Congressman Don Davis was serving food and shaking hands with his new constituents on a recent Saturday in Pamlico County, one of six counties added to his district last October when our legislature, at Donald Trump’s insistence, gerrymandered the First Congressional District. Legislators used a gerrymandering technique called “cracking” in creating the new district with 6 new counties and removing 4 from Davis’ previous district, including his Greene County home. In so doing they carefully divided what had previously been a highly competitive district with a significant number of Black and Democratic voters, (favoring a Democrat by 2 percentage points) to one that cracked apart minorities and moved them to the predominantly white Republicans voters in new 3rd Congressional district. Now Davis’ district favors Republicans by 8 percentage points. Davis called it one “one of the darkest moments in our state’s history.” He wasn’t alone. Incumbent Republican Congressman Greg Murphy also disagreed with the redistricting, saying that it was very hard because the realignment split his district in half. Even so, Murphy is still favored to win by 6 points. Davis’ opponent in November is Republican Laurie Buckhout, who he narrowly defeated (by 1.7%) in 2024. The congenial and popular Davis vows he will win despite the odds and remain in Congress. Only 4 Democrats, three of whom are African Americans, are currently in our 14-member congressional delegation. To show just how misrepresentative our delegation is consider that 29.8% of all registered voters in our state are Democrats, 30.1% are Republicans and 39.5% are Independents. Is Don Davis just a starry-eyed optimist to dream he can win on November 3rd? Maybe not this year. Voters in North Carolina, like voters all over the US, are angry. A recent Change Research poll taken at the end of July showed 71% of voters in our state are not satisfied with the direction in NC. Only 10% were satisfied. Almost the same number said they weren’t satisfied with the direction the country is taking. Longtime political consultant Gary Pearce, one of the sponsors of the poll, summarized the findings, “I’ve lived through unhappy times in politics, like Vietnam and Watergate. But nothing like this. “Voters’ negativity was the single most striking finding in our poll. It pervades every demographic group, every region of the state and every political affiliation. “The least unhappy people are those who voted for Trump in 2024 (57%). The 18-34 year-olds are the most unhappy. 82 percent of them aren’t satisfied with the country’s direction.” The poll gave North Carolina positive ratings on only two categories: “providing good roads and highways” (50% positive,47% negative) and “protecting the right to vote” (47-43% positive). Only 26% gave positive ratings “on providing all children with good schools.” 66% said we weren’t. The same 26% gave positive ratings for “providing affordable, quality health care;” 63% said we weren’t. 74% were negative about North Carolina’s paying teachers well. And here’s the capper. 72% of those polled (which included 31% Democrats, 33% Republicans and 35% Unaffiliated) said they were extremely motivated to vote this year. November’s election is reminiscent of the 1980 campaign when Ronald Reagan asked voters: Are you better off than you were four years ago? You don’t have to spend all your time running against Trump. And you don’t need to devote too much energy to criticizing our Republican-led legislature. Just ask those you meet: Are you happier with the way things are going today? The voters will take it from there. But it’s not enough just to remind voters why they are upset. Successful candidates need to tell them what they propose to make things better. How are they going to improve our schools? What do they propose to make our elections fairer and more representative? How would they change our legislature to truly represent our state? How can we ensure more people get better health care? And voters, if you identify that candidate by asking the right questions and providing some reasonable solutions you must help them win. In this day of big money shadow campaigns run by special interest groups of people who won’t identify themselves we cannot be passive. We must be proactive, helping good candidates by knocking on doors, handing out literature, making financial contributions and talking them up. It does take a village. As we head into the last two months of the ’26 election the signs are pointing to perhaps the biggest change election North Carolina has seen in our lifetimes. Back in 1980, President Jimmy Carter blamed his re-election defeat on malaise, defined as discomfort, a lack of confidence, feeling lost and uncertain. This year voters are angry, highly motivated to vote and want change. It’s going to get interesting. Tom Campbell is a Hall of Fame North Carolina broadcaster and columnist who has covered North Carolina public policy issues since 1965. Contact him at tomcamp@ncspin.com

The plight of the Haitian people has long been a matter of deep personal concern to me. Over the years, I traveled to Haiti on four missionary trips with Ben Hill Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia. Our mission was to deliver food, medical supplies, and other essential resources to organizations caring for children and families in need. Those experiences gave me a firsthand understanding of both the immense challenges facing Haiti and the extraordinary resilience of its people. My appreciation for the Haitian community has also been shaped by my professional career. Throughout my years in journalism, I have had the privilege of knowing and working with Haitian journalists whose talent, integrity, and dedication have enriched news organizations and informed readers across the country. Their contributions, like those of countless Haitian professionals in health care, education, business, and public service, are a reminder that Haitians have strengthened communities throughout the United States despite the hardships many have endured. I witnessed a nation struggling under the weight of political instability, natural disasters, widespread poverty, and inadequate international support. Yet I also witnessed something equally powerful—the resilience, determination, and faith of the Haitian people. Today, Haiti continues to face extraordinary challenges. Armed gangs control or heavily influence large portions of the country, violence remains widespread, and many basic government services have collapsed. These realities have prompted numerous humanitarian organizations and international observers to conclude that conditions remain dangerous for many who would be forced to return. That is why the recent court decisions involving Temporary Protected Status (TPS) are so significant. It is important to understand what the courts decided. The Supreme Court did not determine that Haiti is safe. Nor did it conclude that the humanitarian conditions that originally justified TPS no longer exist. Instead, the Court addressed a different question: Who has the legal authority to decide whether Temporary Protected Status should continue? In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration could proceed with ending Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians. The Court concluded that federal law generally limits the ability of courts to review the Department of Homeland Security's decision to terminate TPS. A subsequent federal court ruling allowed that decision to move forward. TPS was established by Congress in 1990 as a humanitarian program that allows individuals from countries experiencing war, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to live and work legally in the United States until conditions improve. Haiti received TPS following the devastating 2010 earthquake, and the designation was extended repeatedly because instability persisted. The Court's decision was about executive authority—not about the conditions in Haiti. The administration argued that federal law gives the Secretary of Homeland Security broad discretion to determine when TPS should end and that those decisions are largely beyond judicial review. Those challenging the decision argued that Haiti remains extraordinarily dangerous and that ending TPS could expose hundreds of thousands of people to serious harm. The practical consequences are substantial. Approximately 350,000 Haitians who have relied on TPS could lose their protection from deportation and their authorization to work in the United States, depending on their individual immigration status. This issue is not merely a national debate. It affects North Carolina as well. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2024 American Community Survey, an estimated 20,800 North Carolinians are of Haitian ancestry. They are our neighbors, physicians, nurses, educators, entrepreneurs, journalists, clergy, public servants, and small business owners. They care for our loved ones, educate our children, strengthen our economy, worship in our churches, and enrich communities throughout our state. The Supreme Court answered a legal question. It did not answer a moral one. There is an important distinction between what government may do and what government should do. The fact that the executive branch has the legal authority to terminate Temporary Protected Status does not, by itself, justify exercising that authority under the current circumstances. America has always aspired to be both a nation of laws and a nation of compassion. Those principles need not be in conflict. We can uphold our immigration laws while recognizing the contributions of individuals who have built productive lives in our communities and acknowledging the dangerous conditions that still exist in Haiti. I have walked the streets of Haiti. I have met families whose daily lives are marked by uncertainty, yet whose hope remains unshaken. Those experiences remind me that immigration policy is not simply about statutes and court opinions. It is about people. In the end, history will not judge us solely by whether we possessed the legal authority to act. It will also judge whether we exercised that authority with wisdom, compassion, and humanity. Virgil L. Smith formerly served as president and publisher of the Asheville Citizen-Times and Vice President for Human Resources for the Gannett Company. He is the principal for the Smith Edwards Group and the author of "The Keys to Effective Leadership.” He is the founder and a writer for Carolina Commentary.

