NC House District 19
Charlie Miller, Republican incumbent
Career: Law enforcement; retired chief deputy, Brunswick County Sheriff’s Office
Education: Basic Law Enforcement Training, Cape Fear Community College
Q: What qualifies you to serve in the North Carolina legislature?
A: I am a lifelong resident of southeastern North Carolina with more than 33 years of law enforcement experience, including service as Chief Deputy of the Brunswick County Sheriff’s Office. Before being elected to the General Assembly, I served four terms on the Brunswick County Board of Education. I am now running for re-election to serve my fourth term representing House District 19.
That experience has allowed me to see state government from several perspectives – as a law enforcement officer, a school board member, a legislator and, most importantly, a citizen of this community. I understand the challenges facing our schools, first responders, working families, and rapidly growing coastal communities. I have also developed a record of working across party lines to solve practical problems while remaining true to the conservative values my constituents elected me to uphold.
Q. What is a bill you would like to sponsor or co-sponsor and what is a bill you want to repeal — or even amend? Why?
A: I want to continue advancing the Back the Blue Pay Act, House Bill 42, which would provide salary increases and bonuses for law enforcement personnel, enhance certain firefighter, rescue squad and National Guard pension benefits, and increase line-of-duty death benefits. Communities cannot remain safe if police departments, sheriff’s offices, and other emergency services cannot recruit and retain qualified personnel.
I would also amend North Carolina’s school calendar law to give locally elected school boards greater flexibility. Having served on the Brunswick County Board of Education, I believe local leaders are often better positioned than Raleigh to determine a calendar that meets the needs of their students, families, and local economy. The state should establish appropriate standards, but it should not impose an unnecessarily rigid, one-size-fits-all calendar on every school system.
Q: What will you do to hold industry accountable for pollution of toxic chemicals, such as PFAS or 1,4 dioxane, in the water or air? Will you support enforcing additional maximum contaminant levels of PFAS compounds, aside from PFOA or PFOS; how, if so?
A: Clean drinking water is not a partisan issue. The people and water customers who did not create PFAS contamination should not be forced to bear the cost of removing it. Companies responsible for releasing toxic chemicals must be held financially accountable for testing, treatment, and remediation.
I co-sponsored House Bill 570, the “Responsible Firefighting Foam Management Act,” which would prohibit the discharge of firefighting foam containing intentionally added PFAS for training or practice and restrict its discharge during testing unless appropriate containment, treatment, and disposal measures are used. I will continue supporting stronger monitoring, public disclosure, and enforcement against those responsible for contamination. Any new standard should be enforceable, should account for the cumulative risks posed by multiple PFAS compounds and, wherever responsibility can be established, should place cleanup costs on the polluter – not local families and utility customers.
Q: Is the public school allotment formula sufficient or does the legislature need to change it? Explain what your plan is for this issue.
A: The current system has become too complicated and does not always respond quickly enough to enrollment growth, exceptional-child needs, transportation costs, or the differing circumstances of individual school systems. Fast-growing counties should not have to wait for the funding formula to catch up with students who are already sitting in their classrooms.
I support making the formula more transparent, responsive, and centered around the needs of our students. Funding should follow actual enrollment more closely, recognize growth during the school year and properly account for exceptional children, transportation, school safety, and career and technical education. At the same time, local school systems should have reasonable flexibility to direct resources where they are most needed, with clear accountability for academic and financial results.
Q: State law allows law enforcement agencies, including the State Bureau of Investigation, to store data captured by license plate reading cameras (Flock cameras) for up to 90 days. Since the CEO of Flock cameras has now recommended agencies reduce the time camera data is stored down to seven days, would you make it a priority to change state law to follow this recommendation?
A: I would not automatically rewrite North Carolina law based solely on a recommendation from the CEO of a private company. As a career law enforcement officer, I know license plate reader information can help locate missing persons, recover stolen vehicles, and solve serious crimes that may not be reported or connected to a suspect within seven days.
