October 27, 2025 • 36 mins
A deeper dive on the new NC congressional map, appeals court upholds hate crime ruling & more on Monday's Carolina Journal News Hour.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Anna, Good Monday morning. Do you welcome into the Carolina
Journal News Hour, News Talk eleven nine three WBT. I'm
Nick Craig. Good morning to you. Well, it was an
incredibly busy week in Raleigh last week for members of
the North Carolina General Assembly officially approved new congressional districts,
which are now in effect. The new maps passed both
(00:31):
the House and Senate. The Senate on Tuesday, the House
on Wednesday. Last week, lawmakers proposed a new map to
gain an additional Republican congressional seat in the twenty twenty
six midterm elections. Republican lawmakers claim that this is necessary
to combat redistricting efforts in Democrat majority states like California.
(00:52):
House Majority Leader in Representative Brendan Jones, the Republican from
Columbus County, told his House colleagues that North Caro Carolina
will not stand by while this takes place in states
across the US.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Once again, we're here today because California and the radical
left launched a full fledged, coordinated attack not only on
North Carolina, but the integrity of democracy itself. And I've
got bad news from Gavin Newsom and the radical left
North Carolina will not stand by while they tried to
undermine the will of our voters and stack the decks
(01:26):
in Washington. Sadly, this isn't new. Just look around the country.
In Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Connecticut, Republicans hold zero congressional
seats due to Democrat congressional map gerry manders. It's the
same playbook over and over. Well enough is enough. We
(01:48):
have been called to fight back, and that's exactly what
this body intends to do. The motivation behind this new
redistrict plan is straightforward. The new congressional map improves Republican
political strength in eastern North Carolina, and we'll bring in
an additional Republican seat to North Carolina's congressional delegation.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
That's Representative Brendan Jones from a Columbus county, echoing similar
commentary to that that we heard from the Republicans in
the United States Senate, or rather the North Carolina Senate.
I should say when this map originally came up to
that body earlier this week Monday and Tuesday, Representative Jones
continued his commentary saying that North Carolina will not be
(02:29):
bullied by what is going on in other states.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
The same national organizations that are talking heads who praised
the blue state maps will continue attacking ours, not because
of the process, but because of the outcome. But the
people of North Carolina didn't elect us to surrender our responsibilities.
They elected us to lead. So through the national left,
I'm sorry your favorite government, Sacramento miscalculated. Proposition fifty has backfired.
(03:00):
States are here to make sure that one man does
not predetermine the controls of Congress. North Carolina will not
be lectured, will not be bullied, and will not be
sued into submission. We will not let outsiders tell us
how to govern, and we will never apologize for doing
exactly what the people of this state has elected us
to do. We did our job transparently, lawfully, and unapologetically,
(03:26):
and if that offends the left, so be it. Because
what we're defending here today is not just a map.
It's the principle that stops to Dack from being stacked
against us. It's the principle that our delegation in Congress
will advocate for the true beliefs of North Carolinians. And
it is a fact that we will send one more
Republican to Congress from this great state You can be
(03:48):
mad about redistriing all you want to, but you need
to look in the mirror and ask yourself what God
us here and I think. Then you will begin to
realize just how bad the left messed.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Up once again. Representative Jones in the North Carolina General
Assembly on Wednesday, with this final approval and the final
House vote of sixty six to forty eight in favor
of the map, it is now in effect in North Carolina.
Unlike standard legislation, of which we have covered plenty of
here on the show, this map does not require the
(04:21):
governor's approval. There's nothing that the governor can do to
block or slow down the process for that map. It
is something that is simply the responsibility of the North
Carolina General Assembly. Wilson, Wayne, Green, and Lenore Counties are
moved into District three from District one. Craven, Beaufort, Pamlico, Carteret, Hide,
(04:41):
and Dare Counties are moved from District three into District one.
As you can imagine, this is a highly political issue,
as we have been covering here on the show this week,
and Democrat members of the North Carolina General Assembly are
not and we're not in favor of the map being redrawn,
and did not vote in favor of approving it. Other Democrats,
(05:02):
of course, not happy with the map as well. Representative
Phil Rubin, the Democrat from Wake County, called the new
map an attack on North Carolina during his commentary on
the House floor on Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Today's latest attack by Republicans on self governance in North
Carolina follows the attack on our Board of Elections. It
follows a brazen attempt to steal Supreme Court election. And
it all adds up to a sense that there are
those in our government that think only the right people
may ever hold power, and that the rules must be
rigged to make sure that people can never disagree with
(05:34):
those choices. And now we're here today, the Republican Party
holding a vote of no confidence on our self government
in North Carolina, to make our already rigged maps even worse.
But it's not just the maps themselves. Behold the process
that led to today, secretive, dismissive, six days long from
(05:57):
end to end, and frankly disrespectful of the people of
North Carolina. Dismissive of the people of North Carolina. You
have treated them as obstacles to be managed even talked
down to here in this debate today, not citizens to
be heard, and it would be bad enough if they
were simply ignored, and they were ignored. No one looked
at those comments. We all know that no one looked
(06:19):
at that, No one tried to take their feedback into consideration.
And why even have a public comment period if you're
going to dismiss all of their comments when they're clearly
one direction.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
That's Representative Phil Rubin, the Democrat out of Wake County,
again calling those an attack on North Carolina, saying that
the General Assembly made a vote of no confidence in voters,
presumably referring to those voters in the first and third
congressional district in the northeast half of the state. Regardless
of the Democrat outrage on the House floor yesterday, the
(06:51):
protesters in the gallery that had to be removed because
they could not stop adjeering during the ongoing debate that
was taking place and the public comment that has taken
place over the last couple of weeks, Republicans do have
a majority in the North Carolina General Assembly, a super
majority in the Senate, a simple majority actually one vote
shy of the supermajority in the North Carolina House, and
(07:13):
with that final sixty six to forty eight vote on
Wednesday afternoon, these new maps are now in effect, and
a candidate filing for the twenty twenty six midterm elections
that will likely give Republicans an additional congressional representative from
North Carolina will begin in early December. As it stands
(07:34):
right now, North Carolina's current maps currently elect ten Republicans
and four Democrats. Under this new map, that number would
likely be eleven Republicans and three Democrats. As I mentioned that,
this map cannot be vetoed or stopped by Governor Josh Stein.
Immediately after the vote in the North Carolina House on Wednesday,
(07:57):
the governor released a lengthy video to social media talking
about the new congressional districts and calling it a power
grab from the GOP.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Today, the General Assembly is abusing its power to pass
yet another congressional map for the twenty twenty six mid terms.
Why to try to hand President Trump another Republican seat
in the House of Representatives. Under North Carolina's constitution, the
governor does not have the power to veto redistricting maps.
(08:26):
If I did have that power, I assure you I
would veto this map. True leadership is knowing when and
whether to use your power. Republican legislative leaders are abusing
their power to take away yours. They're afraid that they
will lose in the midterms and afraid to say no
to the President, so they've turned their backs on you
(08:47):
to silence your vote in the twenty twenty sixth election.
