you" wouldn't have changed the law if "you" only had primaries.
Wynn also went on a rant about out-of-precinct voting. He decried the fact that the state wouldn't let "Grandma vote anywhere she wanted to." He talked about his own personal proximity to a polling place that is not in his precinct but he would have to drive a couple of miles to his correct polling place. That's right – the judge is upset that he has to drive a couple of miles to exercise his right to vote in the correct polling place in his precinct.
Judge Wynn showed his ignorance when he gave the nod to the prospect that activist groups take voters to the wrong polling place because it is the convenient thing to do. Wynn didn't know enough of the facts to consider that these voters are the real disenfranchised voters. They're disenfranchised because they have probably never been told that when they vote out-of-precinct much of the time their votes really don't count. You see, in North Carolina – where there are more than 2500 precincts (with polling places), 120 legislative districts and 13 congressional districts – if you choose to vote in a different precinct, more than likely at least one of your choices will not count because ballots are determined by the districts where the voters live.
In this circus I watched both sides attempt to make their case to the panel of judges. The plaintiffs (NAACP and the League of Women Voters) said that Judge Schroeder had gotten it all wrong and that with the change in the law African-Americans will be treated differently than white voters. They tried to persuade the judges that African-American voter registration and turnout had spiked after 2007 and that the increase was solely due to Same Day Registration (SDR), out-of-precinct voting and a 17-day early voting period. They did a good job too, because not one person (judges or defense) suggested the real reason for a spike in African-American turnout was due to the campaigns and elections of President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. When you look at turnout numbers through the years it's evident that the liberal election laws have not increased voter turnout.
Judge Motz asked the plaintiffs several times why they did not ask for a preliminary injunction before the May primary. She never got a straight-forward answer. Although the U.S. Justice Department did not file a notice of an appeal, its attorneys did speak at the hearing.
The defense (Governor, legislature and State Board of Elections) did themselves no favors in their arguments. Alexander Peters, representing the North Carolina Attorney General's Office, attempted to explain why the state and local elections officials would be burdened if they were made to change the rules 40 days out from the election. Judge Motz almost laughed at the defense's half-hearted suggestion that the state would be burdened because the SBOE had printed a brochure and mailed it to the voters of the state.
Unfortunately, Mr. Peters couldn't get past the printing of a brochure that gave general instructions and provided bios of judicial candidates. He only touched on the training of elections officials and made that sound almost insignificant. Why didn't Peters tell the judges that precinct officials in more than 2,500 precincts and hundreds of early voting sites have been trained and would need to be re-trained if the court overturned the District Court's decision? Certainly suggesting that more than 10,000 elections workers would need to be re-trained would have made an impression, even on the most liberal justice. And while the plaintiffs’ attorneys said voters voted out-of-precinct and used SDR because the system had failed them or they had not complied with the rules, the defense never suggested that these voters had the same opportunities as all other voters to register 25 days ahead of time and to travel to their proper precincts on Election Day.
So what, you ask, was eye-opening? Well, I had expected to see the same (or maybe I should say some) level of professionalism and serious reverence for the law that I had witnessed at the preliminary injunction hearing in July. Instead, I watched a judge embarrass himself and maybe the entire Fourth Circuit Court. I honestly don’t think Judge Wynn cares about that: He took the spotlight and ran with it for two hours in a federal courtroom.
Appointments to the Academic Standards Review Commission (ASCR) are now complete. They are:
State Board of Education Appointments
Bill Cobey – Chair, North Carolina State Board of Education
Olivia Oxendine – State Board of Education member, Professor of Education UNC-Pembroke
Governor McCrory Appointment
Andre Peek, IBM, NC Business Committee for Education
Speaker Thom Tillis Appointments
Sara "Katie" Lemons – Stokes County – English Teacher
Dr. Jeffrey A. Isenhour – Catawba County – Middle School Principal
Ms. Tammy Covil – New Hanover County – New Hanover County Board of Education
Mrs. Sharmel "Denise" Watts – Mecklenburg County – Area Superintendent, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Senate President Phil Berger Appointments
Dr. John T. Schieck – Wake County – Retired Professor
Laurie McCullum – Rockingham County – Assistant Principal
Ann B. Clark – Iredell County – Dep. Supt. of Schools, Member of Central Management Team for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Jeannie Metcalfe – Forsyth County – Winston Salem Forsyth County Board of Education
ASCR by the numbers -
6 – number of commission members who are professional educators
4 – number of commission members who are current State or local school board members
0 – number of commission members who listed "parent" on appointment release.
As we feared, the final ASCR appointments are top-heavy with professional educators and administrators and lack representation by those most concerned about the implementation of Common Core Standards, parents. After a year of testimony and research, it looks like the views of parents matter little to this process.
This is not a good start.
Also is it just me or is anyone else bothered by the location of the first meeting, the State Education Building — essentially the DPI offices. Legislation establishing the Commission specified ASCR was to be administered through the State Department of Administration. If that's the case, why is ASCR meeting essentially in NC DPI's building? Yes, I know the meeting is in the Construction Room and it's technically a DOA office in the building. But I also know DOA said the meeting location was a SBE decision, and NOT a DOA decision.
ASCR is supposed to be an independent commission representing a range of interests. Looking at members' occupations, the preponderance of professional educators and the lack of parental representation, sadly, this list looks like business as usual.
Someone convince me I'm wrong.
The N&O today published my article describing what I'd like to see in a special session in Raleigh to address economic incentives. A sample:
Imagine with me for a moment what would happen if Gov. Pat McCrory’s office and state legislative leaders released the following joint statement regarding a special session to address economic development in North Carolina:
First, we recognize that government handouts to specific corporations are simply wrong. It is inappropriate and unacceptable for the government to use its force to coerce tax dollars from hard-working citizens only to dole those tax dollars out to politically favored companies that have the most lobbyists roaming the halls of the legislature. Not only does this provide an unfair competitive advantage to the subsidized companies, forcing other companies to downsize or go out of business, it also invites a culture of political corruption with corporations jockeying for a spot at the taxpayer trough. In this special session, we will introduce legislation to eliminate all government subsidy programs that involve taxpayer dollars being given to companies.
You can also read the article at the Civitas website.