The North Carolina Redistricting Process, 1965-66 Research Paper

    )
-1-

filE NORTII CAROLINA REDISTRICTING PROCESS, 1965-66
The Evidence for Dlscriminatory Intent

Ihe ,constltutional amendments whlch prescribe the present system of

legislative representation in North Carolina were adopted by the General

Assembly Lrt L967 and approved by the voters in 1968. In the general

election of that year, voters were given an opportunity Eo mark ballots

which read "F0R constiLutional amendments continuing the present system

of representatlon in the General Assemblyt' or t'AGAINST constitutional

amendments cont,inuing the present, system of representation in the

General Assembly." The system of representaElon which then existed was

devised by a speci.al session of the leglslature which met in January,

L966. The work of that special session was prepared by senate and

house committ,ees on redistricting which met in December, 196-5. These

comnittees received very active assistance from Mr. John Sanders and

his colleagues at Ehe Institute of Government. The amendments passed

ln 1967 and 1968 were proposed by the Legislative Research Cormnission

(several of whose members had been very active in the earlier redistricting

process) and drafted by Sanders.l Because the procedures which are now

in effect were actually formulated in 1965-66 by substantlally the same

men who later put Ehem into the North Carolina consti.tution, the key to

the intent of these amendments act,ually lies in the years before L967,

The legislaturets intentions are not easy to determlne because

its special commit,Eees and the sesslons of both houses were conducted

under ext,raordinary rules of secrecy. The rules were ostensibly adopted

because redistricting required confidential discussion of individuals,

but the rules were also a convenient shield for remarks that might betray

an int,ent to discriminate.2 Nevertheless, we do have evidence that the



)-2-

General Asseubly intended to discriminate against blacks by continuing

a politlcal system that had denied then ful-1 po1ltical participation

since the end of Reconstruction.

The evldence fa1ls under three major heads. First, the clinate
of white opinion in the staEe was inflamed against blacks tn 1955-66

and numerous state politicians had come into office by appeallng to

that climate of opinion. They could be presumed to have carried those

attitudes lnto the redistrlctlng process. Second, the North Carolina

political system had long rested on a pattern of discrimination against

blacks. Despite this fact, white political leaders 1n the mid-1960s

praised the status quo hlghly and promised to preserve as much of it as

possible despite redistrictlng. Since lre can prove that North Carolina's

polltical- traditLons were discrLminatory, pledges to perpetuate those

traditions show an inte4t to dlscriminate. Fina1ly, the reported words.

and actions of legislative leaders during the redistricting process,

when taken as a whole, show a patt,ern of discrlminatory intentions.

The climate of opinion among r^rhite North Carolinians in L955 may be

judged from public statements and incidents in state politics. on

December 20, 1965, while redlstrieting was under consideratlon by

legislative conrmlttees, the Raleigh News and observer reported ghag

Ms. sara sma11, a black housewlfe and civil rights worker, had won 6,000

votes in a Democratic party prlmary contest for representative {rom

the First congressional Dlstrict. Ms. small lost to state senaEor

I{alt.er Jones, who had recelved 251000 votes. The nevrspaper reported

that even this modest demonstration of black voting strength had aLarmed

local whites and quoted a Bertie county offlclal who pointed to row

white voter regist,ration and sald "maybe this is a good thlng for



)-3-

the county. It night shake up those people who didntt vote."3 Another

story the saue day declared that "po1-itical observers in the First District

say the white man in the street, there is now madder at the Johnson

admlnistration than he was with the administrat,ion of John F. Kennedy,"

and ldentified "the racial policles of the national administratlon"

as the cause of dissatisfaction.