It's outrageous.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
We'll continue our coverage of what was a busy week
in Raleigh at the North Carolina General Assembly. Coming up
after this. You're listening to the Carolina Journal News Out
News Talk eleven, ten ninety nine three WBT. I'm Nick Craig.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour as we
continue our coverage and recap what was a very busy
(09:15):
week in the North Carolina General Assembly, as lawmakers from
both the North Carolina House and Senate last week did
approve a new congressional map, likely giving Republicans one extra
seat in the United States House of Representatives as we
head into the twenty twenty six midterm elections. To get
details on where everything stands right now in the latest
(09:37):
nobody better than doctor Andy Jackson from the John Locke Foundation.
He joins us this morning on the Carolina Journal News Hour, Andy,
a busy week in Raleigh. It looks like, in terms
of additional work to be done, redistricting is now complete
here at least for North Carolina's congressional districts.
Speaker 5 (09:53):
Yeah, they got it done yesterday, and as we expected,
it was a pretty quick process only looking at tweaking
two districts. They shifted some counties between the second and
the third district and essentially kind of split the difference.
Whereas before the first district was very competitive and the
(10:14):
third district was pretty solidly Republican. Now we have two
lean Republican districts, so unless we have kind of a
tidal way of election, we could expect Republicans to win
in both of those.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Andy.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
There have been a couple of discussions and points about this. Obviously,
this whole discussion is inherently very political. You've got a
Republican led General Assembly that is doing this year in
North Carolina. As I think folks can imagine Democrats not
happy with the redraw of this map based on the
state law inding and based on the state Constitution. Is
(10:46):
this something that Republicans, because they are in the majority,
have the authority to do in Raleigh.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
Yes, they do.
Speaker 6 (10:54):
Now.
Speaker 5 (10:54):
The North Carolina Constitution says that General Assembly districts, once drawn,
cannot be re drawn until the next census. So unless
you have a court order saying hey, you've got to
do it because there was some violation of the state
or federal constitutions, that's what you get. But there's no
such thing for congressional districts. So in theory, the General
(11:15):
Assembly could just redraw them after each election, you know,
they get a new set of data. Oh, let's tweak
the districts a little bit. Maybe we could you know,
shore up an incumbent or you know, let with you
this time kind of pick up another district. And so, yeah,
we have we have that process in place here, and
I don't expect that we'll have another round of redistricting
(11:39):
after twenty twenty six, just because at some point there's
only so much you can squeeze out. I mean, you
theoretically could have a twelve to two map. I mean,
that is doable. I've kind of played with maps and
I know you can do it. But by doing that,
Republicans would really be spreading themselves thin, which is, by
(12:00):
the way, what Democrats did in their general Assembly districts
before the twenty ten election, and that came back and
blew up in their face.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
So as we watch this process as it continues to unfold.
The maps are now officially in law here in North Carolina.
Candidate filing for these elections Andy will open up in
the early and middle parts of December. However, one of
the things that you've been writing about over at the
John Locke Foundation, We've had some quotes over at Carolina
Journal dot com, is that litigation is likely with these maps.
(12:30):
Democrats taking an interesting stand in Raleigh on this, saying,
you know, the state has spent twenty two some odd
million dollars in litigation costs since twenty ten every time
maps are redrawn. Do you suspect that there will be
some litigation with these redraws of the first and third
congressional districts.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
Well, that will definitely be litigation. I mean there are
always is litigation. North Carolina has been kind of a
haven for lawyers in order if they want to make
a few bucks suing the state. I don't expect that
it'll get too far. We had pretty similar lawsuit in
(13:07):
the same part of the state over state Senate districts recently,
I mean just this year, and that lawsuit got tossed.
The judge said that they couldn't prove that these were
racial jerrymanders. Political jerrymanders have already been kind of taken
off the shelf by both the US and North Carolina
Supreme Courts, And since we have, we're kind of backtracking
(13:30):
in North Carolina on the racial gerrymander in front, as
long as the state isn't trying to actually disenfranchise black voters,
but they're just trying to get a political advantage for
their side. You know, if that's the goal, then it's
been increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to prove a racial gerrymandering claim,
and I don't expect they'll be able to succeed here.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Well, let me ask you about this race question. That
was a major talking point not only for Democrat members
of the North Carolina House and Senate, but for anybody
that into the public comment that's taken place this week.
Pretty Much every individual speaking publicly on this andy called
these maps either racist or Senator Ralph Heist, the individual
who drew them in the Senate him by himself, he
(14:12):
is a racist for drawing these maps. Yet we've heard
from individuals like Senator Heiss or Brendan Jones over in
the House that no racial data was used in drawing
these maps. Does that maybe bolster the argument from a
legal perspective here for Republicans that they didn't use any
of that race based data and redrawing these two districts.
Speaker 5 (14:32):
Yeah, it is. I mean, the judge in that other
case on the State Senate actually pointed out that they
didn't use racial data, and that was a point in
the favor of the General Assembly. On that the district
went roughly from forty one percent black to I think
thirty three maybe thirty four percent black. So there was
(14:53):
a decrease in the number of black voters, but proportionally
less than the movement on the political front. And if
the change in the racial composition is incidental to pursuing
a change in the political composition of a district, the courts,
and we had a case in South Carolina on this
a year or two ago. The courts have upheld that,
(15:15):
so I expected we're going to see the same thing here.
The planoffs willlast for a preliminary injunction. They probably won't
get it. It kind of depends on which judge they get,
and then we're going to go ahead and have this
election in twenty twenty six, no matter what happens with
the regular court case, and then they'll decide on the
merits later on.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
For those that follow the General Assembly closely, they are
familiar with the process that legislation goes through Andy. It's
either introduced in the House or Senate, goes over to
the other chamber, and then goes to the governor's desk
for signature. These congressional maps are a little bit different.
Even though there is a bill number associated with them,
the governor actually has no play in that at all.
Speaker 5 (15:53):
What gives on that, Well, yeah, this is a relic
of the nineteen nineties when they gave the governor the veto.
The General Assembly at that time was controlled by Democrats
and they had experience and this was when Jim Hunt
his second time around. The Democrats had experience with a
Republican governor, so they knew that, well, maybe there's going
(16:14):
to be a Republican governor sometime and if we draw
maps to benefit us, the governor might veto them. And
so they never expected that Republicans would actually take over
the General Assembly, and so they made sure that the
governor could not veto redistricting legislation. And now this has
really come back to kind of bite them because now
(16:36):
they're in a situation where you have the Democratic governor
who cannot veto redistricting that the Republican legislature has passed.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
One of the things that was also a prominent discussion
this week was Andy, we need fair maps, we need
equal maps. We have fourteen congressional districts in North Carolina.
That is a pretty easy number to divide in half.
Seven Republicans seven Democrats. Can you walk me through why
something like that is not wholly practical here in North Carolina?
Or maybe it is. What exactly is a basis for
(17:07):
some of these seven to seven claims.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
Well, with modern technology and data, you can draw almost anything.
I mean, if I really set my mind to it,
I could probably draw a ten to four Democratic map.
It would take a lot of work, but you could
do it. Now should I do it? No? Now there
has been work and this is the result of experts
coming out in some of these other lawsuits that we've
(17:30):
had in the past, and that data has shown if
you use politically neutral criteria. You don't care about the
politics involved. You don't consider election results, you don't consider
voter registration. You just consider head counts. You try to
keep counties whole, You try to keep districts reasonably compact.
