Life of the party: For Republican lawmakers, it’s, again, majority rules
by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press January 29, 2025
As lawmakers head into a legislative session where Republicans are one seat shy of a veto-proof supermajority, the job is simple. For Democrats, hold the line. For the GOP, convince just one person to cross it.
Overriding a governor’s veto requires three-fifths of each chamber. That’s 72 votes.
That’s why many eyes will be on the state House where Democrats have 49 seats and Republicans hold 71. That’s where it will be a numbers game.
No flipping
House Republicans are loyal, according to their voting records during the 2023-24 legislative session. Many rarely, if ever, broke from the party.
Meanwhile, the Democratic front was not so impenetrable. In the same session, 10 representatives voted with the Republican majority over 70% of the time. State Rep. Michael Wray was the top flipper, but lost in a primary last year. Two have since resigned. That now leaves seven in this session who may side with the GOP.
They are, in order from most likely to vote with the Republican majority to least likely, based on their 2023-24 voting record: Reps. Shelly Willingham (representing Bertie, Edgecombe and Martin counties); Carla Cunningham (Mecklenburg County); Garland Pierce (Hoke and Scotland counties); Cecil Brockman (Guilford County); Nasif Majeed (Mecklenburg County); Terry Brown Jr. (Mecklenburg County); and B. Ray Jeffers (Durham and Person counties).
These Democrats will face intense pressure from both sides of the aisle, according to High Point University political science professor Martin Kifer.
“It is such a crucial thing for the governor to have a veto that can stick as a negotiating point,” he said. “By the same token, there’ll be pressure on some Democrats who may be in tougher seats or have more of a record of working with Republicans to move over because being in the majority, and especially supermajority, can have benefits for them.”
Those benefits could include specific funding toward a lawmaker’s district, Kifer said. Or support for a program to help their constituents.
Having the ear of the majority can be powerful, and if lawmakers play their cards right, a ticket to reelection.
Lawmaker’s legacy
Former representative Tim Moore was the longest serving House Speaker in state history.
Moore has since moved on to the U.S. Congress. Now, Destin Hall, a 37-year-old politician who has never served in the minority party, will take over.
Chris Cooper, a political science professor at Western Carolina University, doubts that the policy preferences of the Republican caucus will shift under Hall, but thinks stylistic and protocol changes may have an impact.
“Moore’s power was so entrenched that there was no question leading into the session, not only who was formally in charge, but who was in charge behind the scenes, too,” Cooper said.
He wonders if Hall will be able to consolidate power in the same manner. The state House is historically harder to control than the Senate simply due to the greater number of lawmakers to wrangle.
Catawba College political science professor Michael Bitzer said he expects Hall to use Moore’s old playbook from the last time Republicans found themselves just shy of a supermajority.
That was in 2023. Moore tried to cut deals with small blocks of Democratic lawmakers, offering incentives in exchange for votes to override vetoes on certain pieces of legislation, Bitzer said.
Lawmakers who made the switch
After former representative Tricia Cotham switched her party affiliation to Republican in November 2023, it became easier for the GOP to block the vetoes of former Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper.
With her addition, Republicans gained a supermajority in both chambers.
At the time of her switch, Cotham said the modern day Democratic Party had become “unrecognizable” to her, and she felt stifled by attempts to control her votes and “villainize” her for “free thought.” Last legislative session, she voted with the Republican majority 96% of the time.
Tensions are again high after one Democratic lawmaker, state Rep. Cecil Brockman of Guilford County, abstained from last session’s vote to override Cooper’s veto of Senate Bill 382. While publicized as a Helene relief bill, SB 382 mostly dealt with shifting power away from incoming Democratic Gov. Josh Stein.
Brockman caught flack from his party for missing the vote, which gave the Republican majority more wiggle room to override the veto 72-46.
In an open letter posted to social media, Brockman said he had been sick and was told the vote would likely be unanimous.
He also did not hold back in his criticism of the state Democratic party, who tried to primary him out of his seat based on his voting record.
“If I do not bend my knee to the establishment, I will continue to be portrayed as a villain. They’d rather convince my community that I am a villain to be scapegoated instead of acknowledging the reality that things are rarely black and white,” Brockman wrote.
He issued a clear warning to Democrats, reminiscent of Cotham’s 2023 switch.
“For those in our party who desire to keep my name in their mouths, let me make it plain and clear for you: Over these next two years, you need me. I do not need you,” Brockman said.
Western Carolina’s Cooper said it was easier for Cotham to switch parties and maintain her electoral success. The same is probably not true for Brockman.
“I think given the nature of his district, it’s a very Democratic district, it’s hard to imagine it ever being something else,” Cooper said. “I think he would be unlikely to formally switch because that would effectively be the end of his political career, whereas Cotham was able to switch and be drawn into a district that was at least competitive.”
Nonetheless, his voting record may still reflect his discontent with his party.
Lawmakers need to show up
Attendance records just got way more important.
Under the state constitution, the three-fifths threshold to override a veto is dependent on how many lawmakers show up. If the full, 120-member state House is present, it takes 72 votes to override a veto.
“If certain members aren’t present … that’s always an opportunity to sneak through a potential override,” Bitzer explained.
Still, according to Cooper, there’s some benefit to “taking a walk” and being absent rather than voting against your party. While both are on a lawmaker’s permanent voting record, one may be more excusable.
“People do have dentist appointments, and people do have doctor’s appointments and people’s kids get sick, people’s tires go out,” Cooper said. “There’s a lot of ways to explain later why you didn’t show up for something. If you cast a vote against it, then that one’s written in stone.”
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
