- Two major changes are coming to North Carolina.

Tougher laws in an effort to make our state safer and new voting maps that could reshape our political landscape.

What happens after the vote?

This is "State Lines."

- Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you, who invite you to join them in supporting PBSNC.

♪ ♪ - Welcome to "State Lines."

I'm David Hurst.

On December 1st, Iryna's law takes effect in North Carolina.

It's named for a Ukrainian refugee murdered on Charlotte's light rail.

Supporters say the law will keep dangerous people off the streets, but critics warn our system isn't ready to handle it.

I spent the past few weeks looking into both sides of the debate.

Here's what I found out.

In August of 2025, 23-year-old Iryna Zarutska was fatally stabbed while riding the light rail in Charlotte.

Police arrested DeCarlos Brown Jr., a man with prior arrests and a history of schizophrenia.

He had been released earlier that year on a written promise to appear in court, and a court-ordered mental evaluation that was never completed.

That case led lawmakers to pass what's now known as Iryna's law.

Governor Josh Stein signed it in October.

- We can and must do more to keep people safe.

When I review public safety legislation that comes to my desk, I use one simple test.

Does it make people safer?

- Starting December 1st, certain defendants will no longer be released on just a written promise.

Judges will have to set a secured bond for people with prior violent or serious charges.

The law also creates a new process requiring judges to start mental health evaluations when a defendant shows clear signs of mental illness.

But that part doesn't start until next year.

The delay came after warnings from hospitals and county officials who said the state simply doesn't have enough treatment capacity.

The shortage of hospital beds means some defendants with mental health needs are sitting in county jails for months, not because of their charges, but because there's nowhere else for them to go.

- We certainly needed to figure out a way that we, as sheriffs, as detention centers, would not become warehouses for the mentally ill.

- To ease that pressure, some counties are trying new approaches, bringing mental health treatment directly into local jails.

In Pitt County, Sheriff Paula Dance helped launch a program called NCRISE.

It's short for Restoring Individuals Safely and Effectively.

Instead of waiting months for a transfer to a state hospital, inmates receive therapy, medication, and court education sessions right inside the jail.

- That helps these patients with coping skills, problem-solving skills, and just preparing them for the outside world.

- The RISE program actually started in Mecklenburg County and now operates in Pitt and Wake as well.

In Mecklenburg, more than 60 people have gone through the program with an 80% restoration rate, most within about 50 days.

At state hospitals, that same process can take triple the time.

With the mental health portion of Iryna's Law taking effect next year, it gives counties time to expand programs like RISE and decide if local treatment can keep people stable while they wait for trial.

- I think that this is a start to address the broken mental health system that we have across not only in North Carolina, but across the country.

- Over the next year, the state will track how these pilot programs perform.

They'll be measuring restoration times, jail populations, and whether people are getting the help they need before their cases move forward.

- And joining me today is Representative Erin Paré of Wake County and Representative Zack Hawkins of Durham County.

Thank you both for being here.

- Thank you.

- Happy to be here.

- Representative Paré, I'll start with you.

You voted for this bill.

What do you hope it accomplishes?

- Well, first of all, I think what happened in the Charlotte area with Iryna Zarutska was a devastating tragedy that I didn't think many people or anyone saw coming.

And it really devastated all of us here in North Carolina, not just in our state, all over the country and frankly, the world.

Because the brutality of it was very evident all over television and on the internet.

And I think it woke a lot of us up to some things that we perhaps need to fix that may have or probably would have, in my opinion, prevented this.

So I think that this is a good bill.

I was happy to vote for it.

And I'm very happy that the governor signed it into law.

And now that it is law, because it does make some important and significant changes that I think takes a more hands-on approach to public safety in the state of North Carolina instead of what I believe that we all discovered was more of a hands-off approach to public safety.

- Now, Representative Hawkins, you voted against the bill.

What were some of your concerns?

- Well, first, I wanna make sure that the people of North Carolina know that safety, as the governor has outlined, is the number one concern.

That is our top priority, is to make sure that no matter where they are in the state, that they feel that they can go and get back safely.

And so we definitely send our prayers to that family.

