(The Center Square) – North Carolina is the first state to send a bill to its governor opting into the signature school choice program of President Donald Trump.
In less than two weeks, it could be the first to try getting it done by veto override. First-term Democratic Gov. Josh Stein is expected to issue a veto citing use of public funds mingling with private school options.
The Senate on Tuesday by 30-19 on party lines passed Educational Choice for Children Act, known also as House Bill 87. The House of Representatives on Wednesday morning moved it along to Stein 69-47.
The day the governor receives legislation is considered Day 0 in the count of 10 days to either sign, veto or allow to become law without a signature.
Under the Trump plan signed into law July 4 in what is known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, a federal tax credit of up to $1,700 can start in 2027. Rep. Brian Biggs, R-Randolph, told colleagues on the floor the cost to North Carolina is zero.
“These are all federal dollars,” he said.
Rep. Julie von Haefen, D-Wake, said the proposal was wrong and Rep. Deb Butler, D-New Hanover, named multiple rural counties she says would lose money.
No Republicans in either chamber voted against the bill. In the House, Democratic Reps. Carla Cunningham of Mecklenburg County and Shelly Willingham of Edgecombe County crossed the aisle in favor – signaling a veto from Stein could wind up impotent.
“North Carolina has been a leader in parental school choice for more than a decade,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, R-Rockingham. “By opting into President Trump’s signature school choice initiative, we’re giving North Carolina’s families access to additional resources for sending their child to a school that best meets their individual educational needs. The school choice movement in our state strengthens our public schools and provides families with robust educational options.”
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Republican lawmakers on Tuesday overrode several vetoes by Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, getting just enough votes from Stein’s own party to enact some laws while falling short on others.
The votes were key tests for Republican General Assembly leaders since they narrowly lost their veto-proof majority following last fall’s elections.
Both chambers enacted eight of 14 vetoed measures to further their conservative agenda, including laws that target transgender rights, allow firearms on private school property and eliminate an interim greenhouse gas reduction mandate.
The GOP is one seat shy in the House of overcoming vetoes at will. Lawmakers were able to convince anywhere from one to three House Democrats to override on some measures.
“It depends on what the issue is, but on most issues, we’re going to have a working supermajority,” House Speaker Destin Hall told reporters after session.
Democratic leaders managed to keep intact other vetoes issued by Stein, meaning GOP goals to let adults carry concealed handguns without a permit and eliminate DEI initiatives are derailed for now.
Republicans “didn’t override them all. I mean, we might come back and override them if they have the numbers,” Democratic Rep. Pricey Harrison said after Tuesday’s session. “It’s a heck of a way to do policy.”
Possible Democratic victory on transgender bill ends in defeat
House Democrats weren’t able to uphold the governor’s veto on a bill targeting transgender people when one of their party members broke ranks.
The legislation initially ran as a bipartisan measure curbing sexual exploitation of women and minors on pornography websites. But several contentious provisions were tacked on later, such as recognizing only two sexes and preventing state-funded gender transition procedures for prisoners.
Freshman Democratic Rep. Dante Pittman voted for the measure in June but on Tuesday sided with Stein’s veto instead. Another Democrat, Rep. Nasif Majeed, sided with Republicans to override Stein’s veto.
“I had some moral issues about that and I had to lean on my values,” Majeed told reporters of the bill after the vote.
DEI bills blocked for now
In one of their biggest victories, Democrats blocked three bills that would have restricted diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the state by staying unified in their opposition.
Two of the bills would bar certain “divisive concepts” and “discriminatory practices” related to race and identity in K-12 schools, public universities and community colleges. The third bill would ban state agencies from implementing diversity, equity and inclusion programs or utilizing DEI in hiring practices.
Hall told reporters he expects the chamber will overcome the remaining vetoes, such as the DEI bills, at some point.
“If people are out and the numbers are there, we’re going to vote to override,” Hall said.
Mixed results on guns and immigration
Republican lawmakers fervently prioritized legislation on guns and immigration this session, but in some cases, they couldn’t complete that agenda Tuesday.
A vetoed bill allowing permitless concealed carry for eligible people over the age of 18 wasn’t heard in the House. That bill already faced an uphill battle after two Republicans voted against it with Democrats last month.
House Republicans also failed to call a vote on vetoed legislation that would require several state law enforcement agencies to engage in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown by formally cooperating with federal agents.
Other legislation on guns and immigration followed the pathway to becoming law.
A bill that allows certain people to carry firearms onto private school property with administrative permission passed with support of a Democrat. Another Democrat’s support also pushed through a separate immigration measure expanding the offenses that would require a local sheriff to check a detained person’s legal status in the country.
