NC Republicans are trying again with banning masks. The changes are bizarre. | Opinion

North Carolina Republicans have put forth a “compromise” to a controversial bill that would have made it illegal to wear a mask in public for health reasons.

But the new version of the bill has the same old problems.

The new bill, negotiated between House and Senate Republicans and introduced Thursday morning, would only allow the wearing of a “medical or surgical grade mask” for the purpose of “preventing the spread of contagious disease.”

Lawmakers added a “health and safety” exception to North Carolina’s existing ban on public mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Republicans insist that the exception is no longer necessary and must be removed in order to prevent people who commit crimes from wearing a mask to disguise themselves.

The “compromise” legislation does not explicitly permit mask-wearing to avoid catching a contagious disease, nor does it specifically define “medical or surgical grade mask.” Would N95 respirators — one of the most popular mask options — still be permitted even though they are not considered medical or surgical grade, people are asking? What about reusable masks?

Strangely, the new bill also seems to require people to remove their mask at the request of a fellow citizen. A person wearing a mask must “temporarily remove the mask upon request by the owner or occupant of public or private property where the wearer is present to allow for identification of the wearer,” the bill states. Does that mean that someone behind you in line at the grocery store can demand that you remove your mask, just because they want to know who you are? Maybe not, but it’s just another example of imprecise language.

The fact that such a compromise now exists suggests that Republican lawmakers at least somewhat recognize the validity of wearing masks in public for health and safety reasons. What’s less clear, though, is why they believe such an exception must be so narrowly crafted. It appears to be — at least in part — a crackdown on protesters who often wear masks or other face coverings to protect their identity at demonstrations. The bill also increases penalties for those who wear a mask while committing a crime, which means a protester arrested for vandalism or trespassing could potentially receive a harsher sentence simply because they were wearing a mask.

The original bill was uncomfortably ambiguous, despite the fact that Republicans claimed it was not intended to punish anyone who wears a mask for the sake of their health. This new version is still far too vague. Besides, do they really think that this change will prevent someone from wearing a mask while committing crimes? If someone is already breaking the law, it seems unreasonable to think that they wouldn’t just break another one, too.

(Oh, and in case the bill wasn’t problematic enough, Republicans are now using the bill as a vehicle for surprise changes to campaign finance laws, too. A new provision slipped into the bill removes existing limits on how much a federal political committee can contribute to a state campaign, allowing big donors to funnel virtually unlimited amounts of money into state elections.)

For as much as Republicans crow about freedom, it’s bizarre that they seem determined to remove a provision that grants people exactly that — the freedom to choose whether to wear a mask to protect themselves. Is it that the whole notion of masks being preventative is inherently political to them? Or do they really think that’s an easier excuse to leverage if you’re a protester?

Regardless of the reasoning, it’s not fair to punish those who are medically vulnerable just because some protesters also choose to mask up. Nor is it fair to punish one protester more severely than another simply because one of them chose to wear a mask. Republicans can call this bill a compromise, but the only thing that’s really compromised here is people’s freedom.