In North Carolina, you normally get either an eight six
(17:52):
or a nine to five Republican map. There's some variation there.
An seven map is just as much an artificial creation
as a ten to four or an eleven three map.
That is not the that's not the political geography.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Great information this morning on redistricting. We appreciate the time.
Doctor Andy Jackson from the John Locke Foundation joins us
on the Carolina Journal News Hour Newstalk eleven, ten ninety
nine three WBT, Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour.
I'm Nick Frank. A situation just north of the Charlotte
(18:32):
Metro dating back to at least twenty twenty one, has
been the subject of litigation over the last couple of years.
To walk us through some of those details this morning,
Mitch Coki with the John Locke Foundation joins us on
the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, a hate crime conviction
back a couple of years ago, an appeal over the
last twelve months or so. What are you tracking in
the Concord area.
Speaker 6 (18:55):
Well, this is a story that people in the Concord
area are probably aware of. A fellow named Marian Khudak
who was convicted of a federal hate crime in twenty
twenty four and sentenced to forty one months in prison
along with several years of supervised released afterward. And the
latest development is that the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals,
(19:15):
in a unanimous opinion from a three judge panel, has
affirmed that conviction. What happened on the appeal was that
Hudak said that the trial judge in the case made
a couple of mistakes. One of them was not allowing
evidence into the case, saying that the problem was not
the racial animus of mister Hudak, but the fact that
(19:38):
he suffered from mental illness. That information was not allowed
to be used in the trial. And the second was
that the judge did allow into the trial the fact
that Khudak owned a bunch of Nazi memorabilia. Originally, the
trial judge in this case decided not to allow that
into evidence, but then changed his mind when Hudak, when
(20:01):
talking about this memorabilia, described himself as a military collector,
and the judge decided, well, you know, this is something
that the jury should decide whether this is something that
he was just collected because he is a history buff
or because this is something that's a symbol of hate
and that symbolizes his desire to act out against people
(20:24):
of other races. Now, some of the facts of the
case are of interest as well. The initial incident that
led to a hate crime charge, and there were two
for which he was convicted, But the initial incident was
from twenty twenty one. The next door neighbor for this
defendant in the case is a Hispanic man, and apparently
there's a long train of instances of insults and racial
(20:48):
epithets and threats. But at one point in twenty twenty one,
who'd act, according to the court records, actually beat the
man and threatened to kill him. And then in twenty two,
twenty two, the second incident involved Hudak and a black man.
They were part They were next to each other in
stopped in traffic and Hudak opens up his car, which
(21:12):
is covered in Confederate symbols, and hurls a racial epithet
at the man threatens to beat him up and then
gets out of his car, punches on the other guy's
car windows several times, and then when the other man
drives off, Hudac chases him back to his home says
he knows where he lives. He's going to shoot him
(21:33):
and shoot his girlfriend too. So that was the second
hate crime charge. Hudak was convicted of both, and the
latest development is that the Fourth U Circuit Court of
Appeals says that the judge did not abuse his discretion
in this case, meaning that those convictions could stand and
that Hudac will have to spend forty one months total
(21:54):
in prison on these federal hate crimes.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
You mentioned mental illness in the original appeal, going back
to the ongoing litigation that we're covering this morning, Mitch,
we do see that pretty often in it typically tends
to be more major cases where you've got individuals that
have can clearly point to severe mental illness deranged nature
that this drove them to make a horrendous decision. Most
(22:20):
of the time it's murdering somebody else or committing a
heinous act against them. In this case, what did the
appeals court have to say about the mental illness. Why
was that not sufficient enough to enter into evidence and
used during the trial.
Speaker 6 (22:34):
Well, there were a couple of actually three reasons. The
first reason was that hoo Deck did not attempt to
have an insanity defense. He didn't try to excuse his
behavior based on the fact that he was insane, so
that that kind of threw that under the bus. The
other thing are some technical issues. There's something called rule
seven oh two in the rules that were contemplate, and
(23:00):
the Federal appeals Court said that the trial judge got
that right as well. That was not something that Hudac
could use to try to get this evidence in. But
I think one of the main things that was of
issue here is that the evidence that was entered to
help the defendant in this case really didn't say anything
(23:21):
about his mental state at the time of these attacks
in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two. This was
evidence that came to light about the state that he
was in when he was examined much later, much after
the fact. And so that was one of the things
that the original judge decided and that the appeals court affirmed,
(23:42):
was that there didn't seem to be any tie in
between the mental health evidence that was presented and the
mental health state that mister Hudak was in when he
actually was alleged to have committed these crimes. And so
that's what you really would have wanted to know well.
And one of the things that Judge Harvey Wilkinson wrote
(24:03):
for the appeals court was, for this particular crime, it
doesn't necessarily matter that there was some mental health issues
or even mental illness. And in fact, he wrote that
the fact that you would attack your next door neighbor
probably shows that you do have some sort of mental illness,
but that doesn't erase the fact that it seems to
(24:25):
be that this attack happened because of racial animus, that
if the next door neighbor had been white, that he
would not have been attacked. The reason that he was
attacked was that he was Hispanic, and that is entirely
why this case is out there. In fact, at one point,
Judge Wilkinson had said, the hate crime laws in the
United States are written just for the circumstances like these,
(24:49):
that because of the person's race, there is an attack
of this sort, and that's what the hate crimes are
designed to address, he said, And in terms of talking
about the Nazi memorabilia. He said, this is not a
First Amendment case. There is no law that would prevent
the defendant in this case from owning Nazi memorabilia and
(25:12):
expressing views, however odious they might be. But this is
a case about action about an attack. And the reason
that you would put that evidence into play is that
it would help the jury decide whether there was racial
animus based on the fact that he owned the Nazi memorabilia.
And as I said, it was a close call. The
(25:33):
trial judge originally was not going to allow that evidence in,
but only allowed it in after Khudak tried to say
that he was not motivated by racial animus, but that
he was a history buff and collected military items, and
the judge decided, well, this is something the jury should
really decide. The jury took all of the evidence and
(25:55):
decided he should be convicted.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Mitch, has the defendant been in a prison this appeal
has been going on. How do you know the status
of this individual.
Speaker 6 (26:04):
I actually don't know the status. I assume that he
has been so, so that would mean that he's probably
served about a year of his What is a three
and a half year sentence I don't know whether he's
been out or not, but if not, then that means
he would start the three and a half years. If
he has been in, he probably has about two and
a half years ago, which will be followed then by
(26:26):
another three years of supervised release.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
It's a sad story, Mitch. Thanks for bringing it to
our attention this morning. Unfortunate situation unfolding in Concord over
the last three or four years. You can read some
additional coverage this morning over on our website Carolina Journal
dot com. Mitchkoki from the John Locke Foundation joins us
on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Good morning again and
(26:51):
welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour News Talk eleven,
ten ninety nine to three WBT. Coming up on October
the twenty ninth, the North Carolina the Supreme Court is
set to hear oral arguments in a case between two
parents in a private school in Charlotte, North Carolina. To
get us up to date on the details this morning,
Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation joins us on
(27:12):
the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, while this is only
two parents in one school in the Charlotte area, this
is cand have some broader impacts across the state of
North Carolina as we see the school choice movement continuing,
folks looking at alternatives outside of public schools. It's a
pretty interesting legal challenge going on.
