news-record.com

As my colleague Ryan Seals previewed this morning, Susie’s Law was heard in the House Judiciary III Committee this morning.

The measure passed and lower down in this post I'll go over some Legislative 101 and give some of the back story about the opposition.

For those who don’t know, Susie was a dog who was burned, beaten and left for dead for two weeks. According to Rep. Pricey Harrison, folks knew it had been two weeks because of the age of the maggots in her wounds.

The perpetrator was caught, tried and convicted. But because animal cruelty is only a Class I felony, he only received probation. Susie’s law would raise that to a Class H felony, which would give the judge the option of sending a bad actor to jail.

A separate section of the bill would raise the felony for intentionally starving an animal from an A1 Misdemeanor to a Class H felony as well.

First, in the video below, you can see Susie and Roberta Wall, who fostered her, speak to the committee. As she walks up to the podium, Susie greets some lawmakers with a lick and a wag.

For those following the bill, here are three things you need to understand about the measure after today’s hearing.

It’s on a fast track: The vehicle for Susie’s Law is now S 254, which was originally filed as a bill regarding mutual aid between local governments.

Through a procedure informally known as “gut and amend,” the original language in that bill is stricken and the Susie’s law language has been substituted.

The bill has apparently been given a pass in terms of the normal order of House bills as well. The measure does not have a serial referral to another committee but will head straight to the floor.

Also, because the bill is being done through “gut and amend,” the Senate could vote on the bill without putting it through the normal committee process as well.

Such procedures are not unusual during the legislative short session and are typically used for bills where leaders expect there is little meaningful opposition.

Rep. Nick Mackey opposed the measure: but don’t take it too seriously.

Mackey is a Charlotte Democrat who has had troubles, including the loss of his law license and the loss of a primary vote earlier this month. He tweaked his fellow Democrats during the primary season and appears now ready to roil the waters as he serves out his term.

Mackey offered an amendment to downgrade the penalties in the bill. The response of Committee Chair Ronnie Sutton: “Rep. Mackey, I’m not going to accept that motion.”

Further opposition: One person who wasn’t a lawmaker spoke against the bill during the hearing. Henri McClees, a lobbyist for the North Carolina Sporting Dog Association, said the bill would cost too much.

“I’m asking you not to spend money on something that’s not needed,” McClees said. “North Carolina already has strong laws.”

The Sporting Dog Association has fought tooth and nail against measure that would regulate dog breeders and apparently sees this bill as a bit of an over-reach as well. Other groups that allied with the sporting dog owners have given at least their tacit support to Susie’s Law.

What’s next: The measure will head to the full House and, if nothing changes, it will get a vote there and be sent back to the Senate.