Interim greenhouse gas mandate gets repealed
Enough Democrats joined Republicans in overriding Stein’s veto of legislation that largely addressed activities of Duke Energy, the state’s dominant electric utility.
The new law in part repeals a portion of a bipartisan 2021 law that told electric regulators to work toward reducing carbon dioxide output 70% from 2005 levels by 2030. A directive in the 2021 law to meet a carbon neutrality standard by 2050 is still in place.
Republicans said the 70% reduction mandate was unnecessary and if eliminated would moderate electricity rate increases required to meet the 2050 standard by allowing use of less expensive power sources.
Stein and environmental groups opposed the measure, saying that eliminating the 2030 standard and other provisions will result in higher consumer rates by having utilities rely more more on natural gas to generate electricity.
(The Center Square) – Eight vetoes overturned, six still alive and all pending decisions in the North Carolina House of Representatives where the coined phrase of the day is working supermajority.
First-term Democratic Gov. Josh Stein got a taste of what his predecessor drank all 52 times he issued vetoes the last two years – an override. Roy Cooper has gone on to try and land a seat in the U.S. Senate, and Stein is facing a General Assembly where united Democrats are necessary to prevent a Republican roll through legislation.
Defining men and women for legal and policy matters, and another chip played in the game of state lawmen and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were the big scores for Republican lawmakers led by Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger of Rockingham County and House Speaker Destin Hall of Caldwell County. But there was more.
Much more.
There was another win for authority in the office of first-term Republican state Auditor Dave Boliek, changes in authority involving charter schools and a delay of a green agenda date lawmakers say could save $12 billion to $15 billion in energy costs.
No veto override votes failed, but six await decisions in the House. Three-fifths majority is needed in each chamber, and Republicans hold edges of 30-20 in the Senate and 71-49 in the House of Representatives.
Thus, the “working supermajority” as one scribe called it of 72 or higher in the House was Democratic Reps. Carla Cunningham and Nasif Majeed of Mecklenburg County, Shelly Willingham of Edgecombe County and Cecil Brockman of Guilford County.
Vetoes on constitutional carry, one of two on immigration, three involving diversity policies and a sixth veto centered on expedited eviction of squatters are all eligible to be overturned. The Senate did overturn all but one of the diversity bills and the squatter proposal in a record-setting 12 on the day.
“Senate Republicans stood firmly against Governor Stein’s disastrous decision to veto bills that protect our citizens,” Berger said after his chamber set a record with 12-of-12 successful veto override votes in a single day. “His vetoes lay bare his priorities. He wants schools to indoctrinate our children, bureaucrats to control your family, radical Green New Deal schemes to drive up your energy bills, and the government to infringe on your Second Amendment rights. We won’t allow his radical agenda to take hold in North Carolina.”
In addition to immigration and gender policies, the lawmakers also made the following overrides amid six Senate Democrats changing their votes (two twice) and 12 House Democrats (one three times, three others twice) doing the trick:
• Clarify Powers of State Auditor (House Bill 549). This law expands investigative work to publicly funded entities by the state auditor. Willingham joined Republicans for 72-48 override passage in the House, and the Senate was 30-19. At passage, the House was 62-48 with only Willingham among Democrats in favor and Senate 27-14.
Sen. Dan Blue, D-Wake, changed his aye vote from passage.
• The Power Bill Reduction Act (Senate Bill 266). This law eliminates the interim date for carbon reduction by certain electric utilities, believed to offer savings between $12 billion and $15 billion. The 2021 law called for 70% reduction of emissions by 2030 and net-zero by 2050. The proposal makes it 70% by 2050.
Override votes were 30-18 in the Senate and 74-46 in the House. Democrats in favor were Cunningham, Majeed and Willingham.
Democratic Sens. Paul Lowe of Forsyth County and Joyce Waddell of Mecklenburg County had been for it in a 29-11 passage. Changing their votes from aye in the House were Democratic Reps. Bryan Cohn of Glanville County, Mike Colvin of Cumberland County, Dr. Frances Jackson of Cumberland County, Ray Jeffers of Person County, Garland Pierce of Scotland County, Dante Pittman of Wilson County, James Roberson of Wake County and Charles Smith of Cumberland County.
• Charter School Changes (Senate Bill 254). This law changes some of the authority decisions at play between the State Board of Education and the Charter Schools Review Board. Senate override was 30-19, House 74-46 with Brockman, Cunningham and Willingham joining all Republicans.
Changing aye votes were Democratic Reps. Deb Butler of New Hanover County, Aisha Dew of Mecklenburg County, Zack Hawkins of Durham County, Jeffers, Pierce, Roberson and Smith.