At the same time, public safety technology must not become a tool for indiscriminate surveillance. I support strict limits on who may access the information, documented law enforcement purposes for every search, audit trails, penalties for misuse, and firm deletion requirements. I am interested in reviewing whether 90 days remains the appropriate general retention period, but any change should be based on input from the public, investigators, prosecutors, and privacy experts – not simply a corporate recommendation.
Q: Do you support how the film grant program currently operates? Do you think the $31-million annual cap on award disbursements should be lifted? Do you think the General Assembly should allocate more money to the program?
A: The film industry is an important part of our local economy. It supports skilled crew members, small businesses, restaurants, hotels, trades workers, and many other jobs that never appear on camera. North Carolina should remain competitive for productions that generate real economic activity here in the southeastern part of our state.
I support retaining a performance-based grant program in which funds are not released until a production’s qualifying North Carolina expenditures have been documented, independently audited, and verified. I would support increasing the program’s $31-million recurring annual appropriation when qualified production demand exceeds available funding — provided the program maintains strong auditing and transparent reporting. Additional funding should be tied to demonstrated demand and measurable economic returns, not provided as an unrestricted subsidy.
Q: Would you support rolling back the sales and use tax exemption for data centers to build in North Carolina? Explain.
A: Yes. In 2026, I voted for Senate Bill 257, the State Budget, which repealed the sales-and-use-tax exemption for electricity sold to data centers. That was an important first step, but North Carolina should continue reviewing the remaining tax preferences provided to these facilities. Families and small businesses should not be expected to pay their full share while enormous data centers receive blanket exemptions despite consuming tremendous amounts of electricity and water and producing relatively few permanent jobs after construction.
Any data center project should demonstrate substantial job creation, pay its own infrastructure and energy costs, and protect residential ratepayers from higher utility bills. I support building upon the reform we enacted in 2026 by rolling back the remaining blanket sales-and-use-tax exemptions and evaluating projects on their actual benefit to North Carolinians.
Q: The current gas-tax funding system for the NCDOT no longer seems to efficiently support necessary projects – including the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement. Is tolling the answer; what other funding mechanisms would you support? Would you vote on legislation to allow the Turnpike Authority to toll the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge if it comes before you?
A: The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge is a critical statewide transportation corridor, not a luxury project, and replacing it should be a state priority. Residents of Brunswick and New Hanover counties already pay gas taxes, vehicle taxes, and other transportation-related fees. They should not be forced to pay a permanent toll every time they travel to work, seek medical care, or conduct business across the river.
I do not support tolling the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and would not vote to authorize a toll. The state should pursue federal bridge grants, a dedicated state appropriation, infrastructure bonds, and a larger commitment of existing statewide transportation revenues. We must also reform transportation funding for the long term as vehicles become more fuel-efficient and gas-tax revenues become less reliable.
Q: Would you vote to implement an independent commission to draw legislative and congressional lines? Why or why not?
A: No. The North Carolina Constitution assigns redistricting responsibility to the General Assembly, whose members are elected by and accountable to the public. Calling a commission “independent” does not make its members free from political views or outside influence – it often only makes the decision-makers less directly accountable to voters.
I support a transparent process, public access to proposed maps, clear constitutional criteria, and meaningful opportunities for public comment. Redistricting decisions should be made openly by elected representatives who can be held responsible for those decisions at the ballot box.
Q: In terms of economic development, North Carolina gets high marks for business, but middling and lower marks for worker satisfaction and quality of life. What would you do to improve these metrics for state residents?
A: Being a good state for business should translate into being a good state in which to work, raise a family, and retire. Economic development announcements mean little if families cannot afford housing, child care, electricity, or transportation — or if employers cannot find workers with the skills they need.
I co-sponsored House Bill 1163, the Workforce Act of 2026, which would support ApprenticeshipNC, industry-valued credentials, workforce grants, improved credit transfer, career information resources and a career development pilot in public schools. We should continue reducing unnecessary regulations and keeping taxes low while investing responsibly in roads, clean water, public safety, schools, and workforce training. We must also protect ratepayers from infrastructure costs created by large corporate developments and focus on projects that produce good-paying, lasting jobs. Our goal should not simply be attracting more companies — it should be creating more opportunity and a better quality of life for the North Carolinians already here.