View in your browser.

In the Spotlight

I have written a new report analyzing Gov. Bev Perdue’s recent Executive Order on regulatory reform. Here are some key points from the report:

  • North Carolina’s regulatory environment is poor, especially in comparison with other states’.
  • Gov. Beverly Perdue signed a new executive order to modify the rulemaking process and help reduce the costs of regulation.
  • The executive order applies only to executive bodies in which the governor has oversight, including all Cabinet agencies.
  • The executive order does several good things to reduce excessive regulation, including:
    1. Mandates cost/benefit analysis of regulations
    2. Requires agencies to identify alternatives to regulation
    3. Creates an annual review process of existing regulations to determine if the regulations should be reformed, expanded, or repealed
    4. Requires agencies to support their regulations with sound data
    5. Gives the state Office of State Budget and Management necessary oversight to ensure that agencies do what is expected of them.
  • The executive order does have some weaknesses, however. They include:
    1. Some of the requirements are drafted in a vague manner, thereby allowing agencies to wiggle out of the requirements.
    2. It does not include protection for small businesses from one-size-fits-all regulation. Most states (35) and the federal government adjust regulations to meet the unique needs of small businesses, but this executive order does not address that issue.
    3. It does not protect against agencies exceeding statutory authority.
  • The executive order is a good start, but much will depend on how it is implemented in practice.
  • For true regulatory reform, the legislature needs to build upon the executive order and apply reforms to all agencies.

More on the Ballot Measure to Ban Ex-Felons from Running for Sheriff

As I have written, the blanket ban prohibiting ex-felons from running for sheriff goes way too far and is unnecessary. I was particularly troubled by this editorial in The News & Observer:

Why not let just anyone run? The Sheriffs Association sensibly says that even the possibility of a felonious sheriff tarnishes the integrity of the office. And seen-it-all citizens may not be sure that such a candidate could never win.

True, the amendment limits a convicted felon’s "right" to run for or hold a top law-enforcement office. That, however, is one right we can live without.

1. Regarding the Sheriff’s Association point, somebody running for an office doesn’t tarnish the office. People holding the office, if they act unethically or illegally, are the ones who tarnish the office. They should focus on ethical practices for sheriffs, not on preventing people from running for sheriff.

2. As for the N&O‘s point, they are providing a great example of why we aren’t supposed to allow the whims of the public (or newspapers) to dictate our rights. I’m glad the N&O can live without ex-felons having the right to run for sheriff, but for those affected by such a ban, it isn’t a right they can live without, nor should they live without it. There may be a lot of rights that the N&O doesn’t want other people to have, but fortunately, they don’t decide our rights.

Quick Takes

N.C. creates call line for victims of forced sterilization

Government officials in North Carolina want to hear from people who say they were sterilized through a state program that ended almost 40 years ago.

A state agency announced Tuesday a toll-free number for callers to provide information and confirm the identification of someone who was sterilized under the authority of the North Carolina Eugenics Board. More than 7,600 people were sterilized by choice or coercion under the program between 1933 and 1973.

High Court Case on Violent Video Games Tests Limits on Speech

Yet, to California Democratic Sen. Leland Yee, who sponsored a state ban on the sale of violent video games to minors that now is before the Supreme Court, the intricate, interactive component is exactly what makes some videos more dangerous than a movie or book with equally brutal themes.

A parent who wants to screen a movie to see whether it is suitable for a child need only watch it, says Yee, who has a Ph.D. in child psychology. In a violent video game appropriate only for mature audiences, he says, troubling scenes of slaughter and decapitation may come only after hours of strategic play.