Correspondence between Guinier and Kellog; The Runoff Primary - A Path to Victory News Clipping Article from the North Carolina Insight;

    NVL/ W WM 4Q
M tinM/MW

R. JAMES KELLOGG

flea? -

fiazmd a M W”
W 5049/4 ’0“ I; a;
4 /;/ar/&ZQ “5 3/ flw7é¥

dye ,er aw N‘fl“
(if Wm’flw'
M56 51$ 7M 962 i7~

(a;

it
in.
7
e

a

 

 

:, ‘ L..—
r _‘l
’4

Viv-if

 

 

 

 

The Runoff Primary
A Path To Victory

Jim Sm‘rlrlnnd. rmmny The News and Observer (Raleigh)

 

 

Is majority rule
the best way to pick a party’s nominee?
Ask Thad Eure, Kerr Scott,
Jim Holshouser, John Ingram, Tim Valentine

 

 

by Mark Lanier

had Eure, the NC. Secretary of State for

almost 50 years, rightfully lays claim to

the title of “the oldest rat in the

barn.” But his first trip through the door
was laden with traps. 1n the I936 Democratic
Party primary, Eure trailed Stacey Wade, who
had captured over 40 percent of the vote. Eure
called for a runoffand upset Wade in the second
primary. Without that second chance, this bow-
tie-wearing governmental institution may never
have gotten his start. And the oldest rat in the
barn may have been a now-forgotten Stacey
Wade.

A I915 election law opened the doOr for
Eure.‘ The statute allowed the North Carolina
voters for the first time to choose the party’s
nominee for state offices and required a
candidate to win 50 percent of the vote. Some
state officials think reforms are needed again.

l8 NC. INSIGHT

They want to amend the 68-year-old law to allow
a person to win a party nomination with less than
50 percent of the vote, thus eliminating the need
for some second primaries. Five such proposals
recently surfaced, each calling for somewhere
between 40 and 45 percent of the vote to be
necessary for victory in the first primary.
Under four of the five proposals, the late
Stacey Wade might have stalked the legislative
halls for 50 years, not Thad Eure. And a number
of other famous North Carolina races would
have had different outcomes under some ofthese
proposals. In 1950, Frank Porter Graham would
have been elected to the us. Senate, not Willis
Smith. In 1972, Jim Gardner would have
captured the Republican nomination for

 

Mark Lflllil'f is a graduale slurlrnl in political science at
the Unirprsiu' of North Carolina a: (‘haprl Ilill.

           
    

    

: DEFENDANT'S
, EXHIBIT
- !

governt
M. “Mi
Valenti
Congre
Re
led the
Asseml
expensi
Women
togethe
power!
introdu
winnin_
of the
The pr
Congre
“My p
primar
says Sp
Assem!
primer
felt rea
ln
propos
O
Electio
victory
O

Madis

' perren.

opponr
O
headec
Comm
tried
candid
percen
O
defeat:
vote),
requir:
the Vt
comm
I983.
S
prima
the S
Demo
electio
was a-
requir
onlyn
candit
prima
is no
Carol
for i
come:
“that

 
    
     

governor, not .lim Holshouser. And in I982, H.
M. “Mickey" Michaux would have defeated Tim
Valentine for the Democratic nomination for
Congress in the 2nd district.

Rep. Kenneth B. Spaulding (D—Durham)
led the call for change in the I983 General
Assembly, calling second primaries unnecessarily
expensive and a deterrent to the election of
women and minority candidates. Spaulding,
together with Rep. Al Adams (D—Wake), a
powerful five-term veteran of the House,
introduced a bill (HB l7l) under which a person
winning the first primary with at least 40percent
of the vote would win the party’s nomination.
The proposal applied to all statewide offices,
Congressional seats, and state legislative races.
“My preference is to do away with the second
primary altogether—to have a plurality system,”
says Spaulding. “But recognizing that the General
Assembly would be slow to change the second
primary approach, I presented legislation that I
felt reasonable and realistic."