Sen. Jones had won the Democratic nomination for Congress while

promlsing to resist those policies in Congress.4 Earlier that fall, at

least one black voter registration march had encountered a violent

counter-demonstration by the Ku Klux K1an. Following that encounter'

Governor Dan K. Moore held a eonfidential meeting with the KKK Grand

Dragon for North Carolina. The subject of the meeting was never disclosed,

but the mere fact of the meetlng gave a color of respectability to the
'q
Klan and its activities.' Ntrmerous letters to the state press and

sEatemenEs in the private papers of leading state pollticians confirm

t,hat hostillty to changes in race relations and to black polltical

po$rer were widespread among whites at that tirne'6

When Gov. Moore called for a special leglslative session to meet

in January, Lg66, he told the press that "our present system of representation,

while not perfect, has worked well for the best interesEs of our people

for nearly a centur.y."T Legislatlve leaders echoed Ehis opinlon'

Sen. Thomas J. Whlte of Klnston, descrLbed by the Fayetfeville Observer

/haA
as "the single most Powerfuinln the Legislatureil announced that the

exlsging system of represetrtation "suits me just fine."8 White was a

member of the senate redistrlcting committee and also of the subcommlttee

of the Legislative Research Commission which later proposed the

constiEutj.onal amendments of 1968. Ilouse Speaker Pat Taylor of Anson



-4-

County believed that I'North Carolina would be much, much better off under

the current systeu."9

As longtime participants in North Carolina politlcs, these men

must have known that the system they praised so highly had systematically

discriminated against black citizens. The biased nature of this system

can be documented historically. Though the constLtutlonal provlslons

for representation had been written in L868 by a conventlon which incl-uded

blacks and whlch was generally friendly Lo their interests, subsequent

terrorist activities by the Ku Klux Klan had lntimidated enough voters

to topple the government established by this convention.l0 For the

rest of the nlneteenth century, harassment,, intlmidat,lon, gerrymandering,

and fraud kept black political participation to a mlnimum without eliminating

it entirely. During this period, numerous blacks sat ln both houses of

the General- Assembly and four were elected to Congress from the so-ca11ed

"Black Second" DistricE, fhe bo,rndaries of the "Black Second. were

stretched to embrace most of the majorlty-black countles of the state

in order to isolate and thereby minimize the strength of black ,ot.t".1l

The rise of the Populist party in the 1890s prompted some economically

disadvant,aged whites to seek an alliance across racial Lines with blacks,

and black political participatlon surged upward for a second t,ime.

Conservative whites responded with a massive barrage of racist propaganda

and vlolent intimidation Ln the t'white supremacy campaign" of 1898.

The election was followed by the I'Wil-mington Race Ri-ot", in which a band

of armed whit,es forced a Wilmington City Council composed of blacks and

their sympathizers to resign and then rampaged through black sections

of the city, burning the office of a black newspaper and killing between

ten and fifteen black community leaders. The legislature chosen in that



-J-

year proposed a constitutional amendment designed to strip bl-acks of the

rlght to vote. The first state laws requiring racial segregatlon in

publlc acconmodations were passed at the same tlr..12

Adopted in an equally racist, campaign in 1900, the suffrage amendment,

lmposed a literacy Eest for voters, but waived it for those who clal-med

descent from a legal voter of L867 or earlj.er. Wlth a few exceptions,

the only possible beneficiaries of this grandfather clause were whlte.

For years thereafEer, rnany 1ocal officials admlnistered the literacy

test unfairly, so that all white applicants were allowed to pass and all

black applicants falled.13 As a result of these discriminatory measures,

black participation in the electorate virtually dlsappeared and the General

A.ssembly became and remained an all-white body untll 1968.

Eventually, enforcement of the l-iteracy test became uneven, and votj.ng

became possible for blacks in some North Carolina citles as early as the

1930s. As late as L96b, Mathews and Prothro found ll-5-teracy tests that appeared to be
difficult or arbitraryrl

unusualLy/1n nine North Carolina counties where the black population was

especiall, ,rrr.to,r".14 The prevalllng pattern of di.scrimination caused

Zt North Carolina counties to fall under the preclearance provisions

of sect,ion 5 of the VoEing RighEs Act of L965.

Incumbent North CarolLna officeholders in the mid-1950s were thus

the beneficiarles of a longstanding history of racial discrimination.

North Carolina leaders displayed their desire to continue this syst'em

of discrimination by their pralse of the existing system and their

oft-repeaEed desire to protect the legislative and congressional

incumbents who owed thelr careers to its existence. The desire to

protect incumbents was particularly blatant in the case of congressional

redistricting but also apparent in the case of legislative reapportionment.



'^)

-6-

Thus, Greensboro Dal1y News reported on December 14, L965 that the

senat,e redistricting had combined warren, ilalifax, Edgecombe, and pitt

counties into a single district with two senators in order t,o avoid

a clash between Lncumbent senators Julian AlLsbrook of llalifax County

and cameron weeks of Edgecorbe co,rnty.15 Likewtse, Lt. Gov. Bob scott,

chairman of the senate redistrictlng cormi ttee, told reporters on

December L7, 1965 that his comlttee had tried "to leave as many distrlcts

as undlsturbed as posslble" and had not changed 16 of the statets 36

senatorial district".16 Because these incumbents owed thelr seats in

Part to a longstandlng system of racLaL dj-scrimination, the attempt

to Protect the interests of these and other lncumbents slmilarly situated

was an attempt to preserve the results of a discriminatory process

and should be viewed as evidence of dlscrimlnatory intentlons on the

part of the legislature

Although the legislators were deEermined to preserve as much of the

racial and political status quo as possible, the very nature of their

task ln complying wlth the 6ns-pef,son one-vote rule threatened to do

grave damage to the traditional order in North Carolina. The massive

shlft of legislative seats from rural to urban counties was unset,tling

in itself, but l-f the urban countles were also subdivided into numerous

single-member districts, racial and po1ltlcal minorities would have

greatly expanded opportunlties to elect candldates responsive to their

int,erest.s. The legislature rdas well aware of this fact and took pains to

be sure that populous urban areas would be included in multl-member

districts.

When John Sanders of the InstituEe of Government testified before

Ehe redlstricting conmittees in December, L965, he warned them that



-7-

if redistricting were left Eo the federal courts, the new districts

would likely be single-member distrlcts that subdivlded counties.

Saunders also informed the conmlttee that multimember districts ran

the rlsk of court challenge on the grounds that they Eended to reduce

the political influence of racial and polltical minorlties.lT

State leaders were t,hus reminded of the racial implications of

nultimember dlstricts but they showed no evidence of a desire to protect,

minorlty rights. InsLead, elected officials responded with repeated

calls for a quick redistrlcting by the legislature itself that would

forestall any court-ordered redistricting plan. In his opening address

to the special sesslon in January, L966, Gov. Moore was insistent. t'Let

us make no mlstake--the court will perform the task unless you do so

yourselvesrt' and he reminded legisJ-ators that court-ordered redistricting

in Oklahoua had resulted in distrlcts which crossed county lirr.".18

Sinil-ar warnings came from House Speaker Pat Taylor and influential

legislators Herbert L. Hyde of Buncombe County and Ruffin Bailey of Wake

10
County. "

T'he state house and senate redistricting committees gave additional

evidence of thelr desire to deny political power to minorities by adoption

of seat numbering proposals for multimember dlst.ricts. The avowed

intention of t,hese provisions was to prevent slngle-shot, voting, an

acknowledged tactic for insurlng minority representation i.n an at-Iarge

electlon. Henry W. Lewis and John Sanders of the Instltute of Government,

Sen. Robert Morgan of Harnett County and Sen. Ashley Futtrell of Beaufort

County were among those who expLained the purposes of the p1.o.20 Rep.

Thomas Bunn of Wake County was perhaps the most expliclt. "I dontt see

how the system [of seat-numbering] will harm any group except the group

it should harm--and thatts the single-shot voters."2l



1
-8-

Representatives of racial and political minoritles denounced the

seat-numbering proposal. Dr. Reginald Hawkins of Ctrarlot,te' a prominent

bLack dentist and civll rights activlst declared that seat-numbering

was ,,aimed at disgranchlsing the Negro and diluting his uote."2z Eldon

D. Nielson, chalrman of the Forsythe County RepublLcan party criticized

seat numbering in publ-ic hearings on January 10, L966. "It is clearly

dlscrlninatory against, the Negro and other minority grouPs," he declared.23

Seat numbering was not included in the redistricting plans final-J-y adopted

by the legislature in L966. Publlshed reports tndlcated that there was

doubt that seat numberlng would win court approval and thus, by irnplication,

might threaten the whole concePt of multimember districts.24 As Rep.