Speaker 6 (27:29):
It is, and it has attracted quite a bit of
attention beyond what you might have expected. The story goes
back to twenty twenty one when two parents, Doug and
Nicole Turpin, We're starting to raise concerns about changes in
the way that the school, Charlotte Latin, was operating, and
they were concerned about some of the kind of DEEI
(27:53):
or critical race theory type things that seem to be
creeping into the atmosphere at Charlotte Latin. And so they
were involved in a group that was raising questions about
changes in the school's operations. And at some point the
school that did not like the questions that Doug Turpin
was asking, and so they basically kicked out the two
(28:14):
Turpin kids from the school. A lawsuit was filed. The
Turpins are saying there's a breach of contract, that they
were misled deceived, and on the other side, Charlotte Lattin
was saying, look, we're a private school, we have the
right to determine who's going to be attending our school.
We had a contract with the parents. There's a parent
(28:36):
school agreement and that we have to be able to
get along, and if we can't get along, we have
the right as the school to end that contract, which
would mean that the students go away and find some
sort of other educational outlet for them. At both the
trial level and the Court of Appeals level, the courts
have sided with the school, basically saying, you know, this
(28:58):
is a contract, it's a price school. They could do
what they want. But the state Supreme Court has agreed
to take the case. We'll hear the oral arguments in
late October, and the case has attracted quite a bit
of interest. Now from the school side. The statewide and
regional groups that represent private schools have come out in
favor of the school, as has the Roman Catholic Diocese
(29:22):
of Charlotte. Now this is not a Catholic school, so
it's not under the diocese, but the diocese put out
a friend of the Court brief saying, look, we have
some of the same similar arguments that Charlotte Lattin is making,
and there's also a First Amendment argument to be made
when it comes to Catholic schools, and so they wanted
the court to consider that. On the other side, on
(29:43):
the parent side, there have been a number of groups
that would tend to be freedom oriented or right of
center groups that have backed Doug and Nicole Turpin, as
have Congressman Richard Hudson and Pat Harrigan and eleven Republican
members of the General Assembly who all signed on to
a Friend of the Court brief supporting the parents, saying
(30:05):
that look, you can't allow a school to deceive parents,
or to mislead them, or to take some steps that
would constitute a breach of contract. And the latest court
filing from the Turpins, which came out in late August, said, look,
if you're allowing this school to prevail in this case,
(30:28):
you're going to give private schools an advantage that you
would not give to other private businesses that are involved
in contracts. You would be giving them something that's beyond
what a normal business would be able to get in
a contract dispute. And so it's going to be very
interesting to see what happens. The State Supreme Court didn't
(30:50):
need to take up this case. The lower courts have
ruled for the school, including a unanimous ruling. An initial
unanimous ruling from the State Court feels that later was
changed into a split ruling in which one of the
judges said, at least at this stage, which is the
earliest stage of the litigation, the case should go forward.
But still the State Supreme Court did not need to
(31:12):
take up this case. It did take up this case,
which means there is at least some appetite in addressing
this concern about the dispute between the Turpins and Charlotte
Lattin and what that means for other private school disputes
with parents moving forward.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Mitch, let me ask you to read a little bit
between the tea leaves on this. You lay that out perfectly.
The State Supreme Court had absolutely no obligation to take
this up. They have decided to do so at any
given point. Mitch, you're tracking dozens of legal cases across
the state of North Carolina. What do you think the
relevance of the State Supreme Court taking this up? You
think it has anything to do with the fact that
(31:50):
there is such a movement in private and private schools
across the state of North Carolina that this might be
something else that they see on the horizon coming forward.
Speaker 6 (32:02):
There is the potential that that's one of the reasons
that factors into this. The easiest way to describe why
the Supreme Court would take this case when it doesn't
have to is that it saw what was written at
the Court of Appeals and wasn't quite satisfied with what
the Court of Appeals did. If they thought the Court
of Appeals, at least the majority opinion got it completely right,
(32:24):
they wouldn't have to take it. They could basically just
sort of slough it off and say that this is
right at the Court of Appeals level. But it seems
as if they either think the Court of Appeals got
something about this wrong or they at least want to
say that we want the highest court in the state
to have a final say on this so that when
(32:45):
future disputes of this sort come up in the future,
that it'll be easy for parents, for schools, for all
of the litigators involved to know what the law of
the land is in North Carolina. And that could have,
as you alluded to, some tie into the fact that
we know that there's more school choice. We know that
more parents in North Carolina are going to be looking
(33:08):
at a private school option, So trying to settle what
the law is when there's a parental school dispute at
the private school level. Trying to give some certainty as
to where that will stand in future disputes, might be
something that the Supreme Court had in mind.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Mitch. From a political standpoint, this is kind of an
interesting story. Many families and guardians are taking their kids
out of public schools and looking at things like charter
and private and homeschooling because of some of the complaints
made by the family in this case, DEI initiatives CRT
initiatives across the state of North Carolina in public schools
and really a broader move across the nation. There's kind
(33:48):
of an interesting political element to this as well, as
so many folks are evacuating the public school system to
get away from many of these divisive concepts.
Speaker 6 (33:58):
That's true, and you know, the thing is with the
private school, you should be able to send your kids
to a private school of any type of ideologic, ideology
or type of training that you think is best for
your kids. And I think one of the things that
the school is arguing is that, look, we have the
right to teach kids the way that we want, and
(34:18):
if parents don't like it, they could choose another option.
They could choose another private school, they can go back
to the public school. One of the things that the
Turpins are arguing is that we enroll our students expecting
a certain type of education, and then when the school
started to change what type of education it was providing,
we were simply asking questions to figure out, where's this going,
(34:41):
what are you teaching the kids, how's it different than
what you promised? And once the question started to be asked,
then the school cut the kids out and said, well, okay,
you know you don't agree with us, so you're out.
And I think that that's something that could be ironed
out to a greater extent once this case gets through
the State Supreme and we get to see some sort
(35:01):
of ruling, there might be some more clarity about what
sorts of rights parents do have when they're in a
private school and they think the private school has done
something differently than what was expected. Had the parents enrolled
and said yes to exactly what Charlotte Lattin is proposing,
no one would have any problem with that, because that's
(35:23):
basically parents making the choice to put their kids into
the situation that Charlotte Lattin had and saying that they
liked that, which presumably most of the other parents that
Charlotte Lattin are fine with. But in this case, what
the Turpins are saying is we were promised one thing.