In addition to the Spaulding-Adams
proposal, four other alternatives emerged.

0 Alex Brock, director ofthe State Board of
Elections, suggested a 42 percent cutoff for
victory.

0 House Speaker Liston Ramsey (D-
Madison) mentioned an alternative of 45
percent. plus a 15 percent lead over one’s nearest
opponent

0 When Spaulding’s proposal appeared
headed for defeat in the House Election Laws

.Committee, Rep. Joseph Roberts (D-Gaston)
tried to propose an amendment requiring
candidates to win 40pereent of the vote, with a 5
percent lead over the nearest competitor.

0 After the House Election Laws Committee
defeatedsHB I71 (March I7, I983, on an ”-6
vote), Spaulding introduced a new bill (HB 536)
requiring the candidate to win with 4] percent of
the vote and a 3 percent lead. The same
committee defeated it by voice vote on March 3l,
I983.

Sixty-eight years have passed since the
primary system used today took effect. In 1915,
the South was a one-party region, and the
Democratic Party primary was the “real“
election. Hence, the person who won the primary
was assured of the office, and a majority-vote
requirement had some obvious merit. Today,
only nine states-all in the South—still require a
candidate to win 50 percent of the vote in a
primary for a party's nomination.2 But the South
is no longer a one-party region, nor is North
Carolina. Ferrel Guillory, editorial page editor
for The News and Observer of Raleigh,
contended in his February ll, I983, column
“that North Carolina is not clearly a two-party

 

L "~n iu“w‘~v&a.-- .e. .

.W‘HMtKM'rSI-XIB . t n». '\ :LIM to. til-oer Del

  

  

chi»?! Leandra

  

 

Henry Garner

   
 

 

State Rep. Kenneth B. Spaulding (D-Durham)

 

 
   
 

state, that it is in transition. . . . The question of
reducing runoffs is a question of how far North
Carolina sees itself down the road to two-party
politics.”

Besides the two—party question, at least
three other issues regarding a change in the
primary structure demand attention: I) the cost
to the state of an excessive number of second
primaries; 2) lack of voter turnout in second
primaries; and 3) difficulty for minority
candidates to win under the current system-Any
proposed change in the primary system is dead
for the 1983 legislative session, but the issue is
sure to surface again. When it does, legislators—
and the public—will want to know how various
proposals would affect future elections.

Would more minority candidates be likely
to win election? Will fewer second primaries be
necessary, and at how much savings to the state?
One way to project what might happen in future
elections is to examine second primaries in recent
years, using the five proposals listed above as
yardsticks. ' .

.e 4. in“:

      
    
  
   

“:ih’o

r.“-
.

.‘lfw unlit-A

   
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
   

- .1"

Impact of Proposed Changes on Past
Elections

To determine how the five proposals might
affect different offices, the Center examined
the vote totals for all second primaries held
during selected time periods, using the official

JUNE I983 l9

We?“ on“. 'r ~ ' ..,;.-. -W

<

vote returns in the Secretary of State‘s office.
Table I contains the results of this analysis,
including a sixth alternative, which is used in
many states—winning a party nomination with a
plurality in the first primary. The six proposals
are listed in the left column in descending order
according to degree of_impact on past elections in
North Carolina, with the alternative that would
have resulted in the most changes (plurality) at
the top and the one with the least impact (45
percent plus 15 percent lead) at the bottom.
Note that all second primaries would be
eliminated under a plurality system, which
means by definition that it has more impact than
any other option. Also note that this study
included all primaries for selected time periods,

* ,_-'_rar§te 1. Impact oi; Second Primaries-of stx'xiie'inattves tome. Electioii mime-82)!

W-

and did not depend on a sampling method or on
an arbitrary examination of selected primaries.

