Is NC headed toward another HB2? Here’s why not.

Nobody wants another HB2 in North Carolina. Not Democrats nor Republicans. Not progressive cities nor conservative lawmakers. But with a legislative ban on local non-discrimination ordinances expiring Dec. 1, are cities and state lawmakers on another collision course?

It’s possible. LGBTQ advocates are pushing for local leaders to enact new ordinances that include protections for transgender people, just as Charlotte did in 2016. Conservatives immediately were critical of the effort. A similar tension led four years ago to HB2, the so-called “bathroom bill” that barred such non-discrimination ordinances and forbid local governments from mandating a higher minimum wage or protections against discrimination at work or in housing.

HB2 was a political and economic disaster for North Carolina, which bled major sporting events and conventions until Republicans and Democrats cobbled together a partial repeal that allowed local governments to restore some protections. That repeal, HB142, continued to ban non-discrimination ordinances until last week.

Is a new HB2-like battle looming? Probably not. Or at least probably not soon.

Neither Republican lawmakers or progressive N.C. cities have an appetite for that kind of fight again. Republicans are likely still smarting from the political damage HB2 brought and would prefer to focus their energy elsewhere. A spokesperson for Sen. Phil Berger said Friday he had no comment on what would happen if cities enacted a non-discrimination ordinance, but N.C. Republicans have privately expressed regret that HB2 was too strong of a response four years ago.

Republicans also have less power now to stop non-discrimination ordinances than they did in 2016, when the GOP held the governor’s office and supermajorities in the N.C. House and Senate. If cities such as Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro and Asheville were to pass new rules surrounding LGBTQ protections, a Republican state response would likely be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper. The governor probably would have enough Democratic votes to sustain that veto.

Republicans still have a majority in the House and Senate, however, and cities are reluctant to unsettle an already fragile relationship with state lawmakers. That’s especially true in Charlotte, where Mayor Vi Lyles has cultivated a healthier partnership with Republican lawmakers that included an agreement to host the ill-fated Republican National Convention earlier this year.

Revisiting a non-discrimination ordinance also could jeopardize future requests the city might bring to the legislature, local leaders told the Editorial Board. That includes obtaining taxing authority for a multi-billion transportation project that would help address critical equity issues in Charlotte. “Having an antagonistic relationship with Raleigh is not beneficial for Charlotte in any way, shape or form,” Charlotte City Council member Larken Egleston told the Editorial Board this week.

City and county leaders might be inclined to see if the courts and Congress continue to make progress on LGBTQ protections, as they have since 2016. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that landmark federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sex also protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination, and LGBTQ advocates are pushing Congress to pass more comprehensive protections.

Significant gaps remain both nationwide and in North Carolina. HB142 continues to prohibit local governments from regulating multiple occupancy restrooms, showers, or changing facilities, and there are no federal or state law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in public accommodations such as restaurants, theaters and other businesses. Protections against housing and health care discrimination also continue to fall short for LGBTQ people here and nationwide.

If city leaders in North Carolina want to offer such protections, they should first go to Republicans in Raleigh and explore whether there’s a palatable path forward for everyone. It wouldn’t be the more aggressive approach LGBTQ advocates want — nor the full protection gay and transgender people deserve — but it could be another step forward instead of repeating some mistakes of the past.