While searching for some memorabilia recently I stumbled across a large 15-inch x 22-inch envelope labeled North Carolina Documents 1584-1868. It was so intriguing that I consumed most of an afternoon reading its contents. Inside the package were 13 historical documents published in 1985 by The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources’ Division of Archives and History. The fascinating contents included both facsimiles of the original documents, as well as typewritten translations of the hard-to-read Olde English penmanship. The first was the 1584 charter given by Queen Elizabeth I to Walter Raleigh to explore our lands. Next was a 1660 deed from King Charles II to Nathaniel Batts for property along the Pasquotank River, given when the Lords Proprietors had title to the southeastern areas of North and South Carolina. The 1669 Fundamental (first) Constitution of the Carolinas spelled out the government guidelines from the Lords Proprietors. Further documents included the minutes from the Tryon County (now Gaston) Committee of Safety in 1775, detailing colonists’ protestations over taxes and edicts from England, as well as a copy of the 1776 Halifax Resolves, in which North Carolina delegates to the Continental Congress were instructed to vote for independence from the “Mother Country.” The packet continued with the 1776 Constitution, supposedly written by Englishman John Locke; the Secession Ordinance of 1861; the Constitutional Revision of 1835; and the revised Constitution of 1868, in the Reconstruction era following the Civil War. As I read these 13 documents, I was constantly reminded how our North Carolina ancestors pursued freedom by risking their own fortunes and found myself constantly astounded by their incomparable courage in risking all to attain it. My thoughts shifted to today and considered some of the things currently experienced. It prompted me to wonder why we don’t see similar levels of courage evidenced now. Let’s cite a few examples. The White House Correspondence Association dinner is usually an event where the press corps and the president are jocular, poking fun at each other, but there was nothing playful at the recent event. The American President insulted and attacked the press, singling out individuals with demeaning name-calling. It was distasteful, mean-spirited and offensive. Where was the courage of those correspondents present? Why did they just sit silently and take this churlish behavior? Why didn’t they arise en masse and walk out? That would have been the courageous thing to do. Yes, the President is due respect but there was nothing respectful in his behavior. It did not deserve homage, and a mass exodus would have emphatically told him so. Turning to North Carolina, where is the courageous outrage over the wholesale disenfranchisement of voters wreaked by blatant gerrymandering and obvious disregard of the rights of voters we’ve seen in recent legislation? After fighting so long and hard to gain the right to vote what would our founders say about those obviously tampering with election laws? Why are so many silent? What would these patriot founders, who back in 1789 recognized the value of education by founding The University of North Carolina, say about the deliberate and destructive dismantling of our state’s k-12 public education system? They would likely be outraged by such tepid response. Further, our founders deliberately and with careful forethought constructed our system of government to include three separate branches. It is noted they wanted our legislature (Assembly) to have more powers than either the executive (Governor) or judicial branches, but they never envisioned the Assembly would attempt to take virtually absolute powers from the executive branch or ignore rulings of the courts. We are witnessing a massive power grab by a small minority of our populous. Why aren’t patriotic North Carolinians revolting over these actions? Many of those perpetrating these policies profess to being Christians. They want to publish The Ten Commandments in every schoolhouse. They want to tell women how to treat their own bodies, tell folks how to dress, how to refer to themselves and want to enforce their version of Christianity. But they seem to ignore the teachings of Jesus about feeding the poor, giving to those with less, tending the sick and loving our neighbors. And where are courageous souls when our legislature wants to cut taxes to the bone, ignoring infrastructure, healthcare and many other needs? We are a great state, the “goodliest soile under the cope of heaven,” discoverer Ralph Lane proclaimed. And we enjoy a strong economy, good jobs, a wonderful climate and many natural advantages. What has brought us this point in our evolution is the dedication and courage of people who stood up for right, for justice and for the common good. But has courage skipped this generation? Tom Campbell is a Hall of Fame North Carolina broadcaster and columnist who has covered North Carolina public policy issues since 1965. Contact him at tomcamp@ncspin.com

We wonder how low the Trump Administration will go with the revenge campaign we are seeing against Dr. Anthony Fauci. Senator Rand Paul summoned Dr. Fauci with the nefarious intent of skewering him about his decisions during the Covid pandemic. Paul seemed greatly delighted to have gotten Dr. Fauci’s personal journal, where the good doctor had written some of his reflections about how he had acted in the pandemic. Rand Paul was grilling him about his recommendation to close schools, churches and places of business during the height of the pandemic. There had not been a pandemic in America since the 1917 flu epidemic ran its course through the American population, leaving thousands dead. Epidemiologists, like Dr. Fauci, worked to prepare a people for widespread death, with very little current experience like this in their wheelhouse. Development of the Covid vaccine was called for by Trump. He called it, “Operation Warp Speed.” He also suggested drinking Clorox and taking a drug used in treatments of horses. But I digress. There were many on the right who advocated letting Covid play itself out through a herd mentality, a human survival of the fittest. Development of vaccines is fulltime work for serious scientists and doctors. Viruses mutate easily and quickly. There is a base line of virus treatment, then come the mutations of yearly flu viruses. Developing the resistance to Covid virus was a monumental achievement. Lives were saved. No more tent morgues in the parking lots of New York City. The losses hurt and still impact business and churches. Closing churches did immeasurable harm from which the church is just now beginning to recover. The same is true with schools. But across the spectrum of Americans of all ages, lives were saved. We worshipped in the parking lot for months. Sidewalk cafes popped up all over Raleigh. Outdoor dining became a “thing.” We still dine outside if it isn’t 95 degrees. There is an old saying, “It is better to be safe than sorry.” It is always better to err on the side of caution. The vaccine slowed the virus to a manageable level. Many of us still have N95 protection face masks. We keep hand sanitizer on hand in our cars and purses. It is folly to think Covid is the final pandemic that will befall us. Who knows what evil lurks around the corner? Senator Paul gave Fauci hell, but did not even mention the vaccine denier-in chief who is head of the Trump CDC, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy is single-handedly wrecking public health in America. The pain and suffering of those who contract a virus like measles need an explanation. We all need one. Curiously, Rand Paul did not raise a whit of concern about the increasing number of measles cases around the country. Measles vaccine was developed in 1954 and licensed and distributed in 1963. Today measles rates are the highest they have been in 35 years! There were 2,300 measles cases reported in 2025; 2,400 cases year to date in 2026. Currently there is 67% of our population that is unvaccinated. Eboli is on the rise in Africa. Polio survives in some countries. What will happen to Americans when and if those viruses come to our shores? The incompetence that permeates the Trump administration runs deep and wide. We see the repercussions of his lunacy everywhere. We can but hope we make it through the next two years under this destructive administration. Shame on those who have been complicit in letting Trump run rampant through our democracy and shred every stitch of the social contract among Americans. We know who you are. Collectively, we can do more together than we can as individuals. Public servants, like Anthony Fauci, are part of the safety net of healthcare that has been afforded Americans since FDR. Let’s offer him some charity and say that he might have made some mistakes but was operating in unchartered waters and honestly tried to make the best decisions for us all. Surely our Congress has decency and integrity enough to be part of the healing, not the hurting in America. The MAGAs need to find somebody else to pick on. Lib Campbell is a retired Methodist pastor, retreat leader, columnist, and host of the blogsite Avirtualchurch.com. She can be contacted at libcam05@gmail.com.

We’re back in tariff territory, reflecting an old American debate over free trade and protectionism. Liberals have traditionally been more supportive of free trade, while conservatives have increasingly embraced tariffs and protectionist policies. President Donald Trump has made tariffs a central part of his economic agenda. But the tariff story is not as simple as Republicans versus Democrats, or free trade versus protectionism. It is about jobs, prices, manufacturing, globalization, national security and, increasingly, the limits of presidential power. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major blow to President Trump’s tariff strategy. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, did not give the president authority to impose tariffs. The case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, involved the sweeping tariffs Trump had imposed under the 1977 law. “We claim no special competence in matters of economics or foreign affairs. We claim only, as we must, the limited role assigned to us by Article III of the Constitution," Justice Roberts wrote. "Fulfilling that role, we hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs." Tariffs are taxes on imports—goods coming into a country. Governments can also tax exports, though rarely. Trump tariffs in 2025 cost each U.S. household $1,000. In the 1950s and 1960s, dramatic improvements in communication and transportation—think container ships—made world trade easier. After World War II, technology enabled cross-border, international economic activity. Between 1950 and 2024, the inflation-adjusted value of global trade grew by 4,300 percent. The value of imports to the United States grew from 3.9 percent of its gross domestic production to 14 percent. Political parties with economically liberal positions have generally favored free trade, while nationalist parties have tended to support protectionism. Free trade has contributed to U.S. economic growth and prosperity, but it has also come at a cost. Many former manufacturing centers were hollowed out as companies moved production overseas in search of lower labor costs. During the 1980s, free trade was widely promoted as a catalyst for economic growth. Even conservative President George W. Bush later framed free trade as a moral good. The United States championed open markets to expand economic opportunity, although it continued to protect certain domestic industries, including steel and automobiles. Japan and Germany, for example, emerged as formidable competitors in manufacturing, particularly in automobiles, steel, and consumer electronics. Later, developing countries with substantially lower labor costs became major producers of goods such as toys and apparel. American consumers benefited from the lower prices that global competition produced—and consumers generally welcomed those savings. As manufacturing declined in the United States, and employment went with it as foreign firms could make goods more cheaply, and some U.S. firms moved offshore for low labor costs. North Carolina is one of 25 states suing the Trump administration over double-digit tariffs on 59 countries and the European Union. N.C. Attorney General Jeff Jackson notes these tariffs on 80 countries will affect nearly all U.S. imports. What’s more, they could cost the average North Carolina family approximately $1,100 per year. Taxes on imports typically lead to higher prices for consumers. “These tariffs are hurting families, farmers, and business owners,” according to Jackson. “They’re illegal, and they’re making things harder for North Carolinians who are working around the clock to keep the lights on, pay rent, and afford gas.” Trump is placing tariffs on certain imports, for example, that punish countries’ imports that are made using forced labor. But an article in the July issue of The Guardian notes, “Americans import lots of stuff made with forced labor: $170 billion’s worth of imported goods are at risk of being tainted at some stage along the supply chain, according to the Global Slavery Index (GSI), from raw materials through to finished products. In 2023, this was the most among the countries in the G20. Then there’s the issue of forced labor at home. Tariffs serve various purposes. They can protect industries in the country levying them. Think more jobs, higher wages but tariffs also drive up the cost of imports. This cost is passed along to consumers and raise prices. An average household has paid an extra $2,500, so far in 2026. Maybe Trump believes he can resuscitate American manufacturing. A year ago, Trump placed tariffs on, well, just about everything. But those April 2025 tariffs were illegal and, as economist Paul Krugman writes, “really very stupid from the point of view of any kind of rational economic strategy.” As noted above, tariffs impose costs, higher prices that consumers pay. When deemed illegal, importers may get refunds—now under way for the original tariffs and eventually, probably for new tariffs. Krugman notes, “But they don’t pass that on to consumers.” Krugman notes, of the process, “So we have created a machine which rips off consumers when tariffs are imposed, then hands a bunch of money to corporations when the tariffs are ruled illegal.” Now the country is attempting to move in the opposite direction. In a sense, we are back to the future. Betty Joyce Nash reported for the Greensboro News & Record and the Hendersonville Times-News before moving to Virginia where she worked as an economics writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. She co-edited Lock & Load: Armed Fiction, an anthology of literary short stories that probe Americans' complicated relationship to firearms. (University of New Mexico Press, 2017.)