For I950 through I982 for all statewide
o flees and Congressional seats and from I964
through l982for all General Assembly seats, a
total of 75 second primaries was held. Table I
also includes data from two pre-I950 statewide
races of particular historic significance, the I948
gubernatorial primary involving Kerr Scott and
the I936 primary involving Thad Eure. The
study thus covered 77 second primaries. Undera
plurality system, all 77 of the second primaries
would have been eliminated and 32 of the races
would have had a different winner. At the other
extreme—the 45 percent plus l5 percent lead
alternative—only seven second primaries would

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Necessary . ‘ ‘ . . '- . ' ‘ 7 ' ‘3 " Other Statewide
Vote In General Assembly U. 5. House ' U. S. Senate ' Governor ~‘ Offices‘ . .
First Primary ~ "96682) 0950-82) 0950-82) (INS-82) (1950-82) TotIl No. of Runoff;
To Win Part) Primaries New Prim-vies New Primaries New Prlmlrles New Prim-fies New Primaries New
Nomination Eliminntcd’WInner‘ Eliminated Winner Eliminated Winner Elimlnlted Wlnner Eliminated Winner Eliminated Winner
I. Plurality I 43’ I8 I33 4 4’ 2 6’ 3 II’ 5 77’ 32
2. 40 percent ‘ . 1 " -
of vote in 32° ll‘ 8 3 3 2 5 2 5 ‘ ~ 2 53 20
Ist primary \
' \
3. 42 percent l4 3 8 3 2 I 3 l 6 2 33 IO
4. 4| percent.
plus 3. ' '
percent lead I] 4 6 2 2 I 3 0 5 l 29 8
ov-r ne‘trest ’
opponent
«‘~ ‘\ -
5. 40 percent,"
plus 5 . I3 3‘ ‘ 6 2 2 _ 2 3 0 4 I 28 8 ’
percent lend » - ' -
6. 45 percent}. , ' v . _ -,» .» ~ ‘- -‘
plus IS‘ ~ 4 o _ I o o 3 ’. l , o l .0.“ 7 0
percent lead . . ' ’ . . - - ’5' ‘ I

 

 

. a quiet».

 

 

 

 

 

 

'The table includes results from all second primaries between I950
Ind I982 for statewide and Congressional elections. plus the I948
gubernatorial and the I936 Secretary of State second primaries. For
General Assembly races, however. only the second primaries during
I964 to I982 are included. *

. 2The number of second primaries which would have been avoided
by the respective alternative. -

’The number of candidates who would have won nomination in the
first primary under the respective alternative but were instead
defeated in a second primary required under the existing law.

‘Includes for I950-82 second primaries for lieutenant Governor,
Auditor. Commissioner of Labor. Commissioner of Insurance.

    

 

. 1-- .5. .
.t ,

‘ .' Supreme Court. and Court of Appeals. Figures also include the

I936 second primary held for Secretary of State. No second primaries

‘ were held for Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture, or

I State Treasurer. This analysis did not include primaries for superior

._. court judges.

’The number of second primaries eliminated under a plurality
system is the same as the number of second primaries held during the
years indicated for each office. That is. if a simple plurality meant

. victory. no second primary would be necessary.

'This computation takes into consideration the procedure
explained in NB I7I for computing the percentage of vote necessary
for nomination in multi-seat General Assembly races.

Source: .\'.C. Secretary of State, official election returns; MC. Manual. various years.

20 N.C. INSIGHT

.t..,_

.1, “stakes-i-h-Idhrdl-FQ'.

‘.

 

:2“, a

- . ‘.‘. I
”.15“:

" '2'... .-.W‘.'..-..~

 

have be
winners.
The
the alter
tested b
have res
examine
2 U.S. :
guberna
campait
Table 2
valuabl
the cur
Ex
Spauld'
way “tc
high t
electior
second
Brock,
confm
explaii
level, :
the elt
percer
electic
avoidt
ofthe
a revi
found
perce-
of th
sugge
to m;
local
very
inclu
tive t

strat
havi
legis
and

all-Ct

PTO}
elirr
on
stat
oth
exp
run
rur
occ
in
run
PT'
sta
evr

 

 

'A :'.'

