newsobserver.com projects - bill titles - Comments

Re: Bill titles rankle Republicans

PaulTerrell — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:15:28 -0400

Do we actually believe that the Democrats in the General Assembly would do anything that ressemble bi-partisanship? No. On every amendment proposed by the Republicans on the House's budget bill, the Democrats shut them down. I witnesses Rep. Blust rewrite a amendment for the sake of a Democrats who said he would vote for the new amendment. guess what happened. The Rep (Anson) said after the new amendment was put up that he would not vote for it. With that kind of horse hockey going on the the State House, it is the Democrats who are the party of NO. No to every single proposal put forward by the Republicans.

Re: Taxes and title

PaulTerrell — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:29:12 -0400

The Democrats are simply playing political games with the future of all of us here in North carolina and our futures. Shame on you Rep. Luebke.

Re: Taxes and title

cdtew — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:35:47 -0400

Aw, shucks, it probably took the Democrats' law clerks a few days poring over statute books and Roberts' Rules of Order to figure this strategy out. Give them credit - when a North Carolina Democrat inevitably fails to win on policy or persuasion grounds, they can certainly find a technical rule to win on!

I bet all of Paul Luebke's childhood friends hated playing board games with him for the same reasons.

Re: Bills would make redistricting blind

alaskan1 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:05:43 -0400

Impeach everyone in office!

Re: Bills would make redistricting blind

jesmyopinion — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:35:24 -0400

I bet a 2 year old can draw better lines than what we have now... And we would not have to pay them as much!

Re: Bills would make redistricting blind

henrye — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:30:34 -0400

Politics will never let this happen unfortunatly. Redistricting should be done by Citzens who do not vote. It sounds absurd, But since we have so many who do not vote, It would be a fair way to do it. With no lobbying
allowed by anyone Since a lot of voting is done by racial lines, This would make the districts more evenly balanced

Re: Bills would make redistricting blind

AmericanNationalist — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:28:31 -0400

Both parties should want districting to be fair. If this passes David Price and Brad Miller can kiss their offices good bye.

Re: Bills would make redistricting blind

CitizenOpinionated — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:10:35 -0400

JNorris - part of the problem is the fact that Democrats have held a stranglehold on the NC General Assembly for years. I.E. Look at Brad Millers' district.

Re: Bills would make redistricting blind

jnorris — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:55:00 -0400

The problem with these proposals is their source. The party out of power always wants to make redistricting fair. The party in power always wants to cement its grip.

If Brunstetter thought his bill had a chance, he wouldn't have named the redistricting commission for a Republican stalwart. That alone makes it clear his proposal isn't serious.

The legislature isn't going to make districting fair. North Carolina courts aren't going to force fair districting. Until or unless voters of all political stripes join forces to demand a rational districting system, we'll remain at the mercy of whichever partisan hacks currently hold sway.

Re: Bills would make redistricting blind

jesmyopinion — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:14:31 -0400

Gee - the legislators are so smart - I guess there is hope for them yet. How did they figure out the citizens of NC do not want to have the races determined even before the citizens get to vote? Who would have thunk the districts should be divided up into a fair proportion and not some crazy gerrymandering district as they are now set up??? They are so smart!!!

Re: Berger defends bill title

robdarich — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:09:13 -0400

Some people are fixated on defense of marriage - it's easy to figure out why: all you need to know is that it's like the spe m whale having a tiny throat...

Since when?

cornbread — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:41:13 -0400

"It's about defending traditional marriage, which is the only type of marriage we've had up to this point," he told Dome.

Is this studied lawyer and Minority Leader of the Senate talking about the sainted Ronald Reagan who had multiple wives (Nancy wasn't his first) or a more traditional marraige like King David and his eight or more wives?

Re: More heroic bill titles

tangoz — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:38:40 -0400

"§ 15A-2010. North Carolina Racial Justice Act.
10 No person shall be subject to or given a sentence of death, or shall be executed pursuant to any judgment that was sought or obtained on the basis of race.

Are you kidding me?

Looks ike it was referred to the Ways and Means committee ( bill graveyard?)

confusing short title and title

gercohen — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:43:35 -0400

Ryan, you are not setting out the titles as the main object in your post, but the short titles. Both the short title and the title appear both in the bill and in the searchable online database. The short title is limited to 45 characters and spaces. The short title is what appears on the floor calendar and as the header in the School of Government Daily Bulletin, it is also used by our indexers to help them build our term word index, which is done by people, not a computer.

"Eminent Domain" is the short title, the full title is stated clearly in the bill is "AN ACT to allow differential treatment of nonprofit organizations whose property is condemned so as to allow replacement value rather than fair market value." and is not hidden anywhere.

If the bill is enacted, the short title drops away. It is just used for internal reference. The drafter took a 138 character long title WHICH APPEARS AT THE TOP OF THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT and shortened it to 14 for the SHORT title. If the short title has been "differential treatment of nonprofits" would that have conveyed more or less information about the bill compared to "EMINENT DOMAIN". We chose the latter.

Re: How to title a controversial bill

cornbread — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:32:08 -0400

Real people, real problem, really recently.

Here ya go.

If we only did this to every straight couple that called the police, we could "stimulate" the bailbondsman industry and increase revenue from court fees.