Congressman Chuck Edwards’ decision to withdraw from November’s congressional election came as no surprise after the House Ethics committee called for his censure. Folks in the mountainous 11th Congressional District must be wondering what it is going to take to elect a traditional, morally sound, responsible North Carolinian. Madison Cawthorn won the seat in the 2020 election but it didn’t take long for voters to realize their mistake. His antics alienated even his own party: trying to smuggle a gun through airport security, driving with a revoked license, photos of him wearing women’s lingerie and boasting he had been invited to an orgy. His outrageous behavior was equaled only by his ineffectiveness. No bill he introduced was ever passed and when floodwaters left thousands without power in August 2021, Cawthorn responded with silence. Voters threw him out in 2022 and elected Chuck Edwards. Edwards, a former McDonalds franchisee, had served in the North Carolina Senate before declaring to run for congress, saying it was time for a grown-up to serve. He was endorsed by Senator Thom Tillis. Even though he lost 12 of the 15 counties in the district in the primary election, he won by capturing Buncombe County with a large enough margin to win the nomination. Hurricane Helene’s arrival in 2024, Edwards’ unquestionable support for Trump and lackluster fund raising had already made the district competitive in 26. And Edwards staged a town hall meeting in Asheville in March of 2025 that resulted in boos and frequent interruptions, questioning his inability to get more federal disaster funds for Helene, federal budget cuts and Trump’s policies. He had to be escorted from the meeting. In Washington, there had been rumors about inappropriate conduct by Edwards. The bi-partisan House Ethics Committee initiated an investigation in April of this year. Following an intensive investigation, they found Edwards “fostered a hostile work environment and engaged in sexual harassment” through “persistent and unprofessional and inappropriate conduct” relating to two female staffers. For Republicans in the 11th district this felt like Deja vu. When Senator Dan Bishop urged Edwards to drop out of the race, the die was cast. Edwards is nothing if not a realist and decided to withdraw from running and serve out his term. The Democratic nominee for November’s election is Jamie Ager, an Asheville native, fourth generation farmer and co-founder of Hickory Nut Gap Farm, a down-to-earth operation that features pasture-fed meats in cooperation with other like-minded environmentally dedicated producers. This election is beginning to feel like a Field of Dreams movie playing out in Western Carolina. Central casting could not have chosen a better opponent to represent Democrats. It was already considered a highly competitive election before Edwards dropped out. It’s been more than a decade since retired quarterback Democrat Heath Shuler represented the heavily Democratic Buncombe County in Washington. Shuler chose not to run again in 2013, following the legislature’s dramatic gerrymandering of his district, including Asheville into a district heavily stacked with Republicans. Could this be the year a Democrat wins? Republicans have a problem. If polls are accurate Trump’s popularity, even among conservatives, is low and falling. Would whoever replaces Edwards as the Republican candidate even want a Trump endorsement or would they fare better without it? More importantly, could they keep Trump out of the affair even if they wanted to? The GOP has less than three months to figure out how they can win against someone reminiscent of Kevin Costner. Morality and traditional values still matter. North Carolina voters will reinforce this in November. Tom Campbell is a Hall of Fame North Carolina broadcaster and columnist who has covered North Carolina public policy issues since 1965. Contact him at tomcamp@ncspin.com

Can you remember the name of the last whole book you read? How long ago was it? If you can’t remember you aren’t alone. An American Time Use Survey of 236,000 by The National Endowment for the Arts revealed that only 38 percent read a novel or short story in 2024. And the proportion of Americans who read for pleasure on any given day fell from 28 percent in 2004 to 16 percent in 2023. My love of reading began in childhood. I remember my mother reading to me. She was a prodigious reader and taught her children to love reading by example. Back in the 1950s, folks were worried about polio afflicting children and, as a precaution, mother made us rest each afternoon for an hour or so. We didn’t have to sleep, but we had to be quiet. We read books. I now believe it was as much to give mother a break as it was about the polio scare. In summer months, when school was out, mother would take us to Shepherd Memorial Library in Greenville every two weeks, with instructions that we could check out five books on any subject we liked. If our library had books with profane, explicit or violent content, head Librarian Lib Copeland kept them hidden from children. My choices were biographies of sports heroes, adventure stories or novels like The Hardy Boys. North Carolina is currently in a “reading recession,” according to The Education Scorecard. We rank 22nd of 35 states in reading, with scores a half grade lower than in 2019. It’s not just being able to read words that is problematic but reading comprehension has suffered badly. Just 35 percent of high school seniors are “proficient” in analyzing themes and evaluating conclusions from texts they read. Scores on the ACT college entrance exam have been falling for the past seven years and are at the lowest levels in three decades. Busy parents don’t read to their children as much as ours did. Middle and high school teachers report assigning zero to four books a year to their students, a 2025 survey found. Instead, teachers now favor assigning short passages or excerpts to be read instead of the entire book. Maybe you can remember having to make book reports in writing or orally to your class on books you were assigned to read like A Tale of Two Cities, 1984, Animal Farm, Wuthering Heights, or Anne of Green Gables. And, while the data regarding current students should concern us there is ample evidence that the reading recession cuts across all age groups, especially among the groups that have traditionally read the most, like women, retirees and college graduates. Data indicates that fewer than 30 percent can paraphrase or draw inferences from multiple-page writings. Rose Horowitch, in a recent Atlantic article titled, The End of Reading Is Here, reports that the books we do read are simpler than they once were, with less literate vocabulary. We get far less news from reading. In 1975, about half of twenty-somethings said they read a newspaper every day. Today, it’s less than 10 percent. Most get news from smartphones and laptops and 40 percent say they would rather hear and watch news online instead of having to read it. Interestingly, Horowitch reports, we are reading more words than ever before. The difference is what we read and how we read them. Texts, emails, sentence fragments on X, Reddit and Instagram have taken the place of longer, perhaps more complicated information. A lot of these threads look more like code. Between the acronyms and initialisms, the SMS shorthand is boggling. IDK what most of them mean, but ISTG they leave me so frustrated that I just want to say NVM and respond with TTYL. Maryanne Wolf, a neuroscientist from UCLA, says “America, in other words, isn’t illiterate. It’s postliterate.” According to Google AI (another subject worth debate), “Post-literacy means a cultural stage where printed text is no longer the main way people share or value information. Instead, images, video, and audio take its place. People still know how to read, but reading books is no longer the center of daily life.” When you understand that the amount of knowledge doubles every 13 months you have to wonder who (or what) is going to read and analyze what is being learned? And how will it be imparted to you and me? We love our smartphones, tablets and laptops. Data reveals we spend 6 hours and 54 minutes a day looking at screens, much of it on texts, news briefs, games or entertainment pieces. But it’s not the same as reading a book. Reading is not only fundamental but it gives us pleasure, adds perspective, teaches us history, and improves our critical thinking, language and relational skills. Thank you for reading this column. Tom Campbell is a Hall of Fame North Carolina broadcaster and columnist who has covered North Carolina public policy issues since 1965. Contact him at tomcamp@ncspin.com

