Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes bill making threats against elected officials a felony
Summary
The North Carolina House on March 19 passed House Bill 95, a measure sponsored by Representative Kidwell that would raise the penalty for threatening any elected official in the state to felony level; the measure passed on third reading and now goes to the Senate.
The North Carolina House of Representatives passed House Bill 95 on March 19, upgrading the criminal penalty for threatening any state, county or local elected official from a misdemeanor in some cases to a felony. The House committee substitute passed its third reading and was ordered sent to the Senate after a recorded vote of 113 to 2 on second reading and an aye voice vote on third reading.
Sponsor Representative Kidwell told the chamber the bill grew out of an incident during early voting in which a man threatened to shoot him and others. Kidwell said the man had been released on a $1,000 bond (which he characterized as effectively a $100 payment) before a restraining warrant could be obtained, and that local elected officials sometimes face threats they believe the existing law treats as lesser crimes. "If you threaten any elected official at any level in the state of North Carolina, it would make it a felony," Kidwell said while urging members to support the measure.
Supporters said local officials are more accessible to the public and therefore vulnerable to threats at grocery stores, town meetings and elsewhere. Representative Brown Rice described two separate stalking incidents she experienced and said those episodes informed her decision to support the bill.
Opponents urged caution over sentencing changes. A member of the House floor questioned whether the Sentencing Policy Advisory Commission had been consulted about upgrading the penalty classifications and argued the bill would create disparities in punishment compared with protections currently given to law enforcement, probation and parole officers and National Guard members. That member said the proposal raises those threatened for their public role to higher felony classifications than other public-safety personnel, and urged lawmakers to seek parity before enacting enhanced sentences.
Members asked follow-up questions about whether the proposed protections would cover tribal governments, special districts and other local elected bodies; Kidwell stated his understanding that the bill was intended to cover elected officials across the state. Other lawmakers urged the sponsor to work with the Senate on sentencing parity if needed.
The bill, identified in the session as the house committee substitute to House Bill 95, was read and advanced to the Senate after the chamber recorded its vote on second reading (113–2) and approved it on third reading. The measure will now be considered by the Senate, where any changes to sentencing language could be made.
