With their recent return to Raleigh, North Carolina legislators will soon consider a pair of bills that have serious implications for the privacy rights of everyone in our state.

The first is an expansion of the “DNA Database Act of 2010” that allows police officers to take a DNA sample from individuals upon arrest without a warrant – and before they have been convicted of any crime. About half the states in the country now have some type of law requiring the collection of DNA samples from people who are arrested for various crimes but not yet convicted.

As the ACLU of North Carolina argued during consideration of the 2010 act, such a policy is unnecessary because law enforcement officers already have the authority to take DNA samples from suspects during an investigation if they can show probable cause to obtain a warrant. The only purpose for these so-called “DNA upon arrest” laws is to allow police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment’s protection against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed bill, which has already been passed by North Carolina’s House and is now being considered in a Senate Judiciary Committee, would expand the 2010 law to allow police to search thousands of additional North Carolinians by adding dozens of additional crimes to the list of those for which police can take an individual’s DNAwithout a warrant.

Similar laws have been ruled unconstitutional by various state courts across the country, including Minnesota and Maryland, where Gov. Martin O’Malley tried to justify his state’s policy by arguing that “a DNA swab [is] no more intrusive than a fingerprint.” The reality, however, is that unlike fingerprints, DNA contains an individual’s entire genetic blueprint, including information on thousands of genetic conditions such as ancestry, personal traits, and susceptibility to disease and mental illness.

As science continues to advance exponentially, it is quite possible that even more information will be gleaned from DNA samples in the future. In a legal system that presumes people are innocent until proven guilty, North Carolinians should seriously consider whether police should have the power to possess such detailed and extensive biological information about individuals without a warrant and before they have been convicted of a crime. And if we continue to expand the list of those from whom police can legally take DNA, what guarantee is there that you or your family member won’t be next in line for a cheek swab?

The Fourth Amendment’s guarantee that all people will be secure in their persons and papers will also be tested this session by a bill that would give local sheriffs and deputies access to the state-maintained pharmaceutical database that contains most drug prescriptions written in North Carolina. Again, this law only serves to circumvent the established process by which sheriffs can already obtain information in the pharmaceutical database – by making a request through the State Bureau of Investigation. Under this new bill, sheriffs can search through an individual’s prescription records without securing a warrant or even having to demonstrate probable cause for the search.

The state’s pharmaceutical database was created to help identify patients who are at risk of prescription drug addiction or overdose – a very real health care concern. But by expanding the list of government officials who can access this information without a court order, the bill makes private medical information less secure. Knowledge that local law enforcement could be monitoring the database could cause doctors to second-guess their health care recommendations and ultimately have unintended consequences for their patients. For example, people seeking proper pharmaceutical treatment for a variety of illnesses would have greater cause for concern that their medicines or condition could become public or leaked to an employer.

Our Constitution establishes checks and balances in order to prevent the abuse of power by rogue government officials. By eliminating warrant requirements for law enforcement to obtain information as private as our personal genetic code and medicinal history, these two bills could erode the constitutional right to privacy that protects all North Carolinians against unreasonable searches.

New laws should seek toprotectindividuals’ privacy rights in the face of emerging technology – not diminish them. As the Supreme Court has ruled countless times, the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply only when an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If we allow lawmakers to continue rolling back privacy protections, that reasonable expectation becomes harder to reclaim and will become significantly reduced for future generations.

Mike Meno is the Communications manager for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina.

Location! Location! Location! One of the first rules of creating a successful business is ensuring that it is located in the proper place. While it is, for many reasons, unwise to compare schools to private businesses, location can also mean a tremendous amount in the quality of education a student receives.

The renewed “neighborhood schools” movement is troubling. In the 1970s, the “freedom of choice” movement was a backlash to Brown v. Board of Education and integration of schools. In those years, the choice movement was often driven by racial prejudice. This new movement is wrapped in the guise of both protecting children from onerous travel and real estate values.