North Caroliina’s Republican-dominated legislature will give voters a chance to cap their exposure to income and property taxes come the November mid-terms. While such caps may lower taxes for the rich, for the rest of us it will likely have the opposite effect. In May, the GOP mustered the three-fifths majority to put two constitutional amendments on the ballot in November. One would cap the state income tax rate at 3.5 percent. The other would require lawmakers to set a limit on the property tax rate counties and municipalities can set to operate local governments. It’s not as though North Carolina lawmakers have abused the power of the purse in the past. The state has always been fiscally conservative. So why did lawmakers see a need to hamstring future legislators and local governments? Especially given that, if approved by voters, the amendments will almost certainly push over more of the cost of government onto the backs of those least able to pay and limit future legislature's ability to respond to changing economic circumstances and revenue needs. Capping the income and property tax rates carries a lot of curb appeal. Who doesn’t want to pay lower taxes? Except that’s not likely to happen, and if it did, it would mean curtailing or eliminating critical services that North Carolinians rely on and that make the state competitive when it comes to recruiting business and industry. The money to operate state government must come from somewhere. Corporate and personal income taxes provide the bulk of the state’s General Fund, which finances much of the funding for public education, law enforcement, and services like those that protect public safety and health, recruit and support business and industry, and maintain roads, ferries and other critical infrastructure. If that money doesn’t come from income taxes, it will come from sales taxes and fees. Notably, lawmakers did not propose an amendment that would cap the sales tax. The $34 billion budget for the current fiscal cycle legislators finally passed (a year late) and sent to Gov. Josh Stein just before the July 4 weekend contains a perfect example of how lawmakers will make up for income tax shortfalls. The bill would require tolls to travel on NC ferries, which, with a couple of exceptions, now costs nothing. Sen. Bobby Hanig, of Powells Point in Currituck County, said the toll could be called a “fee, but it is a tax.” “No North Carolina citizen should have to pay a toll to ride on a ferry,” the Republican lawmaker said. He was one of two Republicans who voted against the budget because of the ferry tolls. The ferry system is part of the state’s transportation system. Like state roads, it’s something coastal residents rely on to get to work and to transport goods and services. Income taxes, even a flat tax like North Carolina’s, require people to pay a percentage of what they earn, so the more you earn, the more you pay. If the income tax rate is 3.5 percent and you earn $30,000, you pay $1,050. If you earn $200,000, you pay $7,000. Those who benefit most from the state’s economy pay the most to support and maintain it. Those who wait tables and those who travel to and from their second homes will pay the same ferry “tax,” but that’s a much smaller burden for those who earn $200,000 a year than it is for those just getting by on $30,000. The other thing state lawmakers are likely to do is push critical services down to the county level. Don’t be fooled by the amendment they’re putting on the ballot requiring them to cap property taxes. They already have the ability to cap property taxes (though they’re not required to). Nothing in the amendment sets a limit on what that cap can be. More to the point, what business does a state senator from Buncombe County have capping property taxes in Person County where he is not answerable to local voters and is unlikely to know the issues as intimately as a Person County commissioner will? Between July 1, 2024 and July 1, 2025, 84,000 people moved to North Carolina from other states. That was the largest gain of domestic migrants of any state during that period. When combined with international migration and natural increase, the state has grown by 757,000 people since April 1, 2020 — an average of about 395 people a day, according to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. That’s one reason the income tax rate in 2027 is set to go from 3.99 percent to 3.49 percent. Those new people add to the tax base. They also drive up the cost of real estate. The tax property owners pay depends on the rate set by local government and the assessed value of their property. Reassessments must occur every eighth year, but may happen more often. Recent reassessments in some fast-growing counties have justifiably distressed long-time property owners. Counties have the option to compensate for higher property values by lowering the tax rate, so the assessment is revenue neutral. But those new residents also put more cars on the road, create demand for water and sewer lines to serve new housing developments, and require more police and fire services and more teachers and classroom space. State and local governments must either meet that demand or infrastructure deteriorates, schools become overcrowded, law enforcement and fire services become inadequate and so forth. Counties need the flexibility to respond. And there are better ways to protect long-time residents from dramatic increases than by capping the rate, including lower rates for seniors and disabled veterans and setting limits on the amount values can go up until a property changes hands. Gov. Josh Stein best summed up the income tax cap amendment, which doesn’t require his signature to go on the ballot, when he said it is “a con, a cynical shell game and a millionaire protection cap. …What it will do is make regular people pay the consequences of it next year and years into the future because it will insulate the very wealthy from ever having an increase in their income tax. We have to have a balanced budget every year. When revenues are needed, you know who’s going to have to pay? It’s you. Regular people, every time they go to buy something, through the sales tax.” For the 2025-2026 budget year, North Carolina’s per pupil spending was $13,680, $5,190 below the national average of $18,870. All those people coming to North Carolina from other states are coming because it’s a great place to live. But how much longer will that be true if we continue to choke our schools and fail to improve and maintain our infrastructure and critical services such as law enforcement and first responders? How much longer will it be true if sales taxes and fees make it so that only the wealthy can enjoy living here? So why did Republican lawmakers put these amendments on the ballot in November? There are those who believe it was an attempt to get fiscally conservative Republicans, who might be tempted to sit out the mid-terms, to vote. Getting out the vote is a good thing, but here’s hoping all those who vote realize that the fiscally smart thing to do is vote “no” to both these amendments. Joy Franklin is a journalist and writer who served as editorial page editor of the Asheville Citizen-Times for 10 years. Prior to that she served as executive editor of the Times-News in Hendersonville.

