Weekly Summary of Actions by the North Carolina General Assembly

    <?-lC Loslt tN *r"-
N)

PLAINIIFI,s
EXHIBII

I

ctr<lyS
Actions by the North Carolina General Assembly

LegistativeReportingService / Instituleof Government / TheUniversityof NorthCarolinaatChapelHill

t
I
5

it

(
(:i
\* ')

NO. 4 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY Ll, 1983

The Veedly Swnnuy is prepared by the Legislatiue stqff of the Instiktte
of Couerwnent od ,i.s confined to matters of general interest eoneerming
the 1983 session of tlte Notth Catolina General Assembly.

Partv primaries
ffithCaro1ina,fo11ow1ngthetrendl.nothersouthernstaEes,
reformed its election systen by establishlng party prlmarles to choose candl-
dates for office. In a state Ln whl.ch Democratlc Party nornlnatlon a]-ways

mean6 election, fhe new primary systetr gave the voters the flrst chance to
choose Ehe st.ate's public officers. Because the party prlmary was the real
election for the office, the 1915 law required that a candidate receive a

naj ority in the first primary or face a run-off. That rul-e has been ln effect
ever since.

The uajority vote requirement for party prlmaries is now limlted to nlne
essentiall-y singl-e-party sEates: North Carolina, Alabana, Arkansas, Florlda,
Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoaa, South Carollna, and Texas. The majorlty
requirement, combined with a Long ballot, means that sometimes there w111 be

expensive second prinaries for minor offices that generate llttle voter interest.
In recent yeiars the requirment has also been seen as a barrier to-'the electlon
of blacks. The 1982 North Carolina elections lllustrate both.

In the 1982 Democratlc prlmary in the 2nd congressional dlstrlct, Mlckey
Michaux, a black, led vith 447 of the vote, but was forced lntb ai'run-off:-
wlth Tin Val-entlne, a vhite who had 332. Valentine won that second priuary
and went on to win the general election ln Ehe heavlly Denocratlc dLstrlct-

Also on the baLlot ln the first DemocraEic primary were two races for the
Stare Courg of Appeals. For one seat, Paul Wrlght led Sld Eagles by 432 to
4Zi(, but Eagles wlu the run-off. For'another aeat, though,'Eugenq PhlJ"ltps
had a cormanding 392 to 182 margln over Horton Rountree ln the flrst prlmary.
There was a'tso a run-of f , whlch'Phl1li-ps woir easlly. ' In rnany parts of the state'
those Court of Appeals run-offs were the only offlces on the second prlmary
ballot and few vot,ers bothered to go to the polls'-----n.p. 

fenaeth Spaulding of Urrrhan, which is ln the 2nd congre.ssional
dlsErict, this week lntroduced H I71 to reduce the number of second prlmaries.
Hls bill, which has been referred to the House Election Laws Corrnlttee, ]oo"lq
apply to all party primaries for the US Senate' congresslonal seats, statewide
oiift.=, the Ceneial Asserobly and judgeships, but not to county and cLty offlces'
It would require on]jy 4OZ of the vote ln the flrst prlmary to'be declared the
party nominee. As under Present la\r, if no candidate gog that Percentage, a

run-off would be held between the toP tr{'o vote getters lf the second-place
finisher decided to call for it. If more Ehan one candidaEe passed the 402

total in the flrst primary, the one with the mos! votes would be the nomlnee

wlthout a run-off. Spauliingts bill would take effect, this September and thus
I

L''

IT--

apply to the 1984 Prtmaries.
Tf. a 4OZ rule had been ln effect ln 1982, MLckey Mlchaux rather t

Box7294 State I-egislative Building / Raleigh, North C,arolina 27611/ (919) 733'2484

Gingles



G..-r
\i.lr';

Valentine would have been the DemocraEic nomlnee for the 2nd congressional
- seat and presurnably would have been favored in the general elecrlon. Sid

Eagles would not have been entlEled Eo a run-off for the Court of Appeals and
someone else would now be wearing his robe. Horton Rountree stilt could have
called for a run-off for the other Court of Appeals seat, but night not have
done so lf thaE lrere to be the only office on the ballot.

In looking aE elecEions for sEate offices and Congress since 1960, only a

. few results would have been changed by a 4O"l ru1e, buE several second primaries
would have been avoided. In three instances other than the Michaux-Valentine
race, a 4O7" rule would have given North Carolina different nominees or office:
holders. Jlm Holshouser would never have been governor slnce he tralled Jirn
Gardner ln the firsE 1972 Republican primary and Gardner had well over 402
of the vote, missing a najority by less chan 400 votes. In the 1978 US Senate
race, Luther Hodges was abouE 500 votes over 402 in the first Democratic
prLmary, but,forced into a run-off with John Ingrarn, he lost the nominat.ion.
Ingram lrent on to lose in the general elecEion to Jesse He1ms. And ln 1976
Jlmmy Love would have been Ehe Democratic congrpssional ncminee after the
flrst prinary in the 3rd distpict rather than losing to Charl"es Whitley ln
the second primary.

In at least nine other instances since 1960, the 402 rule would have saved
the cost of a second pr{mary with no change in the winner. In each of rhese
cases the leader. of the first primary lrad more than 402 of the voEe and went
on to win the run-off. There would have been no,second primaries ln the
Democratic gubernatorial primarles in 1960 (Sanford over Lake) and L972 (Bowles
over Taylor), the 1976 Republican gubernatorial primary (Flaherty over
Privette), the 1972 Deraocratic prinary for US Senate (Galifianakis over Jordan),
the 1964 DemocraEic primary for Lt. Govenor (Scott over Blue), the Democratic

'primari.es for StaEe Auditor in 1976 (Bridges over Woo) and 1980 (Renfrow over
Chestnut), aad the congressioaal primaries for Republicans in the'10rh distriit
ln 1966 and DemocraLs in the 7th district in L972.

Several of those elecEions illustrate the the dramaEic drop in voter
interest in a seccnd prinary. In 1978 John Ingram won the second primary for
the US Senate nsniaaEicn wiih 244rO0O vot,es when 2001000 fewer DernocraEs went
to the poLls aad Eodges could not repeat hls total of 260,000 from the first
primary. Whes Jin ilolshouser came back to defeat Gardner.in the.1972 Republican
second priraar-w he actual1-I had 141000 fewer votes than in the first prirnary.
And fur 1980 when Ehe Democratic State Auditor race qras the only second primary
ballot Justr 192r00O vocers showed up, one-thlrd bf the 579,000 who had voted
on that office i-B the first pri:nary.

The Spaul.dtng proposal would noE have prevented a second primary ln
several races vhere trhe secoad-place.finisher reverse.d Ehe results ln the run-
off. Because hl.s opponent did not get 407. Ln the first primary, Dan Moore
stiLl would have had Ehe opportunity to win rhe 1964 Denocratic nomination for
governor over S1chardson'Preyer (in one of several ,.nstances when more people
voted ln the seeoad pri-uary than in the ftrst), Jinury Green to take the 1976
Democratlc nomination for Lt. Governor frcm Howard Lee (Lee led with 32.7% ia
the flrst primary), Jotm Ingram to become Ehe Democratic nominee for Cornrris-
sloner of Insurance in L972 rather Ehan Russell Secrest (with more than
1001000 fewer votes casE in the run-off), John Brooks to be the 1976 Democratic
nominee for Comissioner of Labor instead of Jessie Rae ScotE, and Ike Andrews
to be the 1972 Democraelc congressional nominee from Ehe 4th district rather
than Jyles Coggins.

t/; .:-1v-

(;r.ii