State lawmakers return with cloudy agenda

Nearly anything is possible thanks to the wide-open parameters lawmakers set for this session in their October adjournment resolution. But there seems to be little agreement at this point between House and Senate leaders on what the session should accomplish, with the possible exception of addressing GenX contamination in the Cape Fear River.

Here are their top 10 potential action items:

Legislators have said they’re likely to try to pass "short-term" legislation responding to Gen X, one of a number of unregulated chemicals found in North Carolina waterways. Rep. Ted Davis, R-New Hanover, authored the measure, which was approved Jan. 4 by the House Select Committee on River Quality, a panel Davis chairs.

Gov. Roy Cooper and other Democrats have criticized legislative leaders for failing to take up and approve the governor’s statutory appointments to various boards, including the Utilities Commission, which is currently deciding a rate increase request from Duke Energy. The October adjournment resolution specifically allows consideration of Cooper’s appointees and nominees in this session.

House Rules Chairman David Lewis said Monday that appointments by Cooper, House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger will be among the items to be taken up this week.

House leaders appear to be divided on the prospects of finalizing work on new voting districts for trial court judges. House Bill 717, sponsored by Rep. Justin Burr, R-Stanly, passed the House in October but has not yet been considered by the Senate.

Even if the House should pass a new set of maps, the Senate has shown little inclination to push them through this week. Senate leaders have set up their own judicial redistricting committee, independent of the House.

The new system would not apply to judges on the state Supreme Court, Court of Appeals or Superior Courts, all of whom are constitutionally required to be elected. Changing those to appointed offices would require voters to approve a constitutional amendment. Senate leaders have said they might introduce such an amendment, but polling has consistently shown little public support for the idea.

House and Senate leaders also created a new joint committee on judicial reform, giving leaders of each chamber a place to send proposals they’re not ready or willing to consider.

With filing for legislative districts scheduled to begin Feb. 12, state lawmakers and would-be challengers are still waiting to see what some of those districts will look like.

Legislators redrew their maps in August. But plaintiffs in the case challenged the new maps, saying they didn’t fix the constitutional problem and that they redrew districts that were not found unconstitutional, which itself violates the state constitution’s prohibition against extra redistricting.

The three-judge panel didn't rule on the legality of the August maps, but the judges appointed Stanford University law professor Nathaniel Persily to offer an independent version of legislative maps that would resolve any constitutional issues.

A ruling in the case is expected in the next month. The court could accept the August maps, accept Persily’s maps or tell lawmakers to redraw them yet again. Either way, the decision is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If needed, Moore has said, lawmakers could go into skeleton session for a couple of weeks to reconvene later this month. Lewis said Monday that appears likely.

"Honestly, the uncertainty of the [redistricting] ruling from the court has kind of put a damper on everything else," Lewis said. "So, you’ll see us take care of the pretty easy administrative stuff like the confirmations and the very important issue that everybody agrees on, the Gen X issue, and then we’ll kind of be in a waiting pattern for a while, waiting on the court."

In 2017, some House and Senate lawmakers said the January session would focus on constitutional amendments. Any of the 24 that have been proposed so far in this two-year biennium would be fair game this week, as would new ones, according to the adjournment resolution. Amendments are not subject to the restriction that they needed to clear either the House or the Senate by the end of last April to remain viable.

Some observers expect at least one or two amendments to surface on the ballot next November, a midterm election in which Republican turnout will be crucial for GOP leaders seeking to hold on to veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

A 2016 legislative mandate to reduce class sizes in the early grades has many school districts around the state saying they could afford neither the additional classrooms nor the additional teachers required to meet the new caps.

Legislators responded to the problem last spring by temporarily extending the mandate’s deadline and allowing districts more flexibility in meeting it for the 2017-18 school year. However, the law will fully take effect for the 2018-19 school year, and education leaders are again sounding the alarm.

House Education Chairman Craig Horn, R-Union, suggested last week that a fix could surface this week. But even if the House should pass a measure, it’s unclear whether the Senate would take it up now or wait till the regular 2018 session in May.

The adjournment resolution specifies that legislation dealing with elections is allowed to be considered at this week’s session, but so far, there’s no strong indication that such a measure will emerge.

According to the adjournment resolution, lawmakers can take up bills that have emerged from any conference committees that have already been appointed. Five measures remain in conference committees. One other eligible proposal, House Bill 162 Amend Administrative Procedure, emerged last year but doesn't seem to have support from House Republicans.

Ten of Cooper’s 14 vetoes have already been overridden, and lawmakers passed legislation to get around an 11th. Three vetoes are still standing: one allowing nonprofits to hold "casino night" fundraisers, one allowing wastewater from landfills to be sprayed into the air over the dumps and one changing various state environmental regulations. None of the three appears likely to re-emerge from the House Rules Committee.