And as Erin mentioned, it did shock a lot of people.

And so I'm glad that the General Assembly, in particular, and the governor, moved forward on taking a step.

But when something like this happens, we can't miss the moment.

We have to make sure that we're having, as not a reactionary conversation, but a comprehensive conversation, about all the things that can go into making sure that long-term, people feel good about North Carolina as a safe place to go.

And so this is a start.

And that's why I voted against it, because while it's a start, it is not, it didn't fund this operation in the way that it should.

And as Erin mentioned, with pretrial detention, we didn't look at the opportunity to create statewide standards for assessing risk.

That young man was very troubled.

And he should have never gone to a place that was not mentally, mental health focused, and not a place that could not hold him for a long time until it could have been assessed that he was no longer a risk to himself or others.

And so his ability to get back onto the streets is a larger sign that we need to make sure that we're looking at opportunity to create strong pretrial service frameworks.

And so in data tracking systems that are talking to everyone across the state, so that we know who's who, and again, and who should not be, and are not ready to be in the public.

And so, we can go on to other things, but I think that really, for me, is an opportunity where I think this is a start.

We sort of missed the moment in a reactionary way, and I understand that, but we have to come back together to make sure that we build a real comprehensive plan so this never happens again.

- That seems a lot of the debate was whether what's laid out in this law would it have prevented that tragedy.

Do you think it would have?

- Well, there's a lot of pieces to this particular story, and I think that it very well may have, and I'll explain why.

I think one of the most significant parts to this law is that it addresses the mental health crisis issue with some people like Mr.

Brown in this particular scenario.

If you go back and look at the history of Mr.

Brown, he was arrested for a slew of felonies about a decade ago, served prison time, but as recently as January of 2025, he was arrested.

You know the story of when he showed up at a hospital and was having an obvious mental health crisis of some sort where he was saying that he had a man-made material that was controlling his brain or something to that effect.

Someone called the police on him.

The police show up, and they sort of saw this as a medical issue.

It wasn't until Mr.

Brown was unhappy with that response from the police that he decided to call the 911 to speak to police officers, and he was then arrested for misuse of the 911 system.

It should have been there that that mental health crisis that he was experiencing was documented, so someone, a district court judge, could see that in the record and then maybe do something about it back then.

This person should be referred to a mental health evaluation.

Let's see if he is someone who shouldn't be in the public domain because of this.

What kind of help and treatment can we give this person?

Where should he be sent?

Those type of questions should have been answered back in January of 2025, as recent as January of 2025, and nobody really did anything about it.

That's what Iryna's law seeks to fix.

There would be a requirement that this situation, like we saw with Mr.

Brown, would have been flagged, and those people in the judicial system would have seen this and would have been required to do something about it.

If that were the case back in January, I think that maybe we would have seen history take place differently, and I think that's why this particular piece of legislation is so important to be passed.

In addition, in the Iryna's law that we passed, there was significant funding put to the collaboratory to study mental health, IVC, and this subject.

So it's not just the infrastructure of the law that we described here that we passed to deal with what we think should be the best way to immediately address what happened in Charlotte with Iryna Zarutska, but it also takes the steps to continue studying and looking at this problem and implementing meaningful reforms down the line.

As far as funding goes, I couldn't agree more.

I think that additional solutions to the public safety issue is very much needed.

I would highlight more support for our law enforcement, more collaboration as we do at the General Assembly with our law enforcement agencies.

And that does bring into the discussion raises for recruitment and retention.

And of course, all of that is part of the budget.

And I think that we will get a budget.

And I'm with Zack, actually.

The House did pass a good budget that accomplished all of these things that we're talking about.

We would like to have had a comprehensive budget done in the last June in the House, but we need to sit down with the Senate still and negotiate that out.

- Yeah, and couldn't agree more.

The House, even on Medicaid rebates twice, but also in making sure that we put forth priorities that can meet the need have been coming.

So we do look forward to our senators come to the table.

And I do wanna add on that the pieces that can be studied and can be built out hopefully will be reflected in those longer conversations over the next year, because AOC and the state psychiatric hospitals are seeing waits.