Another North Carolina elections bill, approved by a House committee, has stalled amid opposition from protesters and lawmakers who object to several provisions, including one that would allow the State Board of Elections to conduct certain hiring decisions in closed session. Wait. What? As lawmakers pursued competing approaches to election reform—with Republicans seeking to tighten voting requirements and Democrats advocating for fewer barriers to voting—the bill appeared poised to advance through the House committee process. However, the measure lost momentum after dozens of protesters turned out to voice their opposition. House Bill 958, which proposes changes to North Carolina's election laws, received a favorable recommendation from the House Election Law Committee on Tuesday, June 16, and was referred to the House Rules Committee. However, the measure never reached the House floor before the legislative session ended, leaving its future uncertain, according to the June 19 edition of Carolina Journal. Democrats have raised concerns about several provisions in the bill, including expanding the timeframe for challenging voter eligibility, granting additional authority to the state auditor, and allowing the State Board of Elections to conduct certain hiring decisions in closed session. North Carolina is the only U.S. state in which the state auditor appoints members of the State Board of Elections. That authority shifted to the auditor following the 2024 general election, after an earlier 2023 legislative effort sought to place the board under the Secretary of State. House Bill 958 would expand the state auditor's authority to review local elections, prohibit election officials from using public resources to encourage voter participation, and extend the period for challenging absentee and early voting ballots. Critics argue that these provisions could discourage voter participation and complicate the vote-counting process. They also point to a provision that would allow the names of campaign contributors to be withheld during post-election audits, a measure that supporters describe as protecting privacy and opponents characterize as reducing transparency, according to WRAL. “This ruling is about power being seized through procedural manipulation rather than earned through the democratic process,” according to Katelin Kaiser, Policy Director for Democracy North Carolina. The bill became public when WRAL and news outlets obtained copies of proposed changes. As of Monday morning, June 15, with the bill not yet public, lawmakers had planned a Tuesday vote. Republicans in the North Carolina legislature quickly pushed through dozens of changes, however, protests halted the process. House Bill 958 would also restrict elections officials from promoting voter turnout and extend the deadline to challenge absentee and early voting ballots. The bill was posted on the legislature’s website Monday and passed the House Election Law Committee Tuesday morning. Lawmakers opened a portal on the legislature’s website for public comment on the bill Monday morning, then closed and reopened it Tuesday after Democrats raised concerns about the process. It’s unclear when legislators will return to the bill. Three Republican senators have filed a separate bill duplicating the House bill only on the provision giving the State Auditor more power. The 36-page bill overhauls multiple parts of North Carolina election law. Among notable changes are provisions extending the deadline for voters to challenge certain ballots. Another change requires using federal databases to identify and remove ineligible or deceased voters. Provisions raised concerns from some Democrats on the committee, arguing that the bill could erroneously remove eligible voters from voter rolls. “If there’s an issue with registration or ineligibility, it seems like that should be raised when they register at the State Board of Elections or at their county boards of elections, rather than telling them after they voted, their all of a sudden their vote gets kicked out,” said state Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Democrat from Guilford County. State Rep. Hugh Blackwell, R-Burke County, said, “Certainly we’re not trying to put up obstacles so much as to do what we can – to improve where we can – integrity of the voting process.” The bill would require Republican State Auditor Dave Boliek to conduct post-election audits at the county level. Supporters say the measure is intended to strengthen public confidence in the electoral process. As one supporter stated, "Post-election audits focused on election processes and procedures will help improve confidence in our voting system." Under current law, the State Auditor has the authority—but is not required—to conduct election audits. According to a spokesperson for the State Board of Elections, the auditor does not currently participate in election audits. Democrats, including state Rep. Phil Rubin of Wake County, argued that because the State Auditor is an elected partisan official, the expanded authority could allow audits to be targeted toward counties where a particular political party—or the auditor himself—performed poorly. They contend that such discretion could raise concerns about the appearance of political bias in the audit process. "I know the statute says it won't affect the outcome of an election," Rubin said. "But having members of a group running for office enter a county after an election and take possession of ballot boxes is going to send a message." Current law already prohibits members of state and county boards of elections from publicly endorsing candidates or soliciting campaign contributions. House Bill 958 would add another restriction by barring election board members from publicly encouraging citizens to vote. Democrats also criticized Republican leaders for moving the legislation rapidly through the House committee process, arguing that the accelerated timeline limited public review and debate. Rep. Phil Rubin summarized the issue well when he said, "This is the kind of bill that deserves a deliberate and transparent legislative process. A draft should be available at least three weeks in advance, followed by two weeks for lawmakers to debate and refine the proposal. The public should then have at least a week to review the final version before a committee hearing lasting two to three hours, with no less than an hour reserved for public comment." Regardless of where one stands on election policy, North Carolinians deserve an open, transparent, and thoughtful legislative process when changes to election laws are under consideration. Measures that affect the administration of elections should be subject to robust public review, meaningful debate, and opportunities for citizen input. Betty Joyce Nash reported for the Greensboro News & Record and the Hendersonville Times-News before moving to Virginia where she worked as an economics writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. She co-edited Lock & Load: Armed Fiction, an anthology of literary short stories that probe Americans' complicated relationship to firearms. (University of New Mexico Press, 2017.)