It wasn't delivered. When we started asking questions about why
(35:44):
it wasn't being delivered, then they gave us.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
The boot and those oral arguments are set to take
place on Wednesday. We'll keep an eye on this legal
challenge over on our website, Carolina Journal dot com. That's
going to do it for a Monday edition. WBT News
is next, followed by Good morning bet. We're back with
you tomorrow morning, five to six right here on Newstock eleven,
ten and ninety nine three. WBT
Anna, Good Monday morning. Do you welcome into the Carolina
Journal News Hour, News Talk eleven nine three WBT. I'm
Nick Craig. Good morning to you. Well, it was an
incredibly busy week in Raleigh last week for members of
the North Carolina General Assembly officially approved new congressional districts,
which are now in effect. The new maps passed both
(00:31):
the House and Senate. The Senate on Tuesday, the House
on Wednesday. Last week, lawmakers proposed a new map to
gain an additional Republican congressional seat in the twenty twenty
six midterm elections. Republican lawmakers claim that this is necessary
to combat redistricting efforts in Democrat majority states like California.
(00:52):
House Majority Leader in Representative Brendan Jones, the Republican from
Columbus County, told his House colleagues that North Caro Carolina
will not stand by while this takes place in states
across the US.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Once again, we're here today because California and the radical
left launched a full fledged, coordinated attack not only on
North Carolina, but the integrity of democracy itself. And I've
got bad news from Gavin Newsom and the radical left
North Carolina will not stand by while they tried to
undermine the will of our voters and stack the decks
(01:26):
in Washington. Sadly, this isn't new. Just look around the country.
In Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Connecticut, Republicans hold zero congressional
seats due to Democrat congressional map gerry manders. It's the
same playbook over and over. Well enough is enough. We
(01:48):
have been called to fight back, and that's exactly what
this body intends to do. The motivation behind this new
redistrict plan is straightforward. The new congressional map improves Republican
political strength in eastern North Carolina, and we'll bring in
an additional Republican seat to North Carolina's congressional delegation.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
That's Representative Brendan Jones from a Columbus county, echoing similar
commentary to that that we heard from the Republicans in
the United States Senate, or rather the North Carolina Senate.
I should say when this map originally came up to
that body earlier this week Monday and Tuesday, Representative Jones
continued his commentary saying that North Carolina will not be
(02:29):
bullied by what is going on in other states.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
The same national organizations that are talking heads who praised
the blue state maps will continue attacking ours, not because
of the process, but because of the outcome. But the
people of North Carolina didn't elect us to surrender our responsibilities.
They elected us to lead. So through the national left,
I'm sorry your favorite government, Sacramento miscalculated. Proposition fifty has backfired.
(03:00):
States are here to make sure that one man does
not predetermine the controls of Congress. North Carolina will not
be lectured, will not be bullied, and will not be
sued into submission. We will not let outsiders tell us
how to govern, and we will never apologize for doing
exactly what the people of this state has elected us
to do. We did our job transparently, lawfully, and unapologetically,
(03:26):
and if that offends the left, so be it. Because
what we're defending here today is not just a map.
It's the principle that stops to Dack from being stacked
against us. It's the principle that our delegation in Congress
will advocate for the true beliefs of North Carolinians. And
it is a fact that we will send one more
Republican to Congress from this great state You can be
(03:48):
mad about redistriing all you want to, but you need
to look in the mirror and ask yourself what God
us here and I think. Then you will begin to
realize just how bad the left messed.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Up once again. Representative Jones in the North Carolina General
Assembly on Wednesday, with this final approval and the final
House vote of sixty six to forty eight in favor
of the map, it is now in effect in North Carolina.
Unlike standard legislation, of which we have covered plenty of
here on the show, this map does not require the
(04:21):
governor's approval. There's nothing that the governor can do to
block or slow down the process for that map. It
is something that is simply the responsibility of the North
Carolina General Assembly. Wilson, Wayne, Green, and Lenore Counties are
moved into District three from District one. Craven, Beaufort, Pamlico, Carteret, Hide,
(04:41):
and Dare Counties are moved from District three into District one.
As you can imagine, this is a highly political issue,
as we have been covering here on the show this week,
and Democrat members of the North Carolina General Assembly are
not and we're not in favor of the map being redrawn,
and did not vote in favor of approving it. Other Democrats,
(05:02):
of course, not happy with the map as well. Representative
Phil Rubin, the Democrat from Wake County, called the new
map an attack on North Carolina during his commentary on
the House floor on Wednesday.
Speaker 3 (05:13):
Today's latest attack by Republicans on self governance in North
Carolina follows the attack on our Board of Elections. It
follows a brazen attempt to steal Supreme Court election. And
it all adds up to a sense that there are
those in our government that think only the right people
may ever hold power, and that the rules must be
rigged to make sure that people can never disagree with
(05:34):
those choices. And now we're here today, the Republican Party
holding a vote of no confidence on our self government
in North Carolina, to make our already rigged maps even worse.
But it's not just the maps themselves. Behold the process
that led to today, secretive, dismissive, six days long from
(05:57):
end to end, and frankly disrespectful of the people of
North Carolina. Dismissive of the people of North Carolina. You
have treated them as obstacles to be managed even talked
down to here in this debate today, not citizens to
be heard, and it would be bad enough if they
were simply ignored, and they were ignored. No one looked
at those comments. We all know that no one looked
(06:19):
at that, No one tried to take their feedback into consideration.
And why even have a public comment period if you're
going to dismiss all of their comments when they're clearly
one direction.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
That's Representative Phil Rubin, the Democrat out of Wake County,
again calling those an attack on North Carolina, saying that
the General Assembly made a vote of no confidence in voters,
presumably referring to those voters in the first and third
congressional district in the northeast half of the state. Regardless
of the Democrat outrage on the House floor yesterday, the
(06:51):
protesters in the gallery that had to be removed because
they could not stop adjeering during the ongoing debate that
was taking place and the public comment that has taken
place over the last couple of weeks, Republicans do have
a majority in the North Carolina General Assembly, a super
majority in the Senate, a simple majority actually one vote
shy of the supermajority in the North Carolina House, and
(07:13):
with that final sixty six to forty eight vote on
Wednesday afternoon, these new maps are now in effect, and
a candidate filing for the twenty twenty six midterm elections
that will likely give Republicans an additional congressional representative from
North Carolina will begin in early December. As it stands
(07:34):
right now, North Carolina's current maps currently elect ten Republicans
and four Democrats. Under this new map, that number would
likely be eleven Republicans and three Democrats. As I mentioned that,
this map cannot be vetoed or stopped by Governor Josh Stein.
Immediately after the vote in the North Carolina House on Wednesday,
(07:57):
the governor released a lengthy video to social media talking
about the new congressional districts and calling it a power
grab from the GOP.
Speaker 4 (08:05):
Today, the General Assembly is abusing its power to pass
yet another congressional map for the twenty twenty six mid terms.
Why to try to hand President Trump another Republican seat
in the House of Representatives. Under North Carolina's constitution, the
governor does not have the power to veto redistricting maps.
(08:26):
If I did have that power, I assure you I
would veto this map. True leadership is knowing when and
whether to use your power. Republican legislative leaders are abusing
their power to take away yours. They're afraid that they
will lose in the midterms and afraid to say no
to the President, so they've turned their backs on you
(08:47):
to silence your vote in the twenty twenty sixth election.
It's outrageous.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
We'll continue our coverage of what was a busy week
in Raleigh at the North Carolina General Assembly. Coming up
after this. You're listening to the Carolina Journal News Out
News Talk eleven, ten ninety nine three WBT. I'm Nick Craig.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour as we
continue our coverage and recap what was a very busy
(09:15):
week in the North Carolina General Assembly, as lawmakers from
both the North Carolina House and Senate last week did
approve a new congressional map, likely giving Republicans one extra
seat in the United States House of Representatives as we
head into the twenty twenty six midterm elections. To get
details on where everything stands right now in the latest
(09:37):
nobody better than doctor Andy Jackson from the John Locke Foundation.
He joins us this morning on the Carolina Journal News Hour, Andy,
a busy week in Raleigh. It looks like, in terms
of additional work to be done, redistricting is now complete
here at least for North Carolina's congressional districts.
Speaker 5 (09:53):
Yeah, they got it done yesterday, and as we expected,
it was a pretty quick process only looking at tweaking
two districts. They shifted some counties between the second and
the third district and essentially kind of split the difference.
Whereas before the first district was very competitive and the
(10:14):
third district was pretty solidly Republican. Now we have two
lean Republican districts, so unless we have kind of a
tidal way of election, we could expect Republicans to win
in both of those.
Speaker 2 (10:26):
Andy.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
There have been a couple of discussions and points about this. Obviously,
this whole discussion is inherently very political. You've got a
Republican led General Assembly that is doing this year in
North Carolina. As I think folks can imagine Democrats not
happy with the redraw of this map based on the
state law inding and based on the state Constitution. Is
(10:46):
this something that Republicans, because they are in the majority,
have the authority to do in Raleigh.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
Yes, they do.
Speaker 6 (10:54):
Now.
Speaker 5 (10:54):
The North Carolina Constitution says that General Assembly districts, once drawn,
cannot be re drawn until the next census. So unless
you have a court order saying hey, you've got to
do it because there was some violation of the state
or federal constitutions, that's what you get. But there's no
such thing for congressional districts. So in theory, the General
(11:15):
Assembly could just redraw them after each election, you know,
they get a new set of data. Oh, let's tweak
the districts a little bit. Maybe we could you know,
shore up an incumbent or you know, let with you
this time kind of pick up another district. And so, yeah,
we have we have that process in place here, and
I don't expect that we'll have another round of redistricting
(11:39):
after twenty twenty six, just because at some point there's
only so much you can squeeze out. I mean, you
theoretically could have a twelve to two map. I mean,
that is doable. I've kind of played with maps and
I know you can do it. But by doing that,
Republicans would really be spreading themselves thin, which is, by
(12:00):
the way, what Democrats did in their general Assembly districts
before the twenty ten election, and that came back and
blew up in their face.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
So as we watch this process as it continues to unfold.
The maps are now officially in law here in North Carolina.
Candidate filing for these elections Andy will open up in
the early and middle parts of December. However, one of
the things that you've been writing about over at the
John Locke Foundation, We've had some quotes over at Carolina
Journal dot com, is that litigation is likely with these maps.
(12:30):
Democrats taking an interesting stand in Raleigh on this, saying,
you know, the state has spent twenty two some odd
million dollars in litigation costs since twenty ten every time
maps are redrawn. Do you suspect that there will be
some litigation with these redraws of the first and third
congressional districts.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
Well, that will definitely be litigation. I mean there are
always is litigation. North Carolina has been kind of a
haven for lawyers in order if they want to make
a few bucks suing the state. I don't expect that
it'll get too far. We had pretty similar lawsuit in
(13:07):
the same part of the state over state Senate districts recently,
I mean just this year, and that lawsuit got tossed.
The judge said that they couldn't prove that these were
racial jerrymanders. Political jerrymanders have already been kind of taken
off the shelf by both the US and North Carolina
Supreme Courts, And since we have, we're kind of backtracking
(13:30):
in North Carolina on the racial gerrymander in front, as
long as the state isn't trying to actually disenfranchise black voters,
but they're just trying to get a political advantage for
their side. You know, if that's the goal, then it's
been increasingly difficult for plaintiffs to prove a racial gerrymandering claim,
and I don't expect they'll be able to succeed here.
Speaker 1 (13:51):
Well, let me ask you about this race question. That
was a major talking point not only for Democrat members
of the North Carolina House and Senate, but for anybody
that into the public comment that's taken place this week.
Pretty Much every individual speaking publicly on this andy called
these maps either racist or Senator Ralph Heist, the individual
who drew them in the Senate him by himself, he
(14:12):
is a racist for drawing these maps. Yet we've heard
from individuals like Senator Heiss or Brendan Jones over in
the House that no racial data was used in drawing
these maps. Does that maybe bolster the argument from a
legal perspective here for Republicans that they didn't use any
of that race based data and redrawing these two districts.
Speaker 5 (14:32):
Yeah, it is. I mean, the judge in that other
case on the State Senate actually pointed out that they
didn't use racial data, and that was a point in
the favor of the General Assembly. On that the district
went roughly from forty one percent black to I think
thirty three maybe thirty four percent black. So there was
(14:53):
a decrease in the number of black voters, but proportionally
less than the movement on the political front. And if
the change in the racial composition is incidental to pursuing
a change in the political composition of a district, the courts,
and we had a case in South Carolina on this
a year or two ago. The courts have upheld that,
(15:15):
so I expected we're going to see the same thing here.
The planoffs willlast for a preliminary injunction. They probably won't
get it. It kind of depends on which judge they get,
and then we're going to go ahead and have this
election in twenty twenty six, no matter what happens with
the regular court case, and then they'll decide on the
merits later on.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
For those that follow the General Assembly closely, they are
familiar with the process that legislation goes through Andy. It's
either introduced in the House or Senate, goes over to
the other chamber, and then goes to the governor's desk
for signature. These congressional maps are a little bit different.
Even though there is a bill number associated with them,
the governor actually has no play in that at all.
Speaker 5 (15:53):
What gives on that, Well, yeah, this is a relic
of the nineteen nineties when they gave the governor the veto.
The General Assembly at that time was controlled by Democrats
and they had experience and this was when Jim Hunt
his second time around. The Democrats had experience with a
Republican governor, so they knew that, well, maybe there's going
(16:14):
to be a Republican governor sometime and if we draw
maps to benefit us, the governor might veto them. And
so they never expected that Republicans would actually take over
the General Assembly, and so they made sure that the
governor could not veto redistricting legislation. And now this has
really come back to kind of bite them because now
(16:36):
they're in a situation where you have the Democratic governor
who cannot veto redistricting that the Republican legislature has passed.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
One of the things that was also a prominent discussion
this week was Andy, we need fair maps, we need
equal maps. We have fourteen congressional districts in North Carolina.
That is a pretty easy number to divide in half.
Seven Republicans seven Democrats. Can you walk me through why
something like that is not wholly practical here in North Carolina?
Or maybe it is. What exactly is a basis for
(17:07):
some of these seven to seven claims.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
Well, with modern technology and data, you can draw almost anything.
I mean, if I really set my mind to it,
I could probably draw a ten to four Democratic map.
It would take a lot of work, but you could
do it. Now should I do it? No? Now there
has been work and this is the result of experts
coming out in some of these other lawsuits that we've
(17:30):
had in the past, and that data has shown if
you use politically neutral criteria. You don't care about the
politics involved. You don't consider election results, you don't consider
voter registration. You just consider head counts. You try to
keep counties whole, You try to keep districts reasonably compact.
In North Carolina, you normally get either an eight six
(17:52):
or a nine to five Republican map. There's some variation there.
An seven map is just as much an artificial creation
as a ten to four or an eleven three map.
That is not the that's not the political geography.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Great information this morning on redistricting. We appreciate the time.
Doctor Andy Jackson from the John Locke Foundation joins us
on the Carolina Journal News Hour Newstalk eleven, ten ninety
nine three WBT, Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour.
I'm Nick Frank. A situation just north of the Charlotte
(18:32):
Metro dating back to at least twenty twenty one, has
been the subject of litigation over the last couple of years.
To walk us through some of those details this morning,
Mitch Coki with the John Locke Foundation joins us on
the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, a hate crime conviction
back a couple of years ago, an appeal over the
last twelve months or so. What are you tracking in
the Concord area.
Speaker 6 (18:55):
Well, this is a story that people in the Concord
area are probably aware of. A fellow named Marian Khudak
who was convicted of a federal hate crime in twenty
twenty four and sentenced to forty one months in prison
along with several years of supervised released afterward. And the
latest development is that the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals,
(19:15):
in a unanimous opinion from a three judge panel, has
affirmed that conviction. What happened on the appeal was that
Hudak said that the trial judge in the case made
a couple of mistakes. One of them was not allowing
evidence into the case, saying that the problem was not
the racial animus of mister Hudak, but the fact that
(19:38):
he suffered from mental illness. That information was not allowed
to be used in the trial. And the second was
that the judge did allow into the trial the fact
that Khudak owned a bunch of Nazi memorabilia. Originally, the
trial judge in this case decided not to allow that
into evidence, but then changed his mind when Hudak, when
(20:01):
talking about this memorabilia, described himself as a military collector,
and the judge decided, well, you know, this is something
that the jury should decide whether this is something that
he was just collected because he is a history buff
or because this is something that's a symbol of hate
and that symbolizes his desire to act out against people
(20:24):
of other races. Now, some of the facts of the
case are of interest as well. The initial incident that
led to a hate crime charge, and there were two
for which he was convicted, But the initial incident was
from twenty twenty one. The next door neighbor for this
defendant in the case is a Hispanic man, and apparently
there's a long train of instances of insults and racial
(20:48):
epithets and threats. But at one point in twenty twenty one,
who'd act, according to the court records, actually beat the
man and threatened to kill him. And then in twenty two,
twenty two, the second incident involved Hudak and a black man.
They were part They were next to each other in
stopped in traffic and Hudak opens up his car, which
(21:12):
is covered in Confederate symbols, and hurls a racial epithet
at the man threatens to beat him up and then
gets out of his car, punches on the other guy's
car windows several times, and then when the other man
drives off, Hudac chases him back to his home says
he knows where he lives. He's going to shoot him
(21:33):
and shoot his girlfriend too. So that was the second
hate crime charge. Hudak was convicted of both, and the
latest development is that the Fourth U Circuit Court of
Appeals says that the judge did not abuse his discretion
in this case, meaning that those convictions could stand and
that Hudac will have to spend forty one months total
(21:54):
in prison on these federal hate crimes.
Speaker 1 (21:57):
You mentioned mental illness in the original appeal, going back
to the ongoing litigation that we're covering this morning, Mitch,
we do see that pretty often in it typically tends
to be more major cases where you've got individuals that
have can clearly point to severe mental illness deranged nature
that this drove them to make a horrendous decision. Most
(22:20):
of the time it's murdering somebody else or committing a
heinous act against them. In this case, what did the
appeals court have to say about the mental illness. Why
was that not sufficient enough to enter into evidence and
used during the trial.
Speaker 6 (22:34):
Well, there were a couple of actually three reasons. The
first reason was that hoo Deck did not attempt to
have an insanity defense. He didn't try to excuse his
behavior based on the fact that he was insane, so
that that kind of threw that under the bus. The
other thing are some technical issues. There's something called rule
seven oh two in the rules that were contemplate, and
(23:00):
the Federal appeals Court said that the trial judge got
that right as well. That was not something that Hudac
could use to try to get this evidence in. But
I think one of the main things that was of
issue here is that the evidence that was entered to
help the defendant in this case really didn't say anything
(23:21):
about his mental state at the time of these attacks
in twenty twenty one and twenty twenty two. This was
evidence that came to light about the state that he
was in when he was examined much later, much after
the fact. And so that was one of the things
that the original judge decided and that the appeals court affirmed,
(23:42):
was that there didn't seem to be any tie in
between the mental health evidence that was presented and the
mental health state that mister Hudak was in when he
actually was alleged to have committed these crimes. And so
that's what you really would have wanted to know well.
And one of the things that Judge Harvey Wilkinson wrote
(24:03):
for the appeals court was, for this particular crime, it
doesn't necessarily matter that there was some mental health issues
or even mental illness. And in fact, he wrote that
the fact that you would attack your next door neighbor
probably shows that you do have some sort of mental illness,
but that doesn't erase the fact that it seems to
(24:25):
be that this attack happened because of racial animus, that
if the next door neighbor had been white, that he
would not have been attacked. The reason that he was
attacked was that he was Hispanic, and that is entirely
why this case is out there. In fact, at one point,
Judge Wilkinson had said, the hate crime laws in the
United States are written just for the circumstances like these,
(24:49):
that because of the person's race, there is an attack
of this sort, and that's what the hate crimes are
designed to address, he said, And in terms of talking
about the Nazi memorabilia. He said, this is not a
First Amendment case. There is no law that would prevent
the defendant in this case from owning Nazi memorabilia and
(25:12):
expressing views, however odious they might be. But this is
a case about action about an attack. And the reason
that you would put that evidence into play is that
it would help the jury decide whether there was racial
animus based on the fact that he owned the Nazi memorabilia.
And as I said, it was a close call. The
(25:33):
trial judge originally was not going to allow that evidence in,
but only allowed it in after Khudak tried to say
that he was not motivated by racial animus, but that
he was a history buff and collected military items, and
the judge decided, well, this is something the jury should
really decide. The jury took all of the evidence and
(25:55):
decided he should be convicted.
Speaker 1 (25:57):
Mitch, has the defendant been in a prison this appeal
has been going on. How do you know the status
of this individual.
Speaker 6 (26:04):
I actually don't know the status. I assume that he
has been so, so that would mean that he's probably
served about a year of his What is a three
and a half year sentence I don't know whether he's
been out or not, but if not, then that means
he would start the three and a half years. If
he has been in, he probably has about two and
a half years ago, which will be followed then by
(26:26):
another three years of supervised release.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
It's a sad story, Mitch. Thanks for bringing it to
our attention this morning. Unfortunate situation unfolding in Concord over
the last three or four years. You can read some
additional coverage this morning over on our website Carolina Journal
dot com. Mitchkoki from the John Locke Foundation joins us
on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Good morning again and
(26:51):
welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour News Talk eleven,
ten ninety nine to three WBT. Coming up on October
the twenty ninth, the North Carolina the Supreme Court is
set to hear oral arguments in a case between two
parents in a private school in Charlotte, North Carolina. To
get us up to date on the details this morning,
Mitch Kokai of the John Locke Foundation joins us on
(27:12):
the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, while this is only
two parents in one school in the Charlotte area, this
is cand have some broader impacts across the state of
North Carolina as we see the school choice movement continuing,
folks looking at alternatives outside of public schools. It's a
pretty interesting legal challenge going on.
Speaker 6 (27:29):
It is, and it has attracted quite a bit of
attention beyond what you might have expected. The story goes
back to twenty twenty one when two parents, Doug and
Nicole Turpin, We're starting to raise concerns about changes in
the way that the school, Charlotte Latin, was operating, and
they were concerned about some of the kind of DEEI
(27:53):
or critical race theory type things that seem to be
creeping into the atmosphere at Charlotte Latin. And so they
were involved in a group that was raising questions about
changes in the school's operations. And at some point the
school that did not like the questions that Doug Turpin
was asking, and so they basically kicked out the two
(28:14):
Turpin kids from the school. A lawsuit was filed. The
Turpins are saying there's a breach of contract, that they
were misled deceived, and on the other side, Charlotte Lattin
was saying, look, we're a private school, we have the
right to determine who's going to be attending our school.
We had a contract with the parents. There's a parent
(28:36):
school agreement and that we have to be able to
get along, and if we can't get along, we have
the right as the school to end that contract, which
would mean that the students go away and find some
sort of other educational outlet for them. At both the
trial level and the Court of Appeals level, the courts
have sided with the school, basically saying, you know, this
(28:58):
is a contract, it's a price school. They could do
what they want. But the state Supreme Court has agreed
to take the case. We'll hear the oral arguments in
late October, and the case has attracted quite a bit
of interest. Now from the school side. The statewide and
regional groups that represent private schools have come out in
favor of the school, as has the Roman Catholic Diocese
(29:22):
of Charlotte. Now this is not a Catholic school, so
it's not under the diocese, but the diocese put out
a friend of the Court brief saying, look, we have
some of the same similar arguments that Charlotte Lattin is making,
and there's also a First Amendment argument to be made
when it comes to Catholic schools, and so they wanted
the court to consider that. On the other side, on
(29:43):
the parent side, there have been a number of groups
that would tend to be freedom oriented or right of
center groups that have backed Doug and Nicole Turpin, as
have Congressman Richard Hudson and Pat Harrigan and eleven Republican
members of the General Assembly who all signed on to
a Friend of the Court brief supporting the parents, saying
(30:05):
that look, you can't allow a school to deceive parents,
or to mislead them, or to take some steps that
would constitute a breach of contract. And the latest court
filing from the Turpins, which came out in late August, said, look,
if you're allowing this school to prevail in this case,
(30:28):
you're going to give private schools an advantage that you
would not give to other private businesses that are involved
in contracts. You would be giving them something that's beyond
what a normal business would be able to get in
a contract dispute. And so it's going to be very
interesting to see what happens. The State Supreme Court didn't
(30:50):
need to take up this case. The lower courts have
ruled for the school, including a unanimous ruling. An initial
unanimous ruling from the State Court feels that later was
changed into a split ruling in which one of the
judges said, at least at this stage, which is the
earliest stage of the litigation, the case should go forward.
But still the State Supreme Court did not need to
(31:12):
take up this case. It did take up this case,
which means there is at least some appetite in addressing
this concern about the dispute between the Turpins and Charlotte
Lattin and what that means for other private school disputes
with parents moving forward.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Mitch, let me ask you to read a little bit
between the tea leaves on this. You lay that out perfectly.
The State Supreme Court had absolutely no obligation to take
this up. They have decided to do so at any
given point. Mitch, you're tracking dozens of legal cases across
the state of North Carolina. What do you think the
relevance of the State Supreme Court taking this up? You
think it has anything to do with the fact that
(31:50):
there is such a movement in private and private schools
across the state of North Carolina that this might be
something else that they see on the horizon coming forward.
Speaker 6 (32:02):
There is the potential that that's one of the reasons
that factors into this. The easiest way to describe why
the Supreme Court would take this case when it doesn't
have to is that it saw what was written at
the Court of Appeals and wasn't quite satisfied with what
the Court of Appeals did. If they thought the Court
of Appeals, at least the majority opinion got it completely right,
(32:24):
they wouldn't have to take it. They could basically just
sort of slough it off and say that this is
right at the Court of Appeals level. But it seems
as if they either think the Court of Appeals got
something about this wrong or they at least want to
say that we want the highest court in the state
to have a final say on this so that when
(32:45):
future disputes of this sort come up in the future,
that it'll be easy for parents, for schools, for all
of the litigators involved to know what the law of
the land is in North Carolina. And that could have,
as you alluded to, some tie into the fact that
we know that there's more school choice. We know that
more parents in North Carolina are going to be looking
(33:08):
at a private school option, So trying to settle what
the law is when there's a parental school dispute at
the private school level. Trying to give some certainty as
to where that will stand in future disputes, might be
something that the Supreme Court had in mind.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Mitch. From a political standpoint, this is kind of an
interesting story. Many families and guardians are taking their kids
out of public schools and looking at things like charter
and private and homeschooling because of some of the complaints
made by the family in this case, DEI initiatives CRT
initiatives across the state of North Carolina in public schools
and really a broader move across the nation. There's kind
(33:48):
of an interesting political element to this as well, as
so many folks are evacuating the public school system to
get away from many of these divisive concepts.
Speaker 6 (33:58):
That's true, and you know, the thing is with the
private school, you should be able to send your kids
to a private school of any type of ideologic, ideology
or type of training that you think is best for
your kids. And I think one of the things that
the school is arguing is that, look, we have the
right to teach kids the way that we want, and
(34:18):
if parents don't like it, they could choose another option.
They could choose another private school, they can go back
to the public school. One of the things that the
Turpins are arguing is that we enroll our students expecting
a certain type of education, and then when the school
started to change what type of education it was providing,
we were simply asking questions to figure out, where's this going,
(34:41):
what are you teaching the kids, how's it different than
what you promised? And once the question started to be asked,
then the school cut the kids out and said, well, okay,
you know you don't agree with us, so you're out.
And I think that that's something that could be ironed
out to a greater extent once this case gets through
the State Supreme and we get to see some sort
(35:01):
of ruling, there might be some more clarity about what
sorts of rights parents do have when they're in a
private school and they think the private school has done
something differently than what was expected. Had the parents enrolled
and said yes to exactly what Charlotte Lattin is proposing,
no one would have any problem with that, because that's
(35:23):
basically parents making the choice to put their kids into
the situation that Charlotte Lattin had and saying that they
liked that, which presumably most of the other parents that
Charlotte Lattin are fine with. But in this case, what
the Turpins are saying is we were promised one thing.
It wasn't delivered. When we started asking questions about why
(35:44):
it wasn't being delivered, then they gave us.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
The boot and those oral arguments are set to take
place on Wednesday. We'll keep an eye on this legal
challenge over on our website, Carolina Journal dot com. That's
going to do it for a Monday edition. WBT News
is next, followed by Good morning bet. We're back with
you tomorrow morning, five to six right here on Newstock eleven,
ten and ninety nine three. WBT
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.