And what they have also asked for is telehealth models that could be implemented.

Clinician recruitment, making sure that they stop the backlog from the judicial process, but most importantly, data sharing.

And so I think that some of that and what Erin mentioned related to funding could be helpful because the more we know about the people who are engaged in different processes that are experiencing mental health crises or involved in the judicial system at any point, we need to make sure that we have the highest level technology to share, because that's the only way to properly serve someone when they are engaged by law enforcement.

And I'm sensitive to law enforcement, especially living in an urban area.

They're called for everything.

And we have to, and that's why it's so important that the opportunity to add on mental health clinical professionals, these CIT programs that can either accompany or go out when it's called so that law enforcement can be there to back up, but are not stretched.

And so I think that this law, this conversation that was started will make us a better state, but we have to be very, very serious about funding it, because I hear it more often than not, that with everything going on, we may see more of this.

And the most important thing is that it is not a partisan issue.

This should not be.

And so I've tried not to bring up a name of a current or former politician.

It is the General Assembly.

It is the House.

It is the Senate.

It is the governor that have to all come together to make this work, and not do it in a vacuum, but to make sure that we're listening to law enforcement, we're listening to the mental health community, we're listening to everyday citizens.

'Cause again, when this came out, I heard quite a bit, I know you did too, from people on social media especially, because everyone had an issue about it because they're concerned about, again, feeling safe.

And so that has nothing to do with partisanship at all, but everything about doing our jobs to serve citizens.

So my hope is that we're data-driven, so at the collaboratory, which again, they do a great job, that we have the ability to follow the funding recommendations that either they put out and/or ones that come from the entities who serve, HHS, like those who deal with people in the mental health space and law enforcement place all the time.

They know what they need.

And so I hope that we're willing to put our money where our mouth is, and that's what people are looking for.

- Yeah, it's an issue that impacts everyone, right?

- Absolutely.

- We'll certainly continue to follow this story, this topic, appreciate you both for coming on and sharing your perspective and insights.

Thank you.

- Thank you.

- Thank you.

- Along with Iryna's law, the General Assembly also debated a new congressional map this session.

Republican lawmakers redrew North Carolina's voting districts for the seventh time in just nine years.

Their new map likely flips the Democratic House congressional seat to Republican.

We take a look at what's at stake in this latest round of redistricting.

In most states, voting maps change once a decade.

In North Carolina, they've changed seven times in nine years.

- Voters in North Carolina should choose their representatives in Congress.

You should not be choosing your voters.

- Last month, the Republican-controlled state legislature approved a new map.

The changes focus on two districts in Eastern North Carolina.

Six counties are moved from District 3 to District 1, while four counties are shifted in the opposite direction.

The motivation behind this redraw is simple and singular.

Draw a new map that will bring an additional Republican seat to the North Carolina congressional delegation.

Democratic Congressman Don Davis' home county of Green has been moved from District 1 to District 3, which is currently represented by Republican Greg Murphy.

Davis has not announced where or if he will run.

Meanwhile, Murphy has announced he will run for re-election in the redrawn District 3.

With these changes, analysts say Republicans will likely control 11 of the state's 14 congressional seats.

The first district has historically been a district with a black population of about 40%.

The new map reduces that to 32% while increasing the district's Republican voter base.

- The current map and the new map are illegal racial gerrymanders that violate the Voting Rights Act, reauthorized by Congress, and signed by President Bush in 2006.

This is true even if the U.S.

Supreme Court does not agree.

In the long sordid history of North Carolina gerrymandering, we are breaking new ground, and I am outraged about that.

- North Carolina has a long history of redistricting battles, with both parties having drawn advantageous maps when in power.

Courts say lawmakers can draw maps to help their party win, but cannot draw maps that target voters because of their race.

- Let me be clear and let me emphasize, racial data was not used.

- North Carolina's redistricting is part of a broader national pattern.

Republican states like Texas began redrawing maps earlier this year following encouragement from President Trump.

Then Missouri followed.

Now California Democrats have proposed their own map changes in response.

The result is a high-stakes redistricting battle that could determine control of Congress.

- President Trump has called on Republican-controlled states across the country to fight fire with fire.

