Archives: Daren Bakst

North Carolina makes it very easy for illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Instead of requiring Social Security Numbers to get a license, the state accepts IRS-issued Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), even though they primarily are issued to illegal immigrants. To make matters worse, the state does not even require that people prove their lawful status in the country. In 2005, the state's own auditor warned against accepting ITINs, yet the legislature still has failed to take any action.

Current law does not protect North Carolinians from eminent domain abuse. The state and local governments can seize private property for economic development reasons. However, the potential for eminent domain abuse is far more extensive than these “economic development takings.” From the state’s dangerous urban redevelopment law to the government finding clever ways to seize property for private businesses, North Carolina needs comprehensive protection from eminent domain abuse.

North Carolina’s experience with taxpayer-funded judicial campaigns provides a great example of the critical problems with taxpayer-funded campaigns.

North Carolina’s Urban Redevelopment Law is a major threat to private property rights. It is so broad that it would permit the government to seize private property that is not blighted and even to take property for economic-development purposes. Any urban redevelopment law should only permit the government to seize private property if it meets a narrow and common sense definition of blight.

North Carolina needs a constitutional amendment to protect property rights that will contain very specific language. This approach will ensure that courts are unable to undermine the rights that the amendment is designed to protect. The amendment should define key terms such as “public use” and expressly prohibit all takings for private use, including those for economic development purposes.

North Carolina recently filed a lawsuit going after private restraints of trade. But if the state really wants to reduce unfair trade practices and help consumers, it should eliminate or modify its own anti-competitive policies. The certificate of need law, occupational licensing, and other state-imposed restraints of trade hurt consumers and the economic freedom of North Carolinians.

The United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Kelo v. City of New London drastically weakened the property rights of all citizens. North Carolinians can protect themselves by amending the state constitution. An amendment is necessary because state legislation does not provide adequate protection of property rights. All fundamental rights, especially property rights, should be protected in the state’s highest law, the state constitution.

North Carolina law limits the establishment and relocation of new-vehicle dealerships in “relevant market areas” where the same make of car is sold. This law was enacted due to the belief that dealers were in an unequal bargaining position with manufacturers. This rationale is now obsolete. Research also indicates that such laws hurt consumers. No justification exists to continue granting special privileges to dealers, especially when those privileges come at the expense of the public.