”giant. 1.

~ v ' .
.. -,, 3., .v’ ..
LAM ' 1 Label

z A

 

  
 
 
 

have been eliminated, with no changes in
winners.

The Spaulding-Adams 40 percent proposal,
the alternative receiving the most attention and
tested by a roll-call vote in committee, would
have resulted in 20different winners forthe years
examined—in II General Assembly nominations,
2 U.S. Senate races, 3 U.S. House contests, 2
gubernatorial elections, I Secretary of State
campaign, and l Court of Appeals race (see
Table 2). The data in these two tables provide
valuable insights into the concerns raised over
the current primary system.

Excessive Cost of Second Primaries. Rep.
Spaulding defended his proposal primarily as a
way “to save the taxpayers of North Carolina the
high cost of unnecessary second primary
elections." Spaulding pointed out that the I980
second primary cost the state $500,000. Alex
Brock, director of the State Board of Elections,
confirms the cost ofthe l9805econd primary, but
explains that most of the costs are at the county
level, where I6,480 people must be paid to run
the elections. In an average year, says Brock, 60
percent of the counties have runoffs in local
elections. Therefore, even if a runoff were
avoided in a statewide election, about 60 percent
of the costs ($300,000) would still be incurred. In
a review of all I982 runoffs in the state, Brock
found that lowering the winning margin to 42
percent would have eliminated about 78 percent
of the second runoffs. Hence in I982 Brock
suggested the 42 percent formula. “But you have
to make [the change] all inclusive [and apply to
local runoffs]." Brock argues, “or you’ll never get
very far with [a proposal].” Spaulding only
included statewide. Congressional, and legisla-
tive contests in his bills.

“Excludin‘g local offices was a political
strategy," says Spaulding. “I wanted to avoid
having undue lobbying efforts against the
legislation by sheriffs, county commissioners,
and other local officials who would be directly
affected.“ '

Table I shows that under the 40 percent
proposal, 53 second primaries would have been
eliminated for the years examined (see columns
on far right). Only I3, however, involved
statewide races (3 U.S. Senate, 5 governor, and 5
other). The statewide elections are the most
expensive to hold because every county incurs
runoff expenses, whether there are any local
runoffs or not. But these l3 statewide runoffs
occurred in only nine separate years; moreover,
in three of these nine years, other statewide
runoffs were necessary. Thus even the 40 percent
proposal would have eliminated only six
statewide primaries for the years examined. And
even in those years. some 60 percent of the

 

         
    

(
,5 ' ; 3 . . ~.- - 3pc
MK : ’4i'é 1%

a; 219‘...

counties, according to Brock, held local runoffs.
If the past is any guide, then, even the proposal
before the I983 legislature that would have
eliminated the most runoffs———the 40 percent
formula—would result in only modest budgetary
savings to the state. If saving money is the
overriding motivation for change, among the
proposals considered thus far only the plurality
system offers real savings. Changing a proposal
to include local races could also result in some
savings.

Lack of Voter Turnout in Second Primaries.
Rep. Spaulding, in lobbying for his bill, pointed
to the I978 U.S. Senate Democratic Party
primary. In the first primary, Luther Hodges,
Jr., with 260,868 votes, led Commissioner of
Insurance John Ingram. But Hodges won only
40.] percent of the votes cast, and Ingram called
fora runoff. In the second primary, Ingram upset
Hodges but captured only 244,469 votes, l6,000
less than Hodges had won in the earlier primary.
This study confirms the point Spaulding is
making: Voter turnout usually declines,
sometimes precipitously, in the second primary.

During the period studied, 23 second
primaries were held in North Carolina for
gubernatorial, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House
races. In l8 of these 23 runoffs, turnout was
lower in the second primary, averaging 82.5
percent ofthe first-primary vote total. In General
Assembly runoff races, the number of voters is
often as low as 20 percent of the first primary
turnout. In the few Republican runoffs that
occurred during the study period (7 of 77), the

 

.. Mitims:

Congressional candidate H. M. “Mickey" Michaux, Jr., on
the Second District campaign trail.

 

 

Karen Tarn. min] The Neva and Observer (Raleigh)

   
 
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
   

   

. ”-4..- .

 

7».

_. :'1.‘\A".e.\..~. --.- ..-

("uluh'u' .\'. (I Iliriu'un of Arrhilw aml lliyturj'

“0-;—

f

declines were even more dramatic. In the I968
Republican runoff for the U.S. Senate, an
extreme example, the turnout plummeted 89
percent from I32,0I8 to I4,550.

Two ofthe most dramatic drops occurred in
recent years, I978 and I980. In the Hodges-
Ingram second primary, 200,000 fewer Demo-
crats voted. preventing Hodges from repeating
his total of 260,000 from the first primary. In
I980, the Democratic Party State Auditor race
was the only second primary. Only l92,000
voters took time for that vote, one-third of the
579,000 who cast their ballots in the first
primary. A plurality system, which abolishes the
second primary, would in most cases allow the
greatest percent of the voters to choose a party‘s
nominee. All the other proposals would still rely
in some cases on a second primary, when voter
turnout would probably decline, if not plummet.

Impact on Minority Candidates. 'Rep.
Spaulding emphasized the financial and voter-
turnout aspects of his proposed change, but he
also addressed how the change would affect
minority candidates. After his first bill was
defeated in committee, Spaulding characterized
the runoff system as “a systematic disincentive
for political parties to provide this state
with. ..female and minority leadership." Black
groups. including the Raleigh-Wake Citizens
Association, expressed the strongest support for
the bill, and Spaulding himself heads the NC.
Legislative Black Caucus. The state League of
Women Voters also endorsed the Spaulding bill.
Opponents of the bill seized upon the race issue,
at least privately, as a means of denigrating it,
some referring to the Spaulding proposal as the
“Michaux” bill. In I982, 2nd District Congres-
sional candidate Mickey Michaux, a prominent
black political figure 'and former state legislator
from Durham, won over 40 percent ofthe vote in
the first primary but lost in the runoff to Tim
Valentine.

In addition to the Michaux-Valentine

 

Campaign workers observe primary election night in the
Willis Smith headquarters. I950.

 

{SMITH
".

 

 

 

_ . _ . - _‘ " . -~ . , x
. . . , 5. -' “x , If r . . '. ._. 1-5: 12-", ,_. '
. A “a -..~. «L. an».-. ha:a.w«exmeeez ' We. '

 
 

contest, the 40 percent proposal would have
altered the outcome of another campaign where
race was a central issue. In I949, Gov. Kerr Scott
had appointed Frank Porter Graham, then
president ofthe University of North Carolina,to
the U.S. Senate. In his I950 race forafull Senate
term against Willis Smith, Graham won over 49
percent of the first-primary vote. In a runoff
campaign marred by overt racial slurs (including
campaign flyers picturing Graham dancing with
a black woman), Smith defeated Graham by
about two percent of the vote. And in every
county in the state, voter turnout dropped.

While the 40 percent proposal would have
altered the result of the Michaux-Valentine and
Graham-Smith campaigns, no I983 legislative
proposals would have affected the outcomes of
any other recent campaigns where race played a
prominent role. In the I976 Democratic race for
lieutenant governor, Howard Lee, the first black
mayor of Chapel Hill, narrowly led Jimmy
Green in the first primary (27.7 to 27.3 percent)
but lost to Green in a runoff. Lee could not have
avoided the second primary under any of the
I983 proposed changes, however. Only a
plurality system would have given him the
victory. From I976 through I982, no races for
the NC. General Assembly involving blacks or
women would have been altered by any of the
proposals recently before the legislature.