This map answers that call.

- But as partisan battles rage in multiple states, many North Carolinians express concern about the focus on national politics over local needs.

- Let me start off by saying I don't mean any disrespect to my fellow Americans.

However, I do not care what's happening in Texas, and I do not care what's happening in California.

What I care about is what's happening here in North Carolina and how our state legislators and senators are representing the people of North Carolina.

- These new districts will take effect for the 2026 midterm elections, unless the courts strike them down.

Several legal challenges have already been filed.

Joining me now is Chris Cooper, political science professor at Western Carolina University.

Chris, thanks for joining us today.

- Thanks for having me.

- So I recently read an op-ed that said the state sport in North Carolina is no longer college basketball, it's redistricting.

Help us understand why we as a state draw maps so frequently.

- Yeah, we do it all the time, right?

And I think part of it is that we're a purple state, right?

So we're a state where if you want to redraw the maps to gain an advantage, you can do it, right?

There are places on the map where you can gain if you're a Democrat, you can gain if you're a Republican.

So I think that's a piece of it.

I think another reason why is that our governor does not have veto power over these maps.

So in the vast majority of other states, if you have a Republican legislature, you've got a Democratic governor or vice versa, and the legislature passes a map out, the governor vetoes it before it ever gets to the courts.

That doesn't happen here.

So the only real place to get any sort of change if you're not in the majority party is through the court system.

All those court cases lead to more and more maps.

- The most recent redistricting efforts were done, Republican leaders say, at the request of President Trump.

What is the precedent for a president to directly call on states to redistrict?

- Yeah, I mean, it really, I know we use the word unprecedented a lot lately.

This one really, truly is unprecedented.

We don't see this, we don't see presidents calling for this, this explicitly, and we certainly don't see it mid-decade.

So the notion of mid-decade redistricting ordered by a president, the playbook's out the window.

We're flying blind at this point.

- We've seen both sides redraw maps.

Is this just fair game in politics?

- You know, I mean, I think that's the open question, right?

I mean, it definitely does happen with both parties.

You're exactly right.

This is a people in power problem, not a problem of one party or the other.

You see it nationally right now, right?

So Texas says, "We're gonna redraw "and benefit the Republicans."

You see California say, "We're gonna redraw "and benefit the Democrats."

Missouri and North Carolina get in for the Republicans.

Virginia says, "We wanna be in for the Democrats."

Both parties clearly do it.

Whether it's fair game or not, this is where the courts are gonna come in, right?

And they're ultimately gonna decide, is this an illegal racial, are they diluting the votes of African-American voters?

That's ultimately what's gonna be at play here.

And so your fair game question's a good one.

I think the courts are gonna be the ones who decide.

- You mentioned California.

What's going on there is pretty interesting.

They just, Prop 50, the ballot referendum, that essentially bypasses, they had an independent commission that draws maps that was established in 2008, but then had a ballot referendum that voters voted to bypass that so that Democratic lawmakers could essentially draw the maps in their own favor.

How does a process like that impact what's going on in North Carolina and other states who might be also looking at redistricting?

- Yeah, I mean, I think we heard it, right?

We heard it when Senator Heiss was presenting his case to the General Assembly for why they drew the maps in North Carolina.

He said, "Look, California did it.

"President Trump asked us to."

So I think there is a clear nationalization here.

It's no longer the case that states are sort of acting in isolation.

One state weighs in and does something.

Another one comes back.

It's this tit-for-tat redistricting that we're gonna continue to see.

My guess is when it's all said and done, we're probably gonna end up partisan-wise nationally about where we were at the beginning.

The true victim here is gonna be any sense of competitive districts 'cause that's what we're slashing in California, in North Carolina, in Texas, soon to be in Virginia.

- I'm curious too, how does all of this impact voter engagement, public trust within the process?

Does it have any sort of impact on it?

- Yeah, and it's all negative, right?

I mean, this is confusing.

There's no question about it.

So if you live in the former first district or now you're in the third or you were in the third and now you're in the first, I mean, it's really difficult to keep track of.

And I think for a whole lot of folks, they just kind of feel like a pox on both their houses.

They're both looking out for their own interests.

I don't want any part of this process.

And that's what's really concerning.

I think we should also think a little bit about the downstream effects of this.

So yes, it's about congressional maps, clearly.

But there are other things in life that we determine by congressional districts.

So a good North Carolina example, the North Carolina School for Science and Math.

They say, "Hey, the number of people we're gonna accept "depends on which congressional district you live in."

So we're trying to get some sort of geographic representation.

So when we redraw the lines, we put a county in or take a county out, it means more than just that line for that district on that day.

- And Representative Don Davis caught in the middle of this.

He recently introduced federal legislation that would ban mid-district or mid-decade redistricting.

Do you think a reform like that has any legs or you not see it passing?

- I don't think it's gonna pass.

We've seen things like this before.

We saw H.R.1 a few years ago that had more than just that, but it had that as a component of it.

And we saw it didn't really go anywhere.

I don't think we're in a place to get that kind of bipartisan agreement that you would need.

So unfortunately, it doesn't mean it doesn't matter to bring it up, it does.

But I don't think it's gonna pass.

- Already court challenges to the most recent redistricting.

What do you think happens next?

What should we be looking out for?

- Yeah, I think we should be looking out for a case that's gonna be pretty clear, right?

So we've already seen one court challenge, we may see more.

What the plaintiffs are gonna argue is that this map unfairly dilutes the vote of African-American voters in the northeastern part of the state, denies them the right to pick a candidate of their choice.

Obviously, you've got the defense who's gonna come in and say, "No, that's not true at all.

"We drew these maps not based on race at all.

"We drew them based on partisanship."

This is why when you hear the proponents of the map saying, "Hey, we did this to benefit the Republican Party," it's actually a smart legal strategy because the courts have essentially said, "We're not wild about gerrymandering partisan-wise, "but we don't think it's really any of our business."

So you can actually get away with partisan gerrymandering at this point.

So the whole case is going to be about the degree to which race mattered or did not matter in the drawing of these maps.

- How has technology changed or evolved the redistricting process?

I imagine nowadays with how advanced AI is, you can probably use that to your advantage if you're drawing a map and plugging in certain things and doing it in a way where you can create an advantage in a district.

How has the emergence of technology really impacted this?

- It's made it much easier to gerrymander.

And so we see this as two things at once, as technology and its increasingly consistent voting pattern.

So to grab the technology piece first, anybody can log in to free apps in their pajamas, get online and draw district maps.

Some people do it for fun, believe it or not.

So if you are a state legislator and you say, "Hey, we drew these maps in front of you.

"We drew it in the legislative building."

Well, what do they do when they're at home?

They just don't forget that information.

Anybody can do it for free at any time.

You don't even need coding skills anymore.

You can literally drag and drop your way to a new congressional map in the state of North Carolina.

So we've seen that, and at the same time, geography, precincts, these sort of small geographic units are increasingly predictable in terms of how they're gonna turn out and vote in the next election.

So you put those two things together, it's really predictable, it's really accessible.

What that means is it's easier to gerrymander.

- And speaking of next election, what are some things to look out for with District 1 and 3 in this next election?

- Sure, I mean, it's gonna be a really interesting case.

One reason why is that it seems like Don Davis is gonna run in the first congressional district.

Well, guess what?

He doesn't actually live there anymore.

He actually lives in what is now the third congressional district.

There's no law against that.

We've had folks do it before, run out of district, but that is an interesting little twist to this whole one versus three affairs.

You're gonna have somebody running for their district who no longer lives in their district, and then we're just gonna have to see, can Don Davis do maybe not the impossible, but the highly improbable, which is to hold on to a district that was quite explicitly drawn to get him out of office?

- Keep an eye on those court cases too, right?

- That's right, absolutely.

- We'll be tracking it.

Chris, thanks for joining us.

Appreciate your insight.

- Thank you.

- And thank you for watching the "State Line" special episode.

Email your thoughts and opinions to statelines@pbsnc.org.

I'm David Hurst.

Thanks for watching.

We'll see you next time.

(dramatic music) ♪ - Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting PBSNC.