Graham Tart of Sampson County explained, "We would be better off running

aE 1arge."25 Sen. Ashely FuLtrell of Beaufort County, an original sponsor

of the idea, wiEhdrew his support over doubts about how run-off primarles

would be conduc t"d.26 Even though seat numbering was not aeeepted in 1966,

i.ts adoption at the corrmittee level is cl-ear evidence that discrimlnatory

intentions were very lnfluential ln the redlstrict,ing process. A seat

nr:mbering plan was subsequently added to the North Carolina representation

system and invalidated by the U. S. Justice Department in 1971 as a

violat,ion of section 5 of the voEing Rights Act of 1965.

perhaps the clearest indications of discriminatory intentions ln

legislative redistricting appeared in the related Process of congressional

redistrlcting which took place at, the same time. Ihen as no\d' North

Carolina leglslators wlshed to neutralize the polltical Po\der of the

numerous and well-organized black comnunity of Durham County' A proposal

in December of L955 to creaEe a Research Triangle District composed of

Durham, i,Iake, and Orange Counties produced what reporter David Cooper of



-)

-9-

the lllnston-Salem Journal ealled rra private howl from conservatives in

Wake." The Raleigh Chamber of Conmerce passed resolutions against the

plan. During executlve session, Wake CounLy Senator Jyles Coggins

reportedly warned his colleagues that it "would create a dlstrict wLth a

heavy concentration of co1-1eges, white and Negro." tltren asked to explain

this renark before the redistricting cormittee, Jyles was quoted at one

polnt in debate as saylng "let's don'E puE all our eggheads in one

basket," and other testimony before the comrl-ttee reported warned agalnst

the political effect of "Negro bloc votes" in Durham co,rnty.27 Reporter

David Cooper of the Wlnston-Salem Journal agreed that "beneath the surfaee

the argument waa that the presence of so nany colleges and Negroes in

Ehe triangle mlght creat,e a di-strict that would elect a liberal- congressman,"

or j.n thls context, a congressman responslve to black political- interests.23

After much debate, the couunlttee finally settled on a gerrymander

that put Durham County ln the Ftfth District wiEh distant Forsyth County,

locaEion of the ciEy of Winston-Salem. Durham County Senator Claude

Currie explained Ehe reasons succlnctly. "Nobody wants Durham. They

donr t llke our Negro situat,ion. They nailed down everything else and

then tacked us on." Currie added "therers going to be a lawsuit about

thisr" but the threatened court action never maEerialir"d.29

It nay be objected that the legislaturers intention to discriminat,e

in congresslonal redlstrlctlng has no bearing on its intentlons in

legislative redistrictlng, but Ehis is most implausible. Though technically

separate, Lhe three redistrictlng processes were undertaken at Lhe same

time by Lhe same individuals, ln response to the same judicial decislon

in the case of Drum v. Seawel-l. Common underl-ying mot,ives undoubtedly guided

policy-maklng in each aspect of the overall process. Taken as a who1e,



-10-

therefore, the facts surqounding the redistricting process show a pervasive

intention to discriminate on the grounds of race. Major elements of this

patt,ern lnclude the prevailing cllmate of opinion in the state in the

mld-1960s, the desire for secrecy and speed, the openly-gxpressed fears

of court-ordered redistricting, the deslre to preserve nul.timember

dlstricts ln the face of warnings of the discriminatory iupact of such

distrLcts, the desire to preserve the essentials of a discriminatory

status quo by protecting the seats of lncumbents, and t,he overtl-y anti-black

statements made in relation to Durham Countyts place in congresslonal

redlstrictlng.

After the ad hoc systern of redlstrlctlng was adopted by the 1966

special session, there was a natural desire to formalize its provislons

in a constitutlonal amendment. Ihe necessary drafting was undertaken

by John Sanders of the InstLtute of Government at the inst,ance of a

subcommlttee of the Legislatlve Research Conmission. Sanderst proposal

was contaLned in llA BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO REWRITE ARTICLE II,

SECTIONS 4, 5, AltD 6 Or THE CONSTTTITTON OF NORTI{ CAROLTNA, WrTH RESPECT

TO REPRESENTATION IN TIIE GENEML ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA.'' T?Tis dTaft

b111 and Saoderts explanation of it were appended to the subcommittee

rePort to the Legislative Research Co'rnnlssion, whi.cll was appended ln

turn to the LRC's report t,o the General Assembl-y in 1967.30

In drawing up the proposed amendment,, Sanders notlced one fLnaL

threat to the systeo of mult,imember distrlcts set up L966, The provisions

of the 1868 constitution which set, up the system of senatorial representation

and whlch were still in effect in 1967 stated that "each Senate district

sha11 contain . . . an equal number of lnhabitants" and also that, "no

county shaLl be divided in the formation of a senate district, unless such



-11 -

county shall be equltably entitled to two or more senators." In his

report,, Sauders pointed out that these clauses 'r[suggest] that singJ-e-senator

districts are intended by the ConstiEution, " though he malntained that

multlmember districts had been part of every dlstrlcting plan adopted

since 1868.31 Sanders informed the corrrmittee that the U. S. Supreme

Court had ruled that multlmember dlstricts were not inherrentJ-y contrary

to Ehe Fourteenth Amendment, but that I'given the plain language of the

present, constltutlonal provision . . r I court nlght very wel1 hold

that the Constltutlon directs that there uust be 50 single-member senatorial

distrlcts ln North Carolina, notwlthstanding anclent practlce to the

contrary."32 To elluinate this possJ.blllty, Sanders lncluded in hls

draft b111 sectlon 4(1), which read "Each Senator shal1 represent, as

nearly as nay be, an equal number of inhabitants, the nr:nber of inhabitants

whlch each Senator represents being determined for this purpose by

dividlng the population of the district he represents by the number of

Senat,ors apporti.oned to that districtrr and sectlon 4(3), "No county sha1l

be divided in the forrnation of a senate distri"t."33

Sanders' proposals were accepted by the committee and the legislature

without change. Indeed, this subtle but cruclal change ln the constitution

was adopted by the voters without any apparent publlc dlscussion at all.

That is not, surprlslng, for the vague wording of the amendment referendum

gave voters virtually no practical opportunlty to flnd out what exactly

lt was that they were voting for. In hls report, t.o the LRC subconrmitte€r

Sanders offered the opinion that "it would tend to fractlonalize counties

unnecessarlly to split them up into two or more senaLorial district"."34

There is no additional evidence co explain his or the legislaturets

motives, other than the obvious fact that the amendment provided fornal



,r1
i .-/

,-)

-L2-

constitutlonal protectioo to the overall system of dlecrlnlnaEorT mult,lmember

dlstrLcts set up by the 1956 speclal sesslon.

Harry L. Watson
Aselstant Professor
Department of IIlstorT
Uuiverlsty of North Carollna
Ctrapel llLll, North Carollna

Wrltteu lrlth the asslgtance of
James Leloudls and Wayne Durrlll



)

FOOTNOTES

1 --'Legisl-ative Research Commission, "Report No. 1: Report on the

General Assembly of North Carolina" (Raleigh, 1967), 28'29, 32-33.

2t'Tentatlve House Plan Drawnr" (Raleigh) News and Observer [hereinafter

abbreviated as N&O], December 9, 1965, pp. 1, 2.

3"Candidatets Showing Is Cause for Wonder ln Bertle,r' N&O,December 20,

1965, p.6.

4"rr,d"r the Dome," N&0, December 20, 1965, pp. I, 6.

5-Fay.tt.*ri11e Ob"e , September 1 and 2, 1965.

5S"" for example George D. Ilerring to the editor of the Greensboro

DaiLy News [hereinafter abbreviated as GDN], December 7, 1965.

7"Gor"r.ror Says Act Before Court DoesrttN&0, January J-1, 1966, p, 6.

SFayettevf[e Obse , September 26, L965.

9"urrd", Ehe Domer" N&0, September 23, 1965, pp. 1, 8.

lOoaao Olsen, rrThe Ku f,It:x iilan: A Study in Iieconstrustion l'olitics and

Propagand.arrt llorth Caro1j.:ra Hlstorical lieview XXXIX, I (Juty, 1962), 1+0-52.

llErj-c Anderson, Race and Politics in }iorth Carolina. 1872-1901: ?he B1ack

Second (Baton llouger Louislana State iJnlversi.ty Piese, 1981)r Eggig.

12H.1"r, G. Edmonds, The Negro and Fusion Politics in North Carolina,

1B9l+-190I (Chapel H{'11: University of }iorth CaroU-na Press, l95L), passira.

13v. O. Key, Southern Politlcs in State and Nation (l[ew ^orkc A1f:'ed A.

Knopf, I9l+9), 565, 55t.

In 1939, EA interviewer Berenice Kelly Harris recorded the recollections

of Walter C. Smith, a magisErate from Seaboard, North Carolina.



-2-

SmiEh descrlbed the disfranchisement process vividly. ". . . when I first

took hold or registering voters [1902], a rlght smart or niggers come

to register at first, claimlnt they could meet the requirements' Some

wrote the Constitution I reckon as good as a lot ot white men, but Ird

flnd somethint unsatlsfactory, maybe an I not dotted or a t not crossed,

enough for me tddlsquallfy 'em. The 1aw said 'satisfactory to the
I

registrar. r A few could get by the grandfather clause' for they was

some free nlggers before the Civil War, but they couldn't get by an

undott,ed i or an uncrossed t." original in the Berenice Kel1y Harris

Papers, Southern illstorical Col-lection, IJNC-CH'

14Dorr"1d R. Matthews and James W. Prothro, Ilegroes and the I'lew Southemr

Politic5 (Chapel Hill: The iJniversity of llorth Carolina Press, 1966), 15\-55.

l5tts.rr"t"rs Trouble Spots Ironed Out," GDN, December 14, 1965r PP. 1, 2.

16,,Scott Says Most Senators Satisfied with Districts," W, December 18,

1965.

l7"T"nE"tive llouse Plan Drawn,tt W, December g, L965, PP' 1, 2;

"Redistricting Pl-an Drawn," @, December 9, 1-965, Pp' 1, 2'

18,,aor.rrror Says Act Before Court Doesr" N&O, January 11 , 1966, p. 6;

Wlnst.on-Sa1em Journal, t'Special Session Begins,'r JanuarY 11, 1966, pp' 1, 2'

I9"Gor"trror Says Act Before Court Does,tt N&o, January J-I, 1966'

20,,Tentatlve llouse Plans Drawnr'r N&0, December 9, l-965, pp. 1, 2;

"Scot,t Backs More on Apportionmentr" N&.0, September 22, L965; lrl^Iake

DelegaEes Split on Ca1l Session," N&O, September 16, 1965; "Numbered

seats Backedr" N&0, January 4, Lg66, pp. 1, 3; "Numbered seats Proposed

for Both llouse and Senate," N&0, January 6, L966; "Numbered Seat Plan

Opposed," Winston-Salem Journal, January 13, 1966, p' 27 '



rl
-3-

21"w"k" Palr Disagree on Nr:mberLng Systemr't N&9., January 5, L966, p. 22.

22"und", the Domer" N&0, January 7, Lg66.-

23"Corrgr.sslonal Plan Takes the Rap," N&O, Januaty Z,1966, p. 4.

The complete text of Nielsonls remarks can be found in the Thorn:s J, White

Papers, Southern Eistorlcal Coll-ection, IINC-CH.

24"Tr"rr"parent Devl.cer" edlEorlal, N&O, January 2, 1966, p. 4.

25"*,-b".Lng Plan Draws Opposltionr" N&o, January 12, L966, p. g.

26rura.

27"Polialcal Notebookr" WLnston-Salem Journal, January 9, L966; t,Under

the Domer" N&0, December 23, 1965, pp. 1, 6.

28t'Pol-lalca1 Notebookr" Winston-Salem Journal, January 9, tg66.

29ttTh. Pangs of Reapportlonmentr" GDN, January L2, LgG6.

30l,"gis1.tlve Research Con'm{sslon, t'Report on the General Assembly of

North Carollnar" pp. 30-38.

".!.Lg.. , 3s-37.

32ruta., 36.

"-&.Lg.., 30-31, 35-37 .

'o&-r0.. , 37.

)



POTENTIAL DEPONENTS

Politicians

Robert Morgan
Pay Taylor
Ihomas Whlte
Bob Scott
Jyles Coggins
Claude M. Hamrtck, Forsyth
Claude Currie, Durham l
Clyde Harriss, Rowan t
Ralph Scott, A1a-ance I
Joel Lambert, Cumberland I

Graham Tart, Sampson Co. I

Ashley Futtrell, Beaufort J

COLLECTIONS OF PAPERS NOT YET CONST]LTED FIILLY

Robert Morgan Papers, East Carolina UnlversLty (sealed)
E. P. ("Pat") Taylor Papers, East Carolina Unlversity (sealed)
Thomas J. Whlte Papers, Southern Historical Collection, IINC-CII (unprocessed)
Transcrlpts of WRAI-TV editorials of Jesse llel-ms, N. C. Collection, IJNC-CH

Legislators quoted as opposed to
seatnumbering

Institute of Government,

John Sanders
IIenry W. Lewls

Reporters

David Cooper, I,Ilnston-Salem Journal
RusseLl Clay, N&O
Roy Parke, - ,r* ,.,L.fr- c/ FW ch*g

Legislative Research Couunission

est 1965 a research agency of General Asseubly; replaced LegLslative
Council (est 1963). Conslsts of 5 Sens, 5 Reps, Speaker of House,
Press Pro-Tem of Senate

Members 1965-67:
Robt B. Morgan, Pres Pro Tem llarnett
Sen l:vin Belk Meck

Ilerbert L. Hyde Bunconbe
Fred M. M111s, Jr. Anson
Ihomas W. Seay, Jr. Rowan
Thomas J. Wtrite Lenoir

H.P. Taylor, Speaker of llouse Anson
Rep Phillp P. Godwin Gat,es

Claude M. Hamrick Forsyth
Hugh S. Johnson, Jr. Duplin
Dwight W. Quinn Cabarrus
trIayland J. Sermons Beaufort



Ilouse reapPortlonment corrr{ ttee

E. P. Taylor (Aneon)rl{. V. Cooper (Grahan), }'tark Bennett (Yancey),
Fred York (Alexander), Eoyle Eflrd (Gaston), Fred Bahnson (Forsyth),
Earl Vaughn (Rocklngham), ldarcus Short (Gullford), Shelton Hlcker (Lee),
R. D. HcMl11an (Robeson), A. A. ZoLllcoffer (Vance), Ttrorne Gregory
(Ealffax)., Roberts Jerulgan (Bertford), W. J. LuPton (Hyde), James
Ilolhoueer (Watauga), J. E. Paschall (Wllson), Joseph Eorton (Greene)
Holhouser ia only RepublLcau

Senate reapportlonment comqittee

Frank Foreyth (Cherokee), L. B. IlolloweLl (Gaeton), Ilerroan Moore (Meck),
Ral.ph Scott (Alauance), Robt Morgan (Earnett), lhouas J. l.ltrLte (Lenolr),
Llndeay l{arren, Jr. (Wayne), AshLey Futrell (Beaufort), F. D. B. Ilardlng
(Yadkln), Robt Scott (Alauance) Earding ls only RepubLLcan