Two latest vetoes overturned in rare Saturday session

Both measures were enacted in a special session in late July and passed in largely party-line votes. Legislative leaders said they were necessary to ensure voters are not misinformed by ballot information. Democrats say both measures are intended to take away information that would be helpful to voters.

In a pre-session news conference, House Rules Chairman David Lewis said Tuesday's commission meeting, which he called "a political dog and pony show," proved those fears were well-founded.

"I don’t see how anyone can in good faith look at these comments and others that were made," Lewis said, "and say with a straight face that this is not a politicization of their statutory duties."

About 30 protesters outside the General Assembly Saturday picked up on the "pig in the poke" line, chanting "We don't want a pig in a poke, don't make democracy into a joke." One man dressed as a king and lampooned state Sen. President Pro Tem Phil Berger, R-Rockingham.

During the brief House debate, Lewis, R-Harnett, accused Democrats of not trusting voters to read the "plain language" on the ballot.

Here's a look at North Carolina's proposed constitutional amendments

House Minority Leader Darren Jackson countered that it's Republicans who don't trust the voters of the state, saying, "If you did, you wouldn’t have misleading constitutional amendments."

Jackson, D-Wake, called the ballot title measure a "missed opportunity" to educate voters about what each amendment does, using the judicial appointments amendment as an example.

"Nowhere in that language does it mention you’re taking that power away from the governor," he said. "Nowhere does it mention that you’re giving yourself total control of who gets judicial appointments in this state."

The House voted 70-39 to override the veto of House Bill 3. The vote in the Senate was 28-12. Gov. Roy Cooper issued a statement after the vote, saying Saturday's session was "about falsely and unconstitutionally misleading voters and crippling the checks and balances that are the foundation of our democracy."

"It is shameful that legislators have spent their time deceiving North Carolinians and attempting to rip up our constitution instead of improving public education and growing our economy," the governor said in his statement.

Sponsor Sen. Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, highlighted the fact that four judicial candidates would be affected by the change, not only Chris Anglin, a candidate for state Supreme Court who filed to run as a Republican after having been a Democrat.

Republican leaders are concerned that Anglin could siphon votes away from incumbent Republican Justice Barbara Jackson, who's facing a tough re-election battle against Democratic challenger Anita Earls. The bill would remove the Republican party label from Anglin's name on the ballot, and from three other candidates for lower court seats who hadn't been registered with their current party for at least 90 days when they filed.

"We feel strongly that there’s a real difference between someone who has been in a party and supports a party and someone who within 90 days has changed their registration," said Hise.

During the House debate, Jackson challenged an argument that the measure wasn't aimed at Anglin.

"You know how we know? When we asked you how many people would be affected, nobody knew except that one. That’s not fair," Jackson said. "You decided to change the rules after filing, and that’s just wrong."

"For some reason, we come down here on a Saturday in August and pretend this is just some type of game," he continued. "We are changing a law."

The bill had no debate in the Senate at the request of Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue, who said the outcome was obvious. The override vote was 28-12.

In the House, the override vote was 70-39.

Anglin has indicated he may file suit over the law after Senate GOP leaders singled out his candidacy during their original floor debate on the bill.

Lewis said he expects both measures to be challenged in the courts next week, accusing Democrats of attempting to "once again use the courts to short-circuit the will of the voters."