What the neighborhood schools movement does not take into account or willfully avoids is the issue of segregated housing patterns. There are obviously wealthier areas of the state than others. There are also obviously wealthier areas within various school districts. While federal Title I money provides a supplement for poor schools and state funding aids low-wealth districts and disadvantaged students, they do not fill the gap.

As a practical matter, given the housing patterns in North Carolina, a “neighborhood schools” approach basically tells children that because their parents are poor, they are not worthy of a high quality education. Because of the way the state funds schools, wealthier districts get more resources and more experienced teachers. And schools with more resources generally have higher success – at least with respect to standardized test scores.

Recent studies show that integrated schools narrow the racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps. Last year, a Century Foundation report entitled “Housing Policy is School Policy” studied an area of Montgomery County, Maryland which uses “inclusionary zoning.” Inclusionary zoning is a system that helps assure that people of different income levels reside in the same neighborhood. The Century Foundation reported that the achievement gap is narrowed in the schools when poorer students learn with their more affluent peers.

A report released by the Brookings Institution also illustrates the importance of integrated housing. The report shows that where there is integrated housing and integrated schools, the achievement gap narrows. The report also studied the Raleigh-Cary area in North Carolina. It found that even where there is not integrated housing, the achievement gap narrows when there is a concerted effort to integrate the schools such as the Wake County assignment policy that promoted socioeconomic integration. The Raleigh-Cary achievement gap is likely to be worse in areas where there are “financial and regulatory barriers” to integration. Sadly, of course, Wake County currently has a confusing school assignment policy, which does not seem to have achievement of low-income students as a high priority.

The bottom line from these studies is clear: If students can only go to school where they live, their access to opportunities is diminished. Defenders of the “neighborhood schools” approach argue that if people are able to afford property in affluent areas and pay more in property taxes they are entitled to benefit and send their children to the high quality schools. The implication of such an argument however, is that it’s “tough luck” for the children who through no fault of their own live in poverty or in areas their parents can afford.

This simply cannot be a fundamental principle of our public education system. Education is not supposed to be just for the affluent; it exists to support the common good.

A child should not be foreclosed from opportunities because they live in a depressed area of foreclosed homes. Children living in public housing should not suffer poor public schools. Poverty is not a choice even though some see it as an aspect of the sin of sloth. Even if one believes the ridiculous proposition that people are responsible for their own poverty, they surely cannot believe the children should also suffer.

North Carolina counties should consider inclusionary zoning to encourage better neighborhoods and more diverse and successful schools. School districts in the state should also consider assignment policies that create diverse schools, which the research shows lead to high quality schools.

To punish children because of their parents’ poverty is only punishing the entire state. Children should not suffer because of supposed “sins of their father.” The truth is that if we only allow students access to great schools because of their zip code, our entire state will suffer. That, indeed, would be a sin.

Christopher Hill is the Director of the Education and Law Project at the North Carolina Justice Center.

As a mother, I care about my children above all else. I devote nearly every hour and all of my prayers to helping them build strong character and a bright future. I know they’ll make mistakes, and I welcome the opportunity to help them learn from those missteps, pay their dues and move on to better things.

As a mother, I know children are our future. And that is why, on this Mothers Day, I urge North Carolina’s legislators to change a law that does nothing but hold thousands of our kids back.

North Carolina remains one of only two states that automatically prosecute all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults – for something as minor as stealing a candy bar. This outdated system leads to exactly what we don’t want: kids’ lives damaged by a permanent adult record and the experience of being exposed to the influence of seasoned adult criminals.

My daughter is among those children whose prospects have been put in jeopardy by this law. At age 17, Cydney was arrested and charged as an adult for the kind of schoolyard scuffle so many kids get into. If Cydney lived in a state other than North Carolina or New York, this minor charge would have immediately gone to juvenile court. There would have been strict and appropriate consequences (such as tight supervision and restitution), but none that would brand her for life as an “adult” offender.

But because Cydney is a teen in North Carolina, her life and future prospects flew into unnecessary chaos. Once an enthusiastic student, her experience in adult custody left her disheartened. She felt cast out — a sentiment that only deepened when she began to look at going to college, something that would benefit not only her, but society in general.

What college, she worried, would want a student with an adult record, even if just for a run of the mill offense that kids from other states wouldn’t have to note at all?  Each day it seemed, Cydney faced new doubts and challenges — all of them needless and counterproductive.

Common sense legislation before our General Assembly this spring would “Raise the Age” of youth jurisdiction, so that 16 and 17-year olds like Cydney who commit low level offenses are handled in the juvenile justice system. There, they would learn their lesson, pay their dues and eventually be able to get on with leading productive lives and contributing to society. Meantime, kids convicted of more serious crimes would remain in the adult system.

Raise the Age would do away with what former North Carolina Supreme Court Justice and Republican candidate for Governor Robert F. Orr has called the “destructive, one-size-fits-all punishment” system we have now. It’s also an extremely expensive system.

Most state officials and legislators understand that the repetitious costs of incarcerating 16 and 17-year olds in adult correctional facilities is far more pricey in the long-term than providing them with age-appropriate services, treatment and punishment near their home communities. A study by the North Carolina Youth Accountability Planning Task Force last year found that the state could avoid spending $50 million a year by “Raising-the-Age” based on lower recidivism rates and fewer youth with an adult criminal record.

But while the practical arguments for Raising the Age are strong, I’d like again speak from a mother’s heart. During Cydney’s darkest days, I stood by her. She did the hard work of paying for her mistake and pulling herself back up by her bootstraps, but she had a full and loving family around her.

What about those kids who don’t have a tight-knit family to help them overcome the burden of an adult record? Many probably have strong potential to grow into productive adults, raising families and benefiting society through careers. Yet, our state is nearly alone in clinging to a system that undercuts these kids, and in doing so, hurts us all.

As a mother and in honor of this Mother’s day, I urge the General Assembly to put our future ahead of a flawed status quo. Let’s join 48 other states and Raise the Age.  

Teresa Shirley lives in Western, NC and travels the state working with parents to Raise the Age, www.RaisetheAgeNC.com.     

North Carolina legislators return to Raleigh this month and whether they like it or not, they will make a host of decisions that will have a profound impact on children’s lives. In 2011, lawmakers took several steps that rendered the programs serving our state’s most vulnerable kids even more underfunded and threadbare than ever before. The question now is: Will they repair some of the damage they inflicted or make matters even worse? At this point, the outlook is not particularly encouraging.

Here are some of the areas and programs that cry out for more resources and attention:

Early Childhood Education

Since leaving town last summer, leaders of the North Carolina House have proposed narrowing eligibility for the NC Pre-K and fully privatizing the program. Advocates were able to beat back these proposals at the time, but they expect the legislature to make another run at restricting eligibility this summer when the session reconvenes.

In addition to potential policy changes, legislators must also address the issue of funding for NC Pre-K and Smart Start. Last year, the legislature cut both programs by 20%, leaving thousands of children without access to a high-quality early education. The Governor took a positive step this spring by funding more than 2,000 new NC Pre-K slots, but it was just a fraction of what is needed. The fundamental question remains: Will the General Assembly continue to cut early childhood programs or will they begin to reinvest in our youngest learners?

The Earned Income Tax Credit

In North Carolina, one in every four children lives below the poverty line, an unacceptable number for a state with so much wealth. The state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit for low-income working families and is a proven tool for lifting families and children out of poverty. North Carolina’s EITC is scheduled to sunset this year. Legislators will have to decide whether to extend this tax credit or make the decision to, in effect, raise taxes on poor families. The outcome is far from certain.

Medicaid

Nearly one million children in North Carolina rely on Medicaid for their physical and behavioral health care. Unfortunately, many of these children, especially in rural parts of the state, are finding it more and more difficult to access care as a result of another overhaul of the state’s mental health system and years of funding cuts. In fact, the state’s Medicaid program faces a shortfall of nearly $250 million heading into 2013. Legislators will need to address this shortfall to ensure that it doesn’t impact care for children, but without new revenue this will extremely difficult.

Juvenile Justice

For years, child advocates have urged legislators to stop prosecuting all 16- and 17-year-olds as adults, regardless of the severity of the crime. North Carolina is one of only two states left in the country with this unfair and ineffective policy. State House leadership has pledged to give a committee hearing to legislation that would raise the age of juvenile jurisdiction, and it’s our hope that 2012 will be the year that legislators implement this long overdue policy change.

K-12 Education Reform

In late April, Senate President Pro Tem Philip Berger proposed a new initiative to significantly alter our public school system. His recommendations include a new focus on literacy for children entering the fourth grade, greater accountability for students and schools, and the elimination of teacher tenure. While many of the goals of Senator Berger’s reform package are laudable and some of the ideas are solid, the package itself fails to pair adequate resources with the new mandates. We can do a better job with our public schools and children’s advocates look forward to providing guidance and feedback as the Senate debates its plan.

Of course, these issues are certainly not the only ones facing children in 2012. Many others – from funding for tobacco prevention and cessation to infant mortality prevention to higher education – are also critically important.

One question, however, lies at the heart of the debates surrounding virtually every such matter: Will North Carolina lawmakers work to repair and rebuild the public systems and solutions that give vulnerable children a fighting chance or will they continue the general retreat they sounded in 2011? Those who care about our state’s future should pay close attention.

There’s something that the people and special interests pushing to legalize “fracking” in North Carolina don’t want you to know. It isn’t about flammable tap water or carcinogens in fracking fluids. It’s about the supposed rationale for putting our air and water at risk – that is, the claim by politicians and others that fracking will create near-term jobs for North Carolinians.

If you look past the rhetoric to the economics, you’ll see that their claim just isn’t true.

So far, of course, the debate about legalizing fracking has focused almost exclusively on the environmental impacts, and it’s easy to understand why. In states where the controversial method of extracting natural gas is legal, methane has leaked into drinking water, hazardous air pollutants have fouled the air, toxic fluids have contaminated aquifers, and the injection of wastewater has caused seismic activity.

With all of the focus on environmental impacts, there has been little discussion about why we would want to put our air and water at risk in the first place. Proponents say that fracking will create short-term jobs, but what if that’s not true? With so much at stake, it’s worth looking beyond the talking points and getting to the bottom of the rationale behind the push to frack.

Here’s the hard truth: If the legislature legalizes fracking, no jobs will be created in North Carolina anytime soon.

Historically low natural gas prices are making it difficult for natural gas companies to make a profit anywhere, and since North Carolina has a relatively small resource and no infrastructure in place, it wouldn’t make any sense for a natural gas company set up shop in the state.

In large part due to increased fracking in other states, a surplus of natural gas has driven natural gas prices to the lowest they’ve been in years. Just last week the price of natural gas fell to $2.08 per thousand cubic feet, the lowest it’s been in over 10 years. With prices that low and the costs of production remaining high, natural gas companies have actually had to slow down operations in areas with well-known, rich supplies of shale gas. In fact, across the country the number of rigs drilling for natural gas has fallen by 30 percent since October.

When the price of natural gas goes back up, as it surely will, companies will resume drilling in areas that have proven to be productive and already have infrastructure in place before they will come to North Carolina. Our state’s shale gas resource is tiny compared to other places across the country.

The Sanford sub-basin, where state geologists predict there might be natural gas, covers approximately 59,000 acres. Compare that to the Marcellus Shale basin, which covers 60.8 million acres across the Northeast, or the Haynesville and Barnett basins, which cover 5.8 million and 3.2 million acres across Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

North Carolina also lacks the infrastructure necessary to support the natural gas industry. For a natural gas company to make a decision to invest in a new shale basin, there would need to be pipelines, processing centers, and suppliers available to get the gas to market. North Carolina doesn’t have any of that infrastructure.

You don’t have to take my word on this. Last December a respected energy research firm prepared a report for the American Natural Gas Alliance that projected natural gas production over the next two decades. The analysis revealed that more than 90 percent of shale gas production between now and 2035 will come from six different basins, and North Carolina was not on that list. Experts at the N.C. Department of Commerce agreed with this assessment, when they recently acknowledged that “it is not likely North Carolina’s shale play will be developed in the near-term.”

Looking at these numbers it’s evident that North Carolina won’t miss out on anything by keeping fracking illegal for now. On the other hand, there are big advantages to taking our time. Within a few years there will be a lot more information available about the environmental impacts of fracking. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently studying the impacts fracking has on drinking water, and in other states across the country, gas companies and state regulators are figuring out new ways to minimize environmental impacts.

A few years down the road, armed with lots of new information, North Carolina will be in a much better position to make a decision about fracking. But for now it’s clear that the potential economic benefits are not worth putting our air and water at risk.

Will Morgan is the Director of Government Relations at the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club.

On May 8, 2012, North Carolinians will be asked whether to amend the state’s constitution to provide that the only valid and recognized domestic legal union is a marriage between one man and one woman. If Amendment One passes it will harm all unmarried couples, including unmarried women who are victims of domestic violence, as well as their children and families.

Proponents of the amendment say that the institution of marriage is in danger and that the amendment is necessary to protect marriage and families. Despite the fact that North Carolina law already prohibits same-sex marriages, proponents say it is imperative to vote for the amendment. They ignore, however, the real danger Amendment One poses on existing protections for domestic violence victims and their families.

North Carolina has long recognized that domestic violence victims deserve protection, whether or not they are married to their abusers. Under North Carolina’s anti-domestic violence statute (which is known as “50B”), victims of domestic violence who have had a “personal relationship” with the abuser have certain protections. “Personal relationship” encompasses a spouse, former spouse, current or former household members, unmarried persons of the opposite sex who are living or have lived together, persons who have a child in common, or a persons of the opposite sex who are currently in or were in a dating relationship.

If Amendment One passes courts may no longer recognize unmarried couples as having a “personal relationship.” Unmarried domestic violence victims could be denied domestic violence protective orders. This is not just hypothetical; it happened in Ohio when a similar, but less restrictive, amendment was passed.

Protective orders under the 50B statute are vital for victims of domestic violence, married or unmarried, who seek independence from their abusers. Under the 50B statute a judge can order an abuser to refrain from abusing the victim, the victim’s children, the victim’s family or anyone in the victim’s household. A judge can order that the victim have temporary custody of children, as well as temporary possession of the home. If Amendment One passes unmarried victims of domestic violence could lose these protections, leaving them even more vulnerable.

In Virginia, where a similar amendment was considered and subsequently passed, domestic violence programs frantically tried to come up with ways to get more victims into shelters because victims could no longer access protective orders that kept them safe in their own homes. Our state will see the same problem. An increase in the need for shelter by unmarried victims of domestic violence means more money spent on sheltering while abusers are allowed to stay in their homes. It also means that already strained shelter programs may have to turn away victims fleeing abuse.

Proponents of the amendment say its passage won’t negatively impact domestic violence victims. But we know the far-reaching harmful consequences are a real possibility. In Ohio, after the passage of an amendment less restrictive than the one being considered in North Carolina, defense attorneys successfully argued that domestic violence laws did not apply for unmarried people because the state’s constitution didn’t recognize a special status for unmarried people in a marriage-like relationship.

We cannot afford to gamble on domestic violence victims. More than 50,000 North Carolinians seek domestic violence services each year. And since the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence started to document domestic violence related homicides in 2002, North Carolina has lost at least 788 women, men and children to domestic violence. Many of the homicides were committed by someone to whom the victim was not married.

Victims of domestic violence deserve the right to protect themselves and their children. The real danger of Amendment One is to domestic violence victims, their children, and loved ones should the amendment pass. Vote AGAINST Amendment One on May 8.

Elizabeth Froehling is the Executive Director of theNorth Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Every day, here at the NC Housing Coalition, we get calls from folks around the state with housing needs. They are working hard to make ends meet, but are coming up short. Some are underemployed or disabled and looking for a decent and affordable place to rest their heads at night. Some are struggling to stave off foreclosure and hold onto their life’s biggest investment. Some are just hoping for shelter so that they can avoid spending another night in a car or on the street. We do our best to connect these callers with organizations and programs that can meet their needs.

As the final days of tax season come and go, North Carolinians are likely breathing a sigh of relief that they have fulfilled their duty this year. That responsibility for paying taxes is so rarely considered in the same light as the other civic responsibilities we so cherish as a society: to care for our neighbors, participate in our communities and serve our country. And yet, without taxes, we would be hard-pressed to fulfill those common goals.

It is only through the pooling of our resources that it is possible to invest in a more broadly shared well-being and a more vibrant, inclusive economy. One need only look at what North Carolina was like before our state’s tax system was in place to see just how stark the alternative is. There was no universal access to education for children, no roads connecting communities or farms to market, and no protection against economic calamities such as the crash of the stock market.

But we don’t have to look to the past to demonstrate the role of taxes in our everyday lives. The impacts of policymaker’s decisions last year to cut taxes, and in so doing reduce the state’s investments at a time of unprecedented need for families, businesses and the economy are just as stark as any historical portrait.

Learning for at least 20,000 students is more difficult as their teachers have lost their jobs and they have been moved to more crowded classrooms with fewer tools—textbooks and technology—to aid in learning.

Seeking an efficient, just decision in the courts is now more costly and likely to take longer as personnel was cut and fees were raised.

Making sure minor illnesses don’t turn into major hospitalizations is a challenge with fewer dollars invested in health education and prevention and less access to care and insurance coverage.

There were other choices to be made and greater leadership to be demonstrated. A call to a higher purpose, one requiring us all to contribute, could have minimized the pain felt across the state by families, businesses and communities alike. A commitment to reform our revenue system to make sure that it can adequately invest in what will propel the state forward and do so in a way that asks us all to contribute according to our means could have positioned us today for a more stable and vibrant future.

Nearly every day throughout the year, not just at tax time, we contribute to what matters to all of us—healthy, stable families, businesses and communities that all enjoy the prosperity of a strong economy. Rather than commiserate at tax time, let’s celebrate our collective effort to make North Carolina a better place.

Alexandra Sirota is the Director of the North Carolina Budget and Tax Center.

North Carolina has one of the most confusing school funding formulas in the nation. Unfortunately, the bizarre complexities of North Carolina’s funding formula fall hardest on students with disabilities. Anyone who has worked in education has seen cases or heard stories of maltreatment and lack of access to a meaningful education involving special education students that make one’s blood run cold. These stories have their root in the state’s special education funding scheme.

Other states have conducted “costing out” studies to determine precisely how much money each district needs to educate children to the proficiency level. The best systems then use a “weighted” funding formula that takes into account regional cost variations, the need for specialized teachers for students who have disabilities and Limited English Proficient students, and other factors that may increase or decrease the cost of education in a given district. In other words, they figure out how much it costs to educate each student in a given district and they give each district that amount of money.

North Carolina, however, employs a convoluted system involving numerous pots of money that have been added over time in response to certain needs. There are allotments for students with disabilities, Limited English Proficient students, students who are at risk of failing, small counties, low wealth counties, and many more. They are nearly impossible to keep track of, and each has its own complex formula allocating how funds are disbursed to school districts.

Even the most renowned experts in the field of education funding cannot figure it out. In 2010, the legislature hired the prominent national research firm of Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) to conduct a nonpartisan study of North Carolina’s funding system. The firm has studied the funding systems of almost every state and created the funding formulas employed in many. In North Carolina, however, APA met its match. It reported that “[i]t is difficult to count the number of formulas that are actually used to allocate state funds.” In other words, a group of consultants who study education funding for a living cannot even tell how many different formulas and pots of money are involved.

APA’s Number One recommendation was to simplify our funding scheme by combining all the allotments into a single per student allotment. Sadly, that recommendation has not been seriously considered.

For students with disabilities, there are serious inequities hidden within the impenetrable school funding formula. Funding for special education is vital because special education teachers are very highly skilled specialists. The number of students classified as eligible for special education services has increased over the years, but funding for more teachers to teach them has not kept pace.

The most obvious problem is that the special education funds that districts receive bear no relation to the cost of actually educating students with disabilities. Districts receive about $3,500 extra for each child with an identified disability. However, the actual cost of educating each student varies dramatically depending on factors such as the severity of a given student’s disability and the additional cost of learning aids, devices, and services needed to provide an appropriate education.

APA’s second key recommendation was to modify the “Special Education Allotment” by setting three different payment rates for students with disabilities based on disability severity and the expected cost of educating each group. That would make the special education funds have some relation to the cost of educating students with disabilities, but this recommendation has also been ignored.

Finally, there is an arbitrary cap on the amount of funding that districts can receive for special education students. Funds for special education students are currently capped at 12.5% of a district’s average daily membership. In other words, districts that have far more than 12.5% of their total student body receiving special education services still will only receive funding as if 12.5% of their students were receiving these services!

Out of the 114 districts for which data is available for 2011, 73 (or 64%) had a percentage of students receiving special education services that exceeded this cap. That means that more than half of North Carolina’s districts are being shortchanged on special education funding in comparison with districts that have fewer students classified as in need of special education services. Smaller, rural districts that already have greater trouble funding their schools are the hardest hit. Stokes, Tyrell, Pamlico, and Mt. Airy school districts all have over 18% of their students enrolled in special education, but only receive funding as if 12.5% of these students were enrolled.

All can agree this system needs modernizing. The only argument against fixing it is that it will not be free. For children facing greater obstacles to education through no fault of their own, this justification is not comforting. The legislature has a moral and legal obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to reform this system before more districts and disadvantaged students slip through the cracks of North Carolina’s convoluted funding system.

Matt Ellinwood is a Policy Advocate at the North Carolina Justice Center’s Education and Law Project.

It’s hard to believe, but Election Day is right around the corner. Early voting starts in just a few weeks. This is also a Presidential election year with emotions running strong and hopefully with a lot of North Carolinians voting. There is clearly cause for great excitement.

There is a big problem however. Lots of North Carolinians are going to go into their polling places this spring and discover that in either the primary or the general election they don’t really have a choice.

Of the 120 House seats and the 50 Senate seats, there are 55 races in which, come November there will be only one name on the ballot for that seat. In almost one-third of the legislative districts around the state, voters will not be able to pick who will represent them for the next two years. Someone else will have already made that decision. Someone else will have already cast their vote for them.

SO who is casting that ballot? Who is making the decision? Here’s who: The North Carolina General Assembly itself. Actually, to be somewhat more precise, it’s not even the full general Assembly that’s responsible, just the majority party. Every ten years, it is the party in power who decides whether or not we, as voters, will have a choice on who will speak for us in the General Assembly. It is decided when they do redistricting.

Redistricting is done every ten years after the Census is completed. Congressional and legislative districts are redrawn to ensure that all districts have about the same number of people in them. In North Carolina, the two political parties have finely honed their skills in creating districts that maximize the voters for the party in power and minimize the voters for the party out of power. We seem also to have highly developed our ability to file lawsuits about redistricting. We currently lead the nation in litigation over redistricting.

It is time this stops. It is time for voters to be able to choose who represents them not allow legislators to choose their voters.

A majority of the 120 members of the North Carolina House actually agree that North Carolina needs to find a better way to carry out redistricting. Eight-eight members of the House voted for a proposal (House Bill 824, “Non Partisan Redistricting Reform”). Of the 27 who voted against it, about a dozen liked the idea but thought it should be a constitutional amendment so that future legislatures could not change the statute.

It is now up to the state Senate to pass H 824 and allow North Carolinians get to actually choose who represents them in the NC General Assembly. Please contact your Senator NOW and tell them they need to take up H 824 in the legislative “short session” that convenes in May. Tell them: “Don’t go home without passing it.”

Jane Pinsky is the Director of the N.C. Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform.