By John Hood
RALEIGH — North Carolina House Speaker Destin Hall earned at least two rounds of bipartisan applause at the start of this year’s legislative session. One was for assuming his new leadership post. The other was for releasing a House calendar for the next six months, complete with specific deadlines and a pledge to “give you some certainty in your schedule.”
I like most of the policies enacted by the General Assembly over the past decade and a half. But I don’t like how long the sessions run, how hard that makes it to retain hard-working lawmakers, and how power and information flows through the building — or, more to the point, fails to do so.
I’m hardly alone. Other longtime participants and observers I know feel the same way. Some share my appreciation for the General Assembly’s policy achievements. Others disdain them. Where we agree is that, if North Carolina is to preserve a true citizen legislature, its ways and means will need to change.
My John Locke Foundation colleagues Andy Jackson and Jim Stirling have been thinking along similar lines. In a recent research paper, they offer these proposals to reform the legislative process:
• Set a firm end date of June 30 for each legislative session. Assuming fixed start dates, that would give North Carolina 90-day “long” sessions in odd-numbered years and 35-day “short” sessions in election years. Peer states such as Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee impose comparable or even shorter session limits. Their lawmakers produce at least as meritorious legislation as ours do but more efficiently — while making it easier for folks with time-consuming careers or young children to serve in office.
• Boost legislative pay. North Carolina’s base salary of $13,951 is one of the lowest in the country and hasn’t budged in decades, resulting in a sizable decline in inflation-adjusted terms. Granted, lawmakers receive other compensation: mileage reimbursements and $104 for expenses for every day in session. Still, the total is manifestly insufficient to compensate state lawmakers for their time.
As a fiscal conservative, I’d rather be pound-wise than penny-foolish here. Taxpayers are best served when taxes, budgets, and other public policies are crafted by experienced, principled lawmakers. At the very least, we ought to redirect to salary the money saved by shortening sessions, which would raise the base salary to $20,531.
• Make the General Assembly more transparent. Jackson and Stirling point out that while the North Carolina legislature fares well on some measures of openness and accessibility, a 2023 measure giving lawmakers more authority to withhold records from the public was a backward step.
They propose not just repealing that measure but placing a constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot to increase transparency across state government — in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
• Impose term limits on legislative leaders. While I don’t favor term limits on state lawmakers (I feel rather differently about Congress) it would be reasonable to limit service as speaker of the N.C. House or president pro tem of the N.C. Senate to a fixed number of years, as do 19 legislative chambers across the country. Jackson and Stirling suggest a lifetime cap of eight years each. My own preference would be six.
One need not question the service, dedication, or judgment of Senate leader Phil Berger and former House Speaker Tim Moore to argue that regular turnover in top jobs is a good idea. It would offer enterprising lawmakers more chances to earn their way to leadership roles in their chambers — not just the speaker and president pro tem offices but also majority leaders, whips, key committee chairs, and other posts that would also open up more frequently as members move up their respective organizational charts.
Rules matter. They’re not all that matter, of course, and a well-crafted process won’t guarantee good outcomes if the people involved lack knowledge, virtue, and commitment. Still, if we want to attract strong lawmakers and get the best work out of them, the rules themselves must change.
John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).
Mr. Hood
The only way to “change how the legislature works”
Is to change the legislators!!!!!!!
Your argument attempts to frame legislative reform as a bipartisan good-government effort, but it’s really just a way to consolidate power while appearing “reasonable.” The proposal to set a firm end date for legislative sessions may seem efficient, but in reality, it restricts lawmakers’ ability to respond to unexpected crises, policy challenges, or citizen concerns. The comparison to Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee is misleading—those states have different governance structures, and shorter sessions often lead to rushed, poorly considered legislation. The North Carolina General Assembly has already been criticized for prioritizing political power grabs over thoughtful policymaking. Cutting session length would only make it easier for entrenched leaders to push through bills with minimal debate or opposition.
Your argument for increasing legislative pay has some merit as fair compensation could encourage broader representation in government. However, this proposal isn’t about attracting “strong lawmakers”—it’s about ensuring the current Republican-controlled legislature remains in power. There’s a difference between paying lawmakers fairly and artificially raising salaries as a way to keep the same political class in charge. Without real transparency and accountability, higher pay just becomes another tool for career politicians to entrench themselves. Transparency, meanwhile, is a hypocritical talking point. Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have actively reduced transparency, including passing a 2023 measure allowing legislators to withhold more records from the public. If transparency were a genuine goal, the General Assembly would start by repealing that law and making real commitments to open government—such as ending last-minute bill changes, secretive committee meetings, and gerrymandered districts that limit voter choice.
The proposal to impose term limits on legislative leaders may sound like a step toward reform, but it does nothing to address the real issue: the unchecked dominance of a single party through gerrymandering and voter suppression. However, if we’re talking about term limits, they should apply to all lawmakers, not just leadership roles. Term limits hold politicians’ feet to the fire by preventing them from becoming entrenched in power and falling into cronyism. Career politicians often prioritize self-preservation over serving the people, cutting backroom deals and bending to the interests of lobbyists rather than their constituents. Term limits promote fresh perspectives, prevent stagnation, and reduce the influence of corporate money in politics by making it harder for long-time incumbents to build networks of special interest donors. They also increase opportunities for more diverse candidates to serve, making government more representative of the people. If term limits are truly on the table, they should apply across the board—not just as a performative measure to give the illusion of reform while leaving the larger power structure intact.
Your article ends by stating, “Rules matter.” That’s true, but the rules being proposed here are designed to entrench Republican control, not strengthen democracy. There’s no mention of independent redistricting, voting rights protections, or campaign finance reform—because those changes would actually make the process fairer and more democratic. Instead, this is an attempt to tweak the system just enough to appear bipartisan while keeping real power in the hands of the same political elite. If we’re serious about reform, let’s start with real transparency, fair elections, term limits for all politicians, and an end to the partisan manipulation of government—not just cosmetic changes that protect the status quo.
Another key benefit of term limits is that they would encourage more bipartisan cooperation. With a limited time in office, politicians would be more focused on leaving a legacy of meaningful accomplishments rather than engaging in endless partisan battles. When parties refuse to work together, they become ineffective, serving their own interests rather than those of the people. Voters expect leaders who prioritize governance over party loyalty, and term limits would help ensure that politicians remain accountable to the citizens they serve—not just their political factions.
There isn’t much of a difference between the Pubes and Demokkkrats. This is how stupid the whole thing is: Berger and Moore gave Cooper his precious Medicaid expansion without anything and they shoved that f***ing gambling bill down our throats. Now, they are proposing a bill to allow gamblers to claim their losses on taxes. Did we vote for this s***?