• Personal Privacy Protection Act (Senate Bill 416). This bill protects privacy of donations made to nonprofits. Opponents, including the governor, said it would bring “dark money” into politics. Advocates assured state and federal campaign laws are not impacted.
North Carolina is the 22nd state to have this protection, according to the People United for Privacy Foundation.
Senate override was party line 30-19 and House was 74-46 with Brockman, Cunningham and Willingham the lone Democrats in favor. At passage (Senate 24-15, House 63-46), seven Senate Republicans took excused absences and an eighth didn’t vote; and 10 House Republicans had excused absences, with another not voting.
Democratic Sens. Gale Adcock of Wake County and Julie Mayfield of Buncombe County changed their aye votes in the upper chamber. Smith’s aye vote and Brockman’s no changed in the House.
• Limit Rules With Substantial Financial Costs (House Bill 402). This was formerly known as the NC REINS Act (SB290) and, among other things, makes legislative approval necessary for regulations with price tags exceeding $20 million. Senate override votes were party line 30-19, and the House delivered 73-47 with Cunningham and Willingham joining 71 Republicans. Brockman changed from an aye vote at passage to no at override.
• Firearm Law Revisions (House Bill 193). This law allows certain, not all, employees and volunteers at private schools to have a concealed firearm with a valid permit; and allows anyone to conceal carry a handgun on educational property that serves as a place of worship provided school is not in session. The bill also increased penalties for threats and assaults on elected officials.
Override votes were 72-48 in the House and 29-19 in the Senate. Willingham voted with all Republicans in the House; Sen. Dave Craven Jr., R-Randolph, chose not to vote in the upper chamber.
Several came to the table or changed their votes from passage (61-46 House, 29-17 Senate). Ten Republicans had taken excused absences, and one chose not to vote in the House. Republican Sens. Lisa Barnes of Nash County, Bobby Hanig of Currituck County, Timothy Moffitt of Henderson County and Buck Newton of Wilson County had been excused but united against the veto, and Democratic Sens. Blue, Lowe and Gladys Robinson of Guilford County changed from aye to no.
• The six vetoes that could be voted on are Freedom to Carry NC (SB50); North Carolina Border Protection Act (SB153); Equality in State Agencies/Prohibition on DEI (HB171) Eliminating “DEI” in Public Education (SB227); Eliminating “DEI” in Public Higher Education (SB558); and Expedited Removal of Unauthorized Person (HB96).
A school bus drives along a rural road outside of Kenosha, Wis. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act established a national tax credit scholarship program, but state leaders can decide whether and how to participate. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
When President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, he gave state leaders — not federal regulators — the power to decide whether and how to participate in the first-ever national tax credit scholarship program.
That decision now looms largest in blue states, where Democratic governors and lawmakers must weigh whether to reject the law outright on ideological grounds — or try to reshape it into something that reflects their own values.
“This isn’t the federal voucher program we were worried about five years ago,” said Jon Valant, a senior fellow in governance studies at the left-leaning Brookings Institution who testified before Congress on earlier versions of the bill. “It still has serious problems — but states now have tools to mold it into something they might actually support.”
The final law gives states wide discretion, he said. They can opt out entirely. They can opt in passively, leaving the program to operate as written. Or, as Valant suggests, they can try to redraw its footprint — focusing less on private school tuition and more on public school supports like tutoring, transportation and enrichment services in underserved districts.
“My hope is that blue states take a hard look and ask: Can this be used to address our own needs?”
For progressives and education advocates who are wary of school vouchers, the decision is fraught. Opting in could draw criticism for approving what many see as a vehicle for privatization of K-12 education. But opting out could mean turning down federal dollars — education money that states with budding or robust private school voucher infrastructures, such as Arizona and Florida, will gladly take.
“There’s money on the table, and it can be used for more than just private school tuition,” Valant said. “If blue states want to keep that money from reinforcing inequality, they’ll have to get creative, and act fast.”
Since 2020, private school choice programs — once limited to low-income or special needs students — have rapidly expanded.
In 2023, $6.3 billion was spent nationwide on private school choice programs — less than 1% of total public K-12 operational spending, according to EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice measures. From 2023-24 to 2024-25, participation in universal private school choice programs surged nearly 40%, growing from roughly 584,000 to 805,000 students in just one school year.
By 2026-27, about half of all U.S. students will be eligible, according to estimates by FutureEd, an independent think tank at Georgetown University.
These trends, combined with new federal tax credit, could fundamentally reshape the education funding landscape across state governments, experts say.
“States will need to decide whether to encourage the redirection of funding to support private and religious schools — either by expanding existing voucher programs or, if they don’t have one, by introducing such a program for the first time,” said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, The School Superintendents Association. The group opposes the national voucher plan.
