I'm proud to report that Kasi Wahlers of UNC Law's class of 2017 has posted a note that's forthcoming in the North Carolina Law Review on the North Carolina Cultural History Artifact Management and Patriotism Act of 2015. A lot of us are calling it the "North Carolina Heritage Protection Act" after the name given a similar statute in other states.
Cribbing now from her abstract:
Even in 2015, the North Carolina landscape is densely populated with Confederate monuments, appearing in more than half of the state’s one hundred counties. The state has more monuments honoring the Civil War than any other event, with five Civil War monuments for every World War II monument. Most of these structures were erected between 1890 and 1930 and many are located on public property, commonly found in and around courthouses, town squares, graveyards, and University campuses. In July of 2015, North Carolina enacted the Heritage Protection Act (“HPA”). This law severely restricts the removal, relocation, or alteration of any monument located on public property. While neutral on its face, North Carolina’s Heritage Protection Act was enacted for the purpose of protecting Confederate monuments.
This Recent Development argues that the North Carolina Heritage Protection Act creates a lack of accountability on behalf of the N.C. General Assembly, usurps powers of local governments, and is amorphously vague as to what objects it applies to. Clarification of the statutory language by the General Assembly as well as a provision allowing for the erection of plaques that contextualize these monuments within local history is needed. Analysis proceeds in three parts. Part I of this Recent Development briefly sketches the propagation of Heritage Protection Acts across the South, outlines the North Carolina Heritage Protection Act, and highlights ways the North Carolina statute differs from other states. Part II discusses the confusing nature of this statute and analyzes legislative history to offer insight as to: (1) what role the North Carolina Historical Commission plays, if any, in deciding to permanently remove or relocate monuments; (2) whether this statute applies to county or city owned monuments; and (3) what constitutes a “display of permanent character.” Finally, Part III argues that this statute is in need of clarification and a provision that provides for plaques that contextualize these monuments within their local history. A brief conclusion follows.
The image is of the former "Confederate Memorial Library" up in Hillsborough. I don't think the Act applies to that building, but I love the building so I thought I'd use that to illustrate this post. Soon I hope to be joining Kasi with a short piece on the renaming of Saunders Hall here at UNC.
While the vagueness argument is convincing, the lack of accountability argument seems a little unsupported. I'm not sure exactly how an act by elected officials is created creates any more of a lack of accountability than other act of the legislature. You hold them accountable by voting them out of office.
Posted by: twbb | December 01, 2015 at 12:09 PM