The Supreme Court’s recent voting rights decision is part of a broader trend of rulings that have gradually narrowed the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. What changed here is not simply a technical legal standard, but the practical way race may be considered in drawing political districts and how discrimination must be proven in court. Those changes affect representation, public policy, and the enforceability of civil rights protections. The most immediate consequence is in political representation. For decades, courts interpreting the Voting Rights Act permitted—and sometimes required—the creation of majority-Black or majority-Hispanic districts when voting patterns showed minority voters would otherwise be consistently outvoted. The Court’s newer direction makes such race-conscious districting more legally vulnerable. States now face a narrow path: ignoring race risks diluting minority voting power, while considering race too directly risks constitutional challenge. Many legislatures are therefore likely to avoid explicit race-based mapmaking altogether. That shift matters because voting in the United States remains highly polarized along racial lines. When district boundaries are drawn without accounting for that reality, Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to be dispersed across districts where they cannot significantly influence election outcomes. The result is often not outright exclusion, but a quieter form of vote dilution: fewer districts where minority communities can elect candidates of their choice and fewer representatives directly accountable to those communities. Representation also shapes policy outcomes far beyond elections. Education provides a clear example. State legislatures and local governments control school funding formulas, district boundaries, and educational priorities. When minority representation weakens, political pressure to address disparities in funding, teacher allocation, or language-access programs may weaken as well. Over time, existing inequities can deepen—not through explicit discrimination, but through reduced political urgency. Economic consequences follow a similar pattern. Public investment in infrastructure, workforce development, and small-business support is heavily influenced by political representation. Communities able to elect responsive representatives generally receive more sustained attention to local needs. When voting strength is diluted, those communities may compete from a weaker position for state and federal resources. The mechanism is indirect but significant: representation influences priorities, and priorities shape where public investment flows. The civil rights implications are especially immediate. The Court’s decision raises the evidentiary burden for proving violations under federal law. Demonstrating that a policy produces racially unequal outcomes is increasingly insufficient; plaintiffs are more often required to prove intentional discrimination. That standard is considerably harder to meet, particularly because modern laws are usually written in race-neutral language. As a result, litigation becomes a less effective tool for challenging inequities, placing greater reliance on political processes that are themselves being reshaped. In North Carolina, these national developments are intensified by the state’s recent legal and political trajectory. The state has long been a battleground over redistricting and voting laws, and its courts have shifted in how aggressively they review those issues. With a judiciary now more deferential to legislative authority and a federal framework that is less interventionist, lawmakers have broader discretion than they did only a few years ago. That discretion is visible in debates over congressional maps and voter identification requirements. Although such policies are typically framed in neutral terms such as election integrity or administrative efficiency, their effects may fall unevenly across communities. Black and Hispanic voters are statistically more likely to encounter barriers such as limited access to qualifying identification or inflexible work schedules that complicate voting. Under current legal standards, proving those effects constitute unlawful discrimination is more difficult than it once was. The interaction between reduced federal oversight and expanded state autonomy makes North Carolina particularly significant. Weakening federal protections does not automatically create restrictive policies, but it creates greater opportunity for them. Whether states use that flexibility to expand or limit access depends on political leadership, public pressure, and electoral incentives. In a closely divided state, even modest changes to district lines or voting procedures can substantially affect political power. More broadly, these developments reflect a redefinition of voting-rights enforcement. The legal system is moving away from ensuring representative outcomes and toward a narrower focus on preventing explicit, provable discrimination. That distinction shifts the burden significantly. Rather than courts actively shaping representative systems, responsibility increasingly falls on voters, advocacy groups, and political coalitions to secure representation through the political process itself. For Black and Hispanic communities nationally and in North Carolina, formal access to the ballot remains intact, but the structural protections that translate votes into political influence are becoming less robust. The long-term effects are likely to emerge gradually—in legislative representation, resource allocation, and the responsiveness of institutions to increasingly diverse constituencies. Virgil L. Smith formerly served as president and publisher of the Asheville Citizen-Times and Vice President for Human Resources for the Gannett Company. He is the principal for the Smith Edwards Group and the author of "The Keys to Effective Leadership.” He is the founder and a writer for Carolina Commentary

Why? Job woes are reality, especially for Black and young workers and even workers with college degrees. In North Carolina, 7,200 manufacturing jobs disappeared in 2025. Between last April and this past March, Business Insidermagazine reports, the U.S. added only 152,000 jobs, averaging fewer than 4,000 a month, compared to 77,000 a month average over the same months in 2025. Most N.C. industry sectors and metro areas report this downward trend, the fifth consecutive year of a labor market slowdown. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics annually revises labor market indicators; data revisions in recent years often show job growth has been slower than initially estimated. Why? Possible explanations include the immigration crackdown, which reduces the number of people coming to the United States to work, artificial intelligence replacing workers, and, idiosyncratic tariff policies. Shortfalls persist especially in the Asheville area as complete recovery from Hurricane Helene remains elusive. OK, there is that hurricane effect—a plausible reason. Another reason, according to some economists, is the influence of erratic behavior from the administration. Uncertainty is never good for the economy. Only four months ago, in his State of the Union address the president said the economy “is roaring like never before.” The latest data on jobs, pump prices and the stock market suggests otherwise, according to Fortune magazine. And there are ongoing, multiple-state lawsuits over Trump’s tariffs. Meanwhile, midterm elections loom. Trump’s tariffs and the war in Iran certainly influence economic outlook, if only through uncertainty. So. How is Trump managing the economy? One economist who advises governments worldwide, calls his policies “an idiosyncratic hodgepodge.” Trump claims tariffs have reduced the “U.S. trade deficit by 24% from April 2025 through February 2026 compared to the same period a year earlier, and [it has] decreased every single month on a year-over-year basis since Liberation Day.” Politifact found that “Trump exaggerated the deficit's decline on his watch by a factor of 10.” And, Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common sense, notes, “The deficit has not been meaningfully cut, much less slashed by 25%."The cumulative 2025 trade deficit for the 15 trade partners with which the United States had its largest deficits in 2024 increased by $85.26 billion. Taxpayers for Common Sense is a Washington, D.C.-based group that tracks budget policy. The White House provided no evidence to support the statement. Though reports say the economy added 178,000 jobs in March, and unemployment is low, at 4.3 percent, hiring is sluggish. Job seekers are pessimistic about prospects. This leaves unemployed workers dependent on unemployment benefits or severance, which may or may not be forthcoming. Uncertainty reigns. Betty Joyce Nash reported for the Greensboro News & Record and the Hendersonville Times-News before moving to Virginia where she worked as an economics writer for the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. She co-edited Lock & Load: Armed Fiction, an anthology of literary short stories that probe Americans' complicated relationship to firearms. (University of New Mexico Press, 2017.)