But, argues Spaulding, “Even if the 40
percent proposal would have altered the
outcome of only a few races, it would
nevertheless eliminate a disincentive to running
for potential minority and women candidates."

Except for the plurality system, none ofthe
proposals appears to reduce barriers to the
nomination of blacks and females in a significant
way. The recent victory of Harold Washington in

the Democratic Party primary in Chicago ..

illustrates the dramatic impact of the plurality
system. In the first primary, Washington edged
out the incumbent .Iane Byrne and Richard
Daley, Jr., the son of the late longtime mayor
there, and thus qualified under the plurality
system to represent the Democratic Party in the
general election. The vicious race-dominated
campaign that followed demonstrated how
difficult it would have been for Washington to
have won 50 percent of the vote in a runoff
primary. Under the plurality system, however,
Washington was able to gain the nomination,
which in the heavily Democratic city of Chicago
helped tremendously in his general election
victory.

Whatever change in election law procedure
might take place, the political system is sure to
adapt to it. If changing the current system
eliminated the “discentives” that Rep. Spaulding

.A.~‘~.~

. .. “A“..‘la-L. bee. 4“ .‘

Office

I. U.S. Sci
2. U.S. Set
3. U.S. llu
(Ilth Dis
4. U.S. Ho
(3rd Dist
5. U.S. Ho
(2nd Dis
6. Governo
7. Governo
8.’ Sec. of.‘
9. NC. Co
of Appee

-‘ a

believest
more co
primary]
structure
influence
In the fi
primary
context (

Conclusit
_ This
alternatit
law revea
0 01
alternatit
much me
0 Di
significan
system.
ensure th
voters pt
candidatc
0 TI
minority
not as n

. think. Oh

improve
candidate
. Nt
candidatt
primary i
The
Iegislatur
Table le:
outcome
races sim
Johnson
primary .
nominee

 

‘I’C

Jtt '
en

lo

tte ‘

49
off
ng
itlt
by
:ry

WC
nd
t't‘e

(la
for
wit
my
nt)
we
the

the
for

of
the

40
the
.Ild

ing
the
‘he
.tnt
tin
tgo
lity
aed
ard
yor
lity
the
ted
ow
t to
toff
yer,
on,
tgo
ion

ttre
' IO
‘61“
ing

 
 

. )r~.~‘. apt. 7.71;»),

'. 1‘ g
1W4. iii-Mag

Table 2. Changes in Nominees for Statewide and Congressional Races (I948-82)
Under Proposed Alternatives to Existing Law

 

Winner ' 'Winner Winner

 

 

    

:‘a‘swmm, ', ';-f Under Under Under
_ _ lullnder Winner Winner , 41%, Plus 40%,Plus 457,. Plus -
" ' ' » . '- “ s’ Existing ;; Under Under 3% Lead. 5% Lead, I5% Lead, ‘
Office . Party Year F’Law (50%) '3‘». 40% Proposal 42% Proposal Proposal ' Proposal Proposal '2
l. U.S. Senate D I950 ' W. Smithaix Graham Graham Graham Graham Smith
2. U.S. Senate D I978 «Ingram ; Hodges Ingram Ingram Hodges Ingram
3. U.S. House D I956 it? Whitener 5 Gardner Gardner Whitener \Vhitener Whitener
(Ilth Dist.) ' ta: ~.'- ' .‘. I: ' 1 ' . .
4. U.S. House D 1976 awnittey Love Love Love Love Whitley
(3rd Dist.) ;, . ‘T '
5. U.S. House D I982 {Valentine '5 .Michaux Michaux Michaux ‘ Michaux Valentine
(2nd Dist.) ' -E- " > . ' - '
6. Governor D I948 1' K. Scott " . Johnson Scott _ Scott Scott Scott
7. Governor R I972 :H‘olshouser‘i Gardner Gardner Holshouser Holshouser Holshouser
8. Sec. of State D I936 .‘f Eure ' A’ 2% Wade Wade Wade Wade Eure
9. NC. Court D I982 : Eagles ‘ I i“ Wright Wright Eagles Eagles Eagles
of Appeals _ 5545;: . _. '41 . . . .

 

believes to exist, that change could in turn trigger
more complex political machinations. Pre-
primary brokering, negotiations within the party
structure, and other behind-the-scenes efforts to
influence who runs for office might well increase.
In the final analysis, then, the structure of a
primary system must be considered only in the
context of pragmatic politics.

Conclusion

This study of recent second primaries and
alternatives to current North Carolina election
law revealed:

0 Only a plurality system, among the
alternatives examined, would save the state
much money.

0 Dropoff in voter turnout is generally..

significant in a second primary. A plurality
system, Which eliminates all runoffs, would
ensure that, in most cases, the largest number of
voters participate in the election of a party’s
candidate.

0 The 40 percent proposal might help a few
minority and women candidates, but probably
not as much as proponents (and opponents)
think. Only a plurality system could significantly
improve the chances of election for minority
candidates.

0 No state outside the South requires a
candidate to win 50 percent ofthe vote in a party
primary in order to win the party‘s nomination.

The various proposals discussed in the I983
legislature—all those alternatives included in
Table I except plurality— would have altered the
outcome of nine statewide and Congressional
races since I948 (see Table 2). In I948. Charles
Johnson captured over 40 percent in the first
primary and would have been the Democratic
nominee for governor —not Kerr Scott. In I978,

Luther Hodges, Jr., not John Ingram, would
have run against Jesse Helms for the U.S. Senate.
The state would have sent Frank Porter Graham
to Washington, as well as Mickey Michaux

(unless the Republicans pulled off an upset in the'

general election). Jim Holshouser would never
have been governor; Jim Gardner, who won well
over 40 percent of the vote in the first I972
primary, would have run against Skipper Bowles
in the general election.

Despite these prominent “what-it‘s," the
proposed changes would have had very little
effect on the vast majority of statewide,
Congressional, and state legislative races.
Judging from the past, only the plurality option
would drastically alter the outcome of future
races. 0

FOOTNOTES ~-

'Chapter IOI ofthe I915 Session Laws. Section 24. now
codified as N.C.G.S. I63~Ill(b): “(b) Right to Demand
Second Primary.-—If an insufficient number of aspirants
receive (sic) a majority of the votes cast...in a primary. a
second primary. . .shall be held . . . . " Fora discussion ofthis
statute, see H. Rutherford Turnhull. III. North Carolina
Primary and General Election Law and Procedure. Institute
of Government. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Volume VIII. I974, pp. I4-I7. This publication is issued bi-
annually.

‘The nine states. with the date their law was enacted in
parentheses, are: Mississippi (1902). North Carolina (I9I5).
South Carolina (I9I5). Georgiatl9l7). Texas(l9l8). Florida
(I929), Alabama (I93I), Arkansas (I939). and Oklahoma
(I948). Tennessee uses a runoff primary when candidates tie
in theiirst primary. New York City established a runoff
primary in the W705 for citywide primaries in which no
candidate receives 40 percent. For more background.see The
Book ofthe States. Council of State Governments: \‘.0. Key.
Jr.. Stun/tern Polilicx, Knopf, I950. pp. “6-423: Larry
Sabato. The Democratic Par/gr Primary in Virginia. The
Institute of Government. University of Virginia, I977:
Charles Merriam and Louise ()veraekcr. PTI‘IIIHV‘I E/t-t'tiimx,
University of Chicago Press. I928. p. 83.

JUNE I983 23

‘—

" ‘ “i‘ L';..~ '

.u" r-

2!.

.
iii.