State regulations
As of this May, 21 states operated tax credit scholarship programs with varying degrees of funding and oversight. According to the EdChoice Friedman Index, the states of Florida, Arkansas, Arizona and Alabama rank highest in private school access, with 100% of students eligible for school choice programs.
Some states, like Florida and Arizona, already have extensive tax credit scholarship systems. Others, including Texas, are building new infrastructure such as statewide voucher programs and education savings accounts, known as ESAs.
States with no current programs face decisions about participation, regulation and equity, but without clear federal guardrails, education advocates told Stateline.
The federal policy builds on existing state-level tax credit scholarship programs — such as Alabama’s — but significantly expands eligibility, removes scholarship caps and broadens allowable uses to include not just tuition, but also tutoring, therapy, transportation and academic support services. Beginning in 2027, scholarships will be excluded from federal taxable income.
Valant, of Brookings, told Stateline that some of his initial concerns were addressed in the version of the bill signed into law.
“There was a very realistic scenario in the earlier version of the bill where a small number of very wealthy people could essentially make money off this,” Valant said. “That was mostly addressed.”
The enacted version eliminates stock donations and caps individual tax credits at $1,700. And with states that opt in having the power to shape their own program, Valant said that gives them the chance to establish their own guardrails, such as income eligibility caps or nondiscrimination policies for participating schools.
If blue states want to keep that money from reinforcing inequality, they’ll have to get creative, and act fast.
– Jon Valant, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution
The scholarship-granting organizations, known as SGOs, would then be subject to new state regulations about where the money can go.
“States could say SGOs can’t give money to schools that discriminate based on sexual orientation. … There’s quite a lot of room here for state regulation,” he said.
Looking ahead, Valant said he’ll be watching how states interpret their regulatory powers — and how effective scholarship-granting organizations are at fundraising under the new rules, which prohibit large stock gifts and rely instead on millions of smaller donations.
“Now it’s a strange pitch: ‘Can you front me $300 to give to the SGO? I swear the IRS will give it back,’” he said. “It’s going to take time to figure out how to sell this to families.”
Concerns over transparency and equity remain. The program allows donors, scholarship-granting organizations and families to direct funds with little public accountability, critics say. And in states without robust oversight, Valant warns that funds could be misused — or channeled to institutions that exclude students based, for example, on identity or beliefs about sexual orientation.
He also emphasized that early participation is likely to skew toward families already in private schools, particularly in wealthier ZIP codes — mirroring patterns seen in programs in Arizona, Florida and Georgia.
“One big risk is that the funds will disproportionately flow to wealthier families — just like we’ve seen in many ESA programs,” Valant said.
What do these programs look like across the country?
FutureEd studied eight states — Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and West Virginia — where 569,000 students participated in school choice programs at a cost to taxpayers of $4 billion in 2023-24.
The FutureEd analysis found significant differences among the states in design, funding and oversight.
Arizona’s ESA program was the first of its kind in 2011, and also the first to shift toward universal eligibility in 2022.
Florida operated the largest and most expensive program, with broad eligibility, no caps or accreditation requirements, and a major influx of higher-income families, though it mandated some university-led performance reviews. Iowa fully funded ESAs and, like other states, saw mostly existing private school families benefit.
Arkansas had a cautious rollout due to legal delays and geographic clustering of participants, while West Virginia allowed spending across state lines with no performance reporting.
Newcomer North Carolina began with income-based prioritization but quickly expanded under political pressure or demand, while Alabama and Louisiana will launch ESA programs in 2025-26 using general state revenues.
Utah enacted a universal voucher program in 2023, providing up to $8,000 per student for private school or homeschool expenses. A state teachers union sued, arguing that participating schools were not “free and open to all children” and that the program diverted public school funds. A state court this April ruled the program was unconstitutional.
As the new federal law opens the door for tax-credit-funded tuition support, Texas is building its first universal school voucher program, aided through ESAs to begin in the 2026-27 school year. The program is funded with $1 billion over two years, with $10,000-$11,000 per student — up to $30,000 for students with disabilities and $2,000 for homeschoolers.
The Texas comptroller will oversee the program, and private schools must be open for at least two years to be eligible for funds.
Voucher programs can drain state budgets, and budget wonks predict the cost for Texas could rise to around $4.8 billion by 2030, The Texas Tribune reported.
A spokesperson for the Texas comptroller’s office said that details are still being finalized; the state has issued a request for proposals due Aug. 4 to select eligible educational assistance organizations that would help funnel scholarship dollars to schools.
Other states may be more cautious. The Missouri National Education Association filed a lawsuit this summer to block $51 million in state appropriations to private school scholarships through the MOScholars program. The suit argues that using general revenue rather than private donations violates the state constitution and undermines public education funding.
