The Disadvantageous Effects of At-Large Elections on the Success of Minority Candidates for the Charlotte and Raleigh City Councils Paper by Grofman
Reports
May 20, 1983

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. The Disadvantageous Effects of At-Large Elections on the Success of Minority Candidates for the Charlotte and Raleigh City Councils Paper by Grofman, 1983. 8090d0b1-df92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7969c414-400c-4c55-9a36-7317116a3dc6/the-disadvantageous-effects-of-at-large-elections-on-the-success-of-minority-candidates-for-the-charlotte-and-raleigh-city-councils-paper-by-grofman. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
q- r- r{ H-f tu ; ,7r /\,)/,,t2, //* p,r ,r' gAa-rr* ,n'Pfr"l- JLh L*, .\ rj'c" '-: .j' : ,-.,.!. . I ,..;./ xi . .... E t)ISADVANTAGEOUS EFFECTS OF AT-LARGE ELECTIONS ON THE SUCCESS OF t'llINORITY CANDIDATES FOR THE CHARLOTTE AND RALEIGH CITY COUNCILS* J,r I :,1..:' ai;rul,q,r -': f{,-L:.',. ,1 ,i . 'r;i.i'.:.,;'. *.i'i';i, , '.'':-.,,.:' ..;'; -'.t, .!'.. ." ...:'.,-,.;: School of Social Sciences : PIAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT ,e9 Gr n,1"-s C [Jniversity of California, Irvine THE DISADVANTAGEOUS EFFECTS OF AT-LARGE ELECTIONS ON THE SUCCESS OF MINORIIY CANDIOATES FOR THE CHARLOTTE AND RALEIGH CITY COUNCILS* Bernard Grofman Professor of Pol'ltical Sclence School of Soclal Sclences Unl vers 1ty of Cal'lf ornla, Irvl ne Irvlne, Cal 1 fornla May 20, .l983 *The portlon of thls research conducted March to Ju1y,.l982, was supported by Natlonal Sclence Foundatlon Grant #SES 8l-07554, Polltlcal Sclence Program. I am lndebted to the staff of the UCI School of Soclal Sclences Word Processlng Center for typlng and table preparatlon. Data were obtalned f rom or'lg'lna1 data sources by Sarah Crowder, Esq. The vlews expressed are entlrely the responslbtllty of the author and are not offlclal vlews of the Natlonal Sclence Foundatlon or the Unlverslty of Callfornla, Irvlne. I. Campalgn Expendltures 1n the Dlstrlct-Based and At-Large Component of the Charlotte Clty Councll and and Ralelgh Clty Councll Electlons in .l979 and lgBt We would llke to test the hypothesls that at-large electlons are more expenslve to run than dlstrlct-based campalgns. Intultlvely 1t would seem very reasonable that at-'large electlons, lnvolvlng as they do iarger constltuencles, would be more costly.l However, there are a number of methodologlcal problems 1n emplrlca'l1y valldatlng what mlght appear commonsenslcally obv'lous; even though the few avallable studies (e.g., Grofman .l982; Jewell .l982) all support the truth of the proposed hypothes 1 s : (l ) There are dlfferences 1n spendlng patterns between incumbents and non-lncumbents. Moreover, those dlfferences are compllcated by the conslderable lncumbency advantage 1n ralslng money versus the countervalllng lesser need of h1gh1y vlslble lncumbents to spend money to w1n electlons. Also the magnltude of the lncumbency advantage is often dlfferent 1n at-large than 1n slngle member dlstrlct elect'lons. (21 Both at-large and dlstrlct races contaln candldates who run with llttle chance of vlctory (and wlth mlnlmal campalgn expenses), but the number of such candldates 1s generally greater 1n at-large electlons. lCampalgn funds are often spent somewhat dl fferently. 1n at-1arge than 1n d'lstrlct electlons; for the latter, use of clty-w1de medla (e.9., radio, TV, clty newspapers) 1s less efflclent than for the former and thls may reduce somewhat the cost advantages produced by the smaller scope of dlstrlct-based campalgns. ( 2 (3) Many candldates largely flnance. clty councll campalgns through the'lr own funds, and such personal resources vary w1de1y, lntroducing ldlosyncratlc features whlch are hard to control for because of the smal'l number of mlxed system electlons for whlch we have campalgn fundlng data avallable for ana'lys1s. Nonetheless, each of these methodologlcal problems assoclated with analyzlng comparatlve campalgn expendl tures across d1 fferent types of electlon systems may be solved (or at least mlilgated) 1f (l) we dlstlngulsh between lncumbent and non-lncumbent expendltures lZ) for both lncumbents and non-lncumbents we focus on the expendltures of the wlnnlnq candldates, and (3), we comblne data so as to obtaln a larger sample slze and more rel lable data estlmates. ['.le shal I look at charlotte c1 ty councll and Ra'le1gh clty councll campalgn expendltures patterns, comblning 1979 and l98l data. In Charlotte there were four at-large seats and seven dlstrlct seats 1n both the .l979 and l98l electlons (see Appendlces 1 and 2). Comblnlng data for the two electlons we flnd wlnners at large averaged over $.I2,000 on campalgn expendltures (whether they were lncumbent or non-lncumbent); whlle 1n the dlstrlct based e'lections, wlnning challengers spent on'ly $5,8.l5 and wlnnlng lncumbents spent only $3,198 (see Table I ). Thus, Table I about here campalgn costs 1n Charlotte C1 ty councl 1 at-large electlons hrere, on average, more than twlce those for dlstrlct electlons 1n that clty. 3 In Ralelgh, for both the .l979 and the l98l e'lect1on, there were two at-'large seats and f 1ve dlstrlct seats (see Append'lx 3 and 4). Comblnlng data for the two e'lectlons we flnd lncumbent wlnners at-1arge spent an average of $9,.l05 whlle lncumbent dlstrlct wlnners spent an average of only $5,344; non-lncumbent at-1arge wlnners spent an average $1.l,925 whlle non-lncumbent dlstrlct wlnners spent on average only $5,2.l3. Thus, at-'large campalgn costs 1n Ralelgh at-'large clty councll electlons were, on average, roughly twlce those for dlstrlct electlons tn that c1ty. Table 2 about here ( II. Success of Black Candldates in the Dlstrict-Based and At-Large Component of Charlotte Ci ty Councl 1 and Raleigh C1 ty Councl 1 E lectlons The cons 1 derabl y h1 gher expendl tures requl red to run a succes sful at-large race 1n Charlotte lmposes a burden on mlnorlty groups (such as blacks) who are economlcally dlsadvantaged. Thls flnancial burden, combined wlth raclal bloc voting whlch makes for a greater dlfflculty of b'lack success 1n at-large race wlth a primarlly whlte electorate as compared to a dlstrlct race wlth a prlmarily Black electorate (e.9., Charlotte Districts 2-3l,, has meant that Blacks are dlsproportlonately excluded from the at-large councll seats 1n Charlotte. In the perlod '1977-198.l , of the 2l dlstrlct seats contested, 81acks won 6 (28.6%t; whlle of the l2 at-large seats contested Blacks won only 2 (16.1%1, desplte the fact that there were more Black candldates for the four at-1arge seats than for the seven dlstrlct seats. In the precedlng perlod, .l945-.l9i5, under a pure at-large system, Black representation was even 1ess, averaglng only 5.4% l[e111g and Mundt l98l; see a'lso Hei11g, .l978; Hundt .l979). As 1n Charlotte, Black electoral success 1n Ralelgh was conslderably greater 1n the dlstrlct than 1n the at-large component of the clty councll electlons 1n .l977-.l98.l. 0f the l5 dlstrlct seats contested, Blacks won three (20.0%), whlle of the slx at-1arge seats contested, Blacks won no seats (0.0%), desplte the fact that there were proportlonally about as many Black candldates contesting the at-1arge electlons as contestlng the dlstrlct electlons. Thls flndlng of greater mlnorlty success 1n a dlstrlct-based system (or the dlstrict-based component of a mlxed system) than under an at-1arge or mu'lt1-member dlstrlct system has been repeated 1n a large number of munlclpallties and other Jurlsdlctlons where there exlsts a substantlal mlnorlty populatlon :' and patterns of polarlzed votlng (see esp. Engstrom and McDonald l98l; ,. Karnlg and l.lelch .l978, .I979; Grofman l98l; and overvlews of the llterature 'ln Engstrom and McDonald .l984 forthcomlng and 1n Grofman r982b). "Indeed, few generallzatlons 1n po11t1cal sclence appear to be as well verlfled as the proposltlon that at-1arge electlons tend to be dlscrlmlnatory toward black Amerlcansr'(Engstrom and Mc0onald, .l984 forthcomlng). ( III. Summary We examlned the campalgn expendlture patterns for the at-large and dlstrlct components of Charlotte and Ralelgh, North Carollna clty councll electlons and found that successful at-large electlon campalgns are more expens'lve to run than successful dlstrlct campaigns. We then looked at the success of black candldates 1n recent Charlotte and Ralelgh c'lty councll races and found dramat'lcally greater success for black candldates runnlng 1n the dlstrlct-based elections than for those runnlng for the clty-w1de seats. In reduclng thelr llkellhood of obtalning offlce 1f they do seek 1t, and,/or 1n lncreaslng the amount of money whlch must be spent to achleve offlce, at-large electlons in Charlotte and Raielgh had a d1 scrlmlnatory effect on Elack candldates, when compared w1 th dl strict electlons 1n the same clties. Tab'l e I I Campaign Expenses: Charlotte Clty Councl1, .l979-.l98.l Wlnnlng Incumbents2 At-larqe 0lstrlct W1 nni ng Non-Incumbents At-larqe Di strlct $.l8,.l42 l{one l9 ,.l00 $.l 8,621I 979 expendi tures $ 554 I,684 I,907 (N=2) 2,699 5,784 2,9.l4 5,675 $3,03'l (N=5 )average ( N=2 ) $5,706 4,945 $5,326 l.Jlnnlng Incumbents At-larqe D1 strlct $3'll9 I,936 2,717 average $l 8,452 4,531 ( N=2 ) I 9 .669 4,900 $.I9,06.| (N=5) $3,433 (N=5) l'l1 nni ng Non-Incumbents At-larqe D1 strlct $7 ,0.l 4 5,292 $8,7.l 7 2,91 3 I 981 expend 1 tures average (N=2) $6,.I 53 ( N=2 ) $5,8.l 5 I 979 and I 981 comb 1 ned average (N=4) l.llnning Incumbents At-larqe Dlstrlct $.l 2,.l 94 ( N=.l 2 ) $4,.I 98 Wi nni ng Non-Incumbents At-larqe Dlstrlct $l 2,387 ( N=2 ) $5,81 5(N=9) lThere were not enough wlnnlng black candldates to make 1t feaslble to separately tabulate by race of candldate. The raw data on whlch thls table was based 1s provlded as appendlces to thls research note. 2In .l979 and l98l all lncumbents running for reelectlon to the Charlotte Clty Councll won reelectlon. In .l979 9 of ll lncumbents sought reelectlon; tn .l98.l, 7 of ll did. ( Table 2l Campalgn Expenses: Ralelgh C1 ty Counci 1, .I979-.I98.| l.ll nni ng Incumbents At-larqe Dlstrlct t,'l'l nn 1 ng Non-Incumbents At-larqe Dlstrlct 1 979 expendl tures average ( N=l ) $3.598 $3, 598 $.l5,723 4,lg7 257 5.048 $ 6,304 $t 0,0.l 6 $t 0,0.I 6 $8.962 $8 ,962 I 981 expend'ltures average ( N=l ) $l 4,6l l $l 4,6l l ( N=4 ) $5,3.I0.l.301 $4,383 (N=l ) l,Jl nnl ng Incumbents At-larqe Dlstrlct !.ll nnlng Non-Incumbents At-larqe Dlstrlct $.13,834 $.l,463 $.l3,834 (N=l ) $.|,463 ( Wl nn i ng Incumbents At-larqe 0lstrlct_ $9,'105 (N=8 ) $5,344 (N=2 ) Hlnnlng Non-Incumbents $.l .l ,925 ( N=2 ) $5, 2.l 3 lThere were not enough wlnnlng b'lack candldates to make'lt feaslble to separately tabulate by race of candldate. The raw data on whlch thls table was based 1s provlded as appendlces to thls research note. At-larqe Dlstrict.l979 and I 98.l average ( N=2 ) comb'lned Appendl x 1 Charlotte Cl tv Councl I .l979 Campalqn Exoend'l tures tJ* * - lncumbents Source: Repor t At Larqe Dave Berryh111 Llnwood 8oy1es Betty Chafln Franklln Burnham John Hardlng Rudy Hendrlcks (B)* Pat Locke t{lll1e Payne (8) Marnlte Shuford (B) Herberty Spaugh 0l strlct I (D) Dlstrlct 2 $.l 8,.l 42..l .l 7,793.24 5,706.95 236. I 6 8,649. 2l 2,079 . .l 3 4,945 .96 I 98. 46 8,875.99.l9,100.21 554.09 D R 0 D D R R D D D (D) (D) (0) (R) (D) (R) H Oon Carrol I Charlle 0anne11y (B) Sy1vla Jordan Dlstrlct 3 l.l * Ron Leeper (8) (D) Dlstrlct 4 I ,684.40'l ,201 .92 I 8,264.56 5,784.64 I ,907 .84 2, 699 .48 I 0,768.62 tl * Laura Frech Elllott Newcombe John Q. Burnet te trl * ['1lnette Trosh Dlstrlct 5 Dlstrlct 6 James Breneman Sandy Judson George Seldon Dlstrlct 7 Tom Cox Gene Golding H = wlnner (B) = of the Board of Electlons (0) (D) (R) I ,383.60 2,967 .51 2,9.l4.76 5,675..l3 655.00 (R) (D) Black 't0 Appendl x 2 Charlotte Cl tv Councl I l98l Electlon Campalqn Expendl tures At Larqe Dave Berryhl 1 1 Lee Roy Epps Harvey Gantt (B) Brenda Hllliard Jlm Hutchlnson l,lar 1 e Jordan Pat Pat ton Sue Myrick Ed Peacock Blll Payne (8) Rlckey Reid (B) Herber t Spaugh Denn 1 s Cudd M1 ke Fennel I Mark Grlffin Buddy Reid Parn Patterson G'lenn Fogle Laura F rech $l 8,452.71 996.41 7,0.l3.77 I,69l.ll 371.34 I I 4.00 4,271 .25 I I ,496 .0.l 5,29.l .63 r 42 .00 422 .42 19,669.52 ( ( ( ( ( ( Dlstrlct I (D) (D) (R) (D) (D) Dlstrlct 2 Dlstrlct 4 (R) (D) Dlstrlct 5 D) R) D) D) R) D) R) R) R) D) D) D) 1 ,232 .44 I ,209.77 233.0r 7 ,646 . 23 2,9.l3.73 t{ l.l t.J Charlle Dannelly (8) (D) Sy1v1a Jordan (D) 0lstr1ct 3 Franklln Durham (B) (D) Ron Leeper (8) (D) Eugene Marsh (B) (D) 3, I .l8.94 536.08 57.00 I ,936. I 3 208. I 2 D) D) R) 3,3.l9..l6 2,776.57 7 ,840 .34 767. I 7 4,530.72 * - lncumbent Source: Repor t G. tl. Hartsell l.larc Helm M1 net te Trosch !,l = wlnner (B) = Black of the Board of Electlons il ( Appendlx 2 (continued) Dlstrlct 6 Ann Maxwell (D George Seldon ( R Distrlct 7 Nell Flsher George Kal lam Ralph McMl I lan 5,596.66 4,799.73 D D R I,653.04 I 08 .00 8,71 6 . 78 ( 12 ( Append 1 x 3 0ctober 9,.I979 Ralelqh Cltv Councll Electlon Campalqn Expendltures At Larqe w [r|* Sandy P. Babb Spurgeon Cameron (B) Theora M1 tchel I Rourk ( B ) Averay C. Upchurch James B. I'lomble (appointed to $ 5,442. .l 8 2,02.l.99 233.00 10,016.52 lncumbency) 3,597.95 Dlstrlct A I'landa Canada Leslle L. Koehler Tony Jordan Dlstrlct B Oak1ey Herring tl * Edward A. Walters Dlstrlct C l.J Arthur J. Ca'lloway (8)* t.Jllliam R. Knlght (8) Mayso Tomllnson, Jr. (B) . Dