by Sarah Michels, Carolina Public Press April 30, 2025
RALEIGH — There’s never an off year for elections. At least not in the state legislature. This session, dozens of election-related bills have been filed, but a few have sped to the front of the pack: local measures making school board races partisan and those shifting municipal contests from odd to even years, when state and presidential elections take place.
Meanwhile, other legislation — including bills making Election Day a state holiday and changing the way voter registration drives work — has stalled.
In order for these bills to make it across the finish line, they’ll need a boost to meet the May 8 crossover deadline — the day legislation has to be approved by at least one chamber to move forward.
Making election boards partisan
When the Jackson County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously on a resolution asking the General Assembly to make school board elections partisan, there was no warning. The proposed change wasn’t even on the agenda.
Rather, during its February meeting, Commissioner John Smith moved to amend another resolution, which was on the agenda, with the proposal to add party affiliations next to the names of school board candidates.
Without discussion or public input, Smith and his fellow commissioners voted to approve the amended resolution.
A week later, the Jackson County Board of Education voted unanimously to approve an opposing resolution declaring its intent to keep school board elections nonpartisan.
Board of Education Chairwoman Gayle Woody felt blindsided.
“It was obvious that they had had discussions behind closed doors because there was unanimous agreement with no comment, reason given or discussion,” she said.
Although Woody shared her concerns with the county’s Republican state House Rep. Mike Clampitt, he prioritized the commissioners’ wishes. In early March, Clampitt filed a bill to make Jackson County’s school board elections partisan. Since then, that bill has passed the House along party lines and is awaiting a second round of review in the state Senate.
Woody hopes that never happens. She sees a potential ally in Jackson County state Sen. Kevin Corbin, whose opposition could kill the bill. Thus far, Corbin has been “very responsive” to the education board’s concerns, she said, but votes are never certain until they’re tallied in the state legislature.
Woody doesn’t want the school board to become another “political football” in her community.
“I’m obviously aware that political things come up in every aspect of community life, but that should not be the driving force behind decisions made by school boards,” she said. “It should be what’s best for our students.”
A partisan pattern
Jackson County is not the only battleground where the fight over elections is being waged. According to an EdNC analysis, the number of partisan school districts in North Carolina has quintupled since 2013 when only 10 districts held such elections.
In 2024, 52 of the state’s 115 school districts held partisan elections. Before those elections, 31 of those boards had Republican majorities. Afterward, it was 38.
“In a state like North Carolina, where we have roughly the same number of Democrats and Republicans, but we have more Republican counties than Democratic counties, moving to partisan ballots is likely to help the Republican Party,” said Chris Cooper, a Western Carolina University political science professor.
He added that it also helps build Republican talent which can be used to fill out candidate slates for higher levels of political office later.
Bills to make school board elections partisan in Gaston, Columbus and Pitt counties, as well as the city of Asheboro, are also on the table this legislative session. Each have made it past the House and await Senate action.
During a committee meeting discussing one of these bills, state Sen. Brad Overcash, R-Gaston, explained that voters want more information on the ballot. Right now, they just have a list of names, he said.
Even when parties aren’t listed on the ballot, partisanship comes into play because local Democratic and Republican parties tend to make endorsements in nonpartisan races, Overcash added.
“This is a much more fair way to conduct elections because if you have multiple people from the same party running, you have an open public election process rather than an internal party process where they’re identifying who should go on what slate card,” he said.
While the Jackson County Board of Commissioners has five Republicans, the current school board has three Democratic members and two unaffiliated members. To Woody, it’s proof that voters chose individuals, not a party, in a county that went for President Donald Trump by nine percentagepoints the past two election cycles.
Odd or even?
During China Grove’s last mayoral election, 377 people voted out of a population of about 4,500 in the Rowan County town.
In the Pitt County village of Simpson, just shy of 100 voted.
And in Vance County’s Kittrell, a measly 26 showed up at the polls for the mayor’s race.
What do these races across North Carolina have in common? They all took place in 2023, an off year for state and federal elections when voter turnout is typically much lower.
That’s why these small burgs, as well as Madison, Faith and all of Pamlico County’s townships, want to change that. Each asked their state representative to file a bill changing their elections from odd to even years.
For China Grove Mayor Rodney Phillips, there was an additional motivation: to save money.
The same holds true in Kittrell, where the town clerk said the 2023 election cost $2,500 even though only a few dozen showed.
Also, when fewer people vote, it’s easier for special interest groups to sway a result, Cooper said. But off-year elections have different patterns than on-year elections in that the issues may be more nationalized when the mayor’s race is on the same ticket as the presidential and congressional contests.
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 content reports on several legislative proposals in North Carolina concerning election-related changes, such as making school board races partisan and shifting municipal elections to even years. The article presents facts about the various proposed bills and their progress through the state legislature, without endorsing a specific position. It includes perspectives from both supporters and opponents of the bills, such as Republican officials advocating for more transparent elections and Democratic officials concerned about the political implications for school boards. The tone remains neutral, presenting both sides of the debate in a straightforward manner.
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.
