banner
@NCCapitol

NC lawmakers returning to decide on veto overrides

Posted September 3, 2013

NC General Assembly 4x3

— The North Carolina General Assembly is returning to work Tuesday to consider whether to override Gov. Pat McCrory's first two vetoes.

The legislature is scheduled to reconvene in Raleigh at midday Tuesday, more than five weeks after it adjourned for the year. 

The state constitution required McCrory to call legislators back when he issued the vetoes. Watch Tuesday's special session live on WRAL.com this afternoon. 

Republican lawmakers say they're poised to override two vetoes by McCrory – one on legislation that would require drug testing for those seeking certain kinds of welfare and another on a bill expanding the definition of "seasonal labor" that don't need an immigration status check.

Both measures passed the House and Senate by wide margins, and legislative leaders say they expect lawmakers to pass the bills despite the governor's objections.

If all members are present and voting, that would require 72 votes in the 120-member House and 30 votes in the 50-member Senate.

Although the special legislative session is expected to convene formally at noon, the House isn't expected to take action until late afternoon. House Republicans say they expect to hold a caucus – a closed-door meeting among members of the same party – around 3 p.m. Tuesday.

They do not anticipate taking up the vetoes until 4 p.m. or after. It is unclear whether the Senate will wait for the House to take action Tuesday night or come into session on Wednesday morning to handle the bills.

15 Comments

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
View all
  • corey3rd2 Sep 3, 4:48 p.m.

    The man McCrory appointed for Veteran Affairs admitted to killing two unarmed men - anyone drug test him before he collects $90K of tax payer's money?

  • gnostradame Sep 3, 4:23 p.m.

    dear Regressives, starving people isn't going to make NC a very business friendly environment... already your bad national press with voter suppression and unemployment insurance has cost NC dearly... and I suspect Jesus would be ashamed of you. do you care? NO... let them and their free-loading children starve! I could care less what you say about drug testing on this topic... that is just another way for you evil people to demonize poor people.

  • gnostradame Sep 3, 4:19 p.m.

    The seasonal labor override is going to haunt these Regressives. Their support comes from rural parts of the state. I hope all those farmers now realize who control the Regressive Party: corporations and their shady front groups like ALEC. Democrats have failed badly as they've tried to play that game as well. At least the Regressives are open about their corruption. The Regressives like to use propaganda to form your opinions then turn around and ship your job overseas or make obsolete your business for multinational campaign donors.... whatever makes their corporate campaign donors happy (and rich) at your expense.

  • Carolina Sep 3, 1:02 p.m.

    "How anyone who ISN'T on drugs and collecting a welfare check could possibly be against this measure just amazes me."

    I'm not on drugs OR collecting a welfare check, and I'm against this measure because it's been tried in other states. It's promoted as a bill to save taxpayers money by not providing welfare to drug users, and in Florida it ended up costing taxpayer at least $40,000 MORE than the existing welfare payments, because less than 2% of applicants tested positive, which meant the state was on the hook to pay for all those drug tests. In short, it's a ridiculous law that does the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.

  • jackflash123 Sep 3, 12:50 p.m.

    "So in short- it's an illegal law that costs the state far more than it saves.
    How utterly simple can that be?
    And yet you still support it?
    Why?"

    Republicans claim austerity when they can. This is just pure spite. The only drug that is detected consistently outside a 24-hour window is marijuana, the least serious illegal drug that is on the verge of being legalized anyway.

  • goldenosprey Sep 3, 12:37 p.m.

    "How anyone who ISN'T on drugs and collecting a welfare check could possibly be against this measure just amazes me. "

    Why so amazed? Would you not be against the State confiscating your bodily fluids without reasonable suspicion, for purely political reasons, especially if you are not on drugs?

    "If you can afford drugs, you don't need a welfare check."

    You assume that everyone who tests positive for drugs, the group who will presumably be denied benefits, pays fair market value for whatever they test positive, in a time relevant to application for benefits, a HUGE jump.

    "If you think someone who does have money for drugs should still get a welfare check, fine, you have it taken out of your check money bags."

    If you think someone who has million$ should still get corporate welfare, fine, you have it taken out of YOUR check.

  • rroadrunner99 Sep 3, 12:22 p.m.

    Big to do about nothing, this is all a big put on to make the people THINK they are actually doing something right. They have hurt their image so much they don't know how to rebuild it now.

  • junkmail5 Sep 3, 11:34 a.m.

    How anyone who ISN'T on drugs and collecting a welfare check could possibly be against this measure just amazes me.- chrisnrali

    well, there's the fact that states who actually DID this found that they LOST money doing so.

    or the fact that every state who has passed such a requirement ended up wasting money defending the law in court only to have it ruled illegal.

    So in short- it's an illegal law that costs the state far more than it saves.

    How utterly simple can that be?

    And yet you still support it?

    Why?

  • chrisnrali Sep 3, 10:44 a.m.

    How anyone who ISN'T on drugs and collecting a welfare check could possibly be against this measure just amazes me. If you can afford drugs, you don't need a welfare check. How utterly simple can that be? If you think someone who does have money for drugs should still get a welfare check, fine, you have it taken out of your check money bags.

  • irma2oc Sep 3, 10:33 a.m.

    McCory said doing his quest for Governor he would do something with the inherent tax so what happened with that promise.

More...