THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 22, 1995 TAG: 9501210153
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA
SOURCE: BY BETTY MITCHELL GRAY, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RALEIGH LENGTH: Long : 109 lines
North Carolina is on the verge of joining the other 49 states in giving its governor the right to veto legislation.
But is it a good idea?
Most legislators, former governors and political pundits say ``yes.'' Some recent studies and eastern North Carolina lawmakers disagree.
An Associated Press survey in December of incoming lawmakers indicated that support for granting the governor veto power has never been stronger, with 93 percent of the senators and 84 percent of House members who responded favoring the constitutional change.
North Carolina is the only state that does not give its governor some form of veto power.
Changing that ``is healthy and good for North Carolina,'' Senate leader Marc Basnight, D-Dare County, said in interviews and news conferences during the past two weeks. ``It gives the governor the authority to review the actions we take.''
The governor ``doesn't have much strength,'' Basnight said. ``That's not right for him to have to sit and watch what we do.''
His Republican counterparts in the state House of Representatives agreed.
``We think that the veto is a good reform instrument for our state,'' said Rep. N. Leo Daughtry, a Johnston County Republican and majority leader-elect for the House.
House Speaker-elect Harold J. Brubaker, R-Randolph, said, ``The people of North Carolina have said they want a chance to vote on it, and they should have that chance.''
The state Senate has approved veto proposals several times over the past decade but the plans have stalled in the House.
Republicans, in a contract with voters before the Nov. 8 election, promised to give voters a chance to approve veto power this year, although in a news conference Wednesday, House Republican leaders said that referendum is unlikely to reach voters before 1996.
Since veto power would require a change in the state constitution, any plan approved by legislators must be put to a popular vote.
Proponents tout the change as a means of holding governors more accountable for enacting their agendas for the state and as a means of promoting more responsible spending by the General Assembly.
Opponents of the measure say granting the governor a veto would result in a substantial transfer of power from the General Assembly, which is more directly linked to the people of the state, to the governor. They also say gubernatorial veto power will not result in stronger state finances.
A recent review by economists John Carter and David Schap at the College of the Holy Cross of five studies of budget practices in the states found ``little or no evidence'' of a connection between the line-item veto and a state's fiscal health. And North Carolina, the only large state that does not use some form of the line-item veto, has the highest bond rating of those large states.
And one eastern North Carolina legislator predicted gridlock in Raleigh if the governor is granted the veto.
``Our governor, although constitutionally appears weak, has wound up being strong because of power allocated him by the General Assembly,'' said Rep. William T. Culpepper III, D-Chowan County. ``The governor has a good lot of political muscle . . . and with the veto, things will get out of whack.''
The gubernatorial veto is just one of several constitutional changes and other initiatives that may be referred to voters during the upcoming General Assembly session. Some questions that may be debated after the legislature convenes Wednesday include:
Term limits. The reform agenda touted by GOP legislative candidates calls for some type of term limits to be imposed for members of the General Assembly and the state's congressional delegation. The length of term limits and whether they should be imposed by the General Assembly or by a voter referendum will be some of the key debate questions.
Citizen initiatives. The Republican contract also calls for some type of statute or constitutional change that would allow citizens to place issues on the statewide ballot as constitutional changes.
Judicial selection. Legislators for years have tried, without success, to draft a proposal for merit selection of judges rather than elections. In a recent Associated Press survey, 87 percent of senators and 57 percent of House members said they would favor some form of merit selection for judges.
Victims' rights. In a recent news conference, Basnight said he will promote efforts to amend the state constitution to provide some type of victims' rights language and sees this proposal as one of a handful of initiatives headed for the state's voters.
A lottery. Support for a statewide lottery appears to have plummeted. Most northeastern North Carolina legislators say the state is losing millions of dollars each year to Virginia, which has a lottery. While Basnight favors giving voters the chance to decide the fate of the lottery, House Speaker-elect Brubaker said last week it would be wrong for the state to start a lottery and count on it as a source of revenue.
In a meeting with reporters, Basnight said he wants to keep the gubernatorial veto and other initiatives separate from partisan politics and off a general ballot. He suggested that voters consider the gubernatorial veto and other initiatives in a separate election next year, despite historically low voter turnouts when referendums are the only issues on the ballot.
``We would like the voters of North Carolina to fully understand what (an initiative) means,'' Basnight said. ``Why not give it a good review?''
But Brubaker and Daughtry said the cost of a separate election for constitutional changes and voter initiatives would be about $1.2 million. They also said these issues should be decided during a general election, when more voters typically go to the polls.
``The real issue is when do you get the most voters to turn out?'' Brubaker asked. ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
ISSUES COMING UP
[For complete graphic, please see microfilm]
by CNB