An unprecedented assault on the media by a sitting President and a landscape changed by technology continue to erode one of the pillars of self-government and community engagement. President Donald Trump recently endorsed Federal Communications Chair Brendan Carr’s threat to revoke broadcast licenses over news coverage of the U.S. Israeli war in Iran that he doesn’t like. The president wrote on Truth Social, “As I used to say in The Apprentice, FIRED.” Carr, and presumably the President, know that actually revoking broadcast licenses would take years of legal wrangling and would likely be unsuccessful, but the threats cause harm nonetheless. By making unsupported accusations of network bias, Carr casts doubt on the accuracy of their reporting, especially among supporters of the administration. Such accusations fall into the same category as Trump’s “fake news” charges that have contributed to undermining American’s trust in all news platforms. According to a Gallup poll conducted in September 2025, Americans who say they have a great deal of trust in the media reached a new low of 28 percent in 2025, down from 31 percent a year earlier. Another 36 percent say they have “not very much” trust in the media, while 34 percent say they have “none at all.” Trust in the media fell from 40% to 32% during the 2016 presidential campaign when Trump frequently tweeted critical or insulting comments about the media. Soon after his election in 2016, he began calling news stories he didn’t like “fake news.” His assault on the media has continued ever since. Accurate information helps us make decisions about matters that affect our lives. But even if accurate information is available, if we can be convinced to doubt that information, we are far more vulnerable to a charismatic leader like Trump whose bravado convinces us he knows best and is acting in our interest. The men who ratified our Constitution understood that a free people couldn’t govern themselves without a free press. Here’s the rub. The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee news will be fair or accurate or accountable. That’s why it’s a good idea to read or watch or listen to more than one source. That said, over the years at legacy media companies, thanks in part to national press associations like the American Society of Newspaper Editors, standards for accuracy and fairness evolved. The newsrooms of legacy media companies like ABC, CBS and NBC are committed to getting the facts right and making every attempt to balance the stories they report. There is no greater embarrassment for a reporter than to get the facts wrong or to report them out of context. And when they make mistakes, responsible news organizations run corrections. Even though revoking licenses presents near insurmountable obstacles, Carr’s threats cause harm besides undermining public trust. The FCC doesn’t actually grant licenses to networks like ABC, NBC and CBS, but it does license the stations the networks own and independent stations that air their programming. Where it does have leverage, as this CNN article points out, is when a station owner wants to transfer a license, as was the case when Nexstar and Sinclair pulled Jimmy Kimmel’s show from their ABC-affiliated stations last fall. At the time, Nexstar needed FCC approval to buy rival company Tegna. The FCC has since approved the $6.2 billion acquisition which closed on March 19. Nexstar and its partners now own 265 television stations that reach about 80% of U.S. households. In the past, FCC rules prohibited any company from reaching more than 39% of U.S. households. These stations contract with the major networks for programming, but some have competing local news operations that will likely be consolidated by Nexstar. NPR reported that Anna Gomez, a Democratic member of the FCC, condemned the FCC’s approval of the merger. She said it was done behind closed doors without an actual vote. “Local journalism is under extraordinary strain," she said. "Across the country newsrooms are being consolidated, reporters laid off and editorial decisions made far from the communities broadcast stations are licensed to serve. The Nexstar-Tegna merger will accelerate exactly that trend, concentrating broadcast power in fewer corporate hands, shrinking independent editorial voices and prioritizing national business interests over local needs." The attorneys general of eight states, including North Carolina, filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, Calif., seeking to block the merger, arguing that it will lead to higher prices for consumers and result in less local journalism. DirecTV, Newsmax and several cable companies have also challenged the merger claiming it will result in higher retransmission costs that will be passed on to consumers. Several other groups have also asked the court to halt the merger until appeals can be heard. Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain, the media landscape continues to shift. Many areas already feel like local news deserts thanks to newspaper mergers and slashed newsrooms, a result of advertising revenue shifting to online platforms. The FCC shift seems to be driven in part by the fact that streaming services and social media platforms have disrupted the traditional local advertising market for television broadcasters, as well. Regulators have determined that the survival of local broadcasting takes precedence over diversity of local news. How can those of us who want to keep up with what’s going on in our communities stay informed? We can take New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger’s advice. In an advertisement that ran for the first time in March, which a spokesperson told the Nieman Journalism Lab will run across most New York Times podcasts, Sulzberger urges listeners “to support any news organization that’s dedicated to original reporting. If that’s your local newspaper, terrific — local newspapers in particular need your support. If that’s another national newspaper, that’s great too.” The good news is that non-profit online news organizations are experiencing tremendous growth across the nation, offsetting the loss of news organizations whose newsrooms have been merged and/or slashed. There are now more than 400 nonprofit online newsrooms across the U.S. They’re typically funded by donations, foundations, memberships and events, not advertising. Most are part of the Institute for Nonprofit News , where you can find a non-profit online newsroom near you. In addition to local newspapers, news organizations deserving special consideration in North Carolina include non-profits such as local National Public Radio affiliates, Carolina Public Press , Asheville Watchdog , and The Assembly . For most of our history, news organizations relied on advertising revenue to keep their companies afloat. That model no longer holds as it once did. But our need for fair and accurate reporting is, if anything, greater than ever. Our support has become essential. Jo y Franklin is a journalist and writer who served as editorial page editor of the Asheville Citizen-Times for 10 years. Prior to that she served as executive editor of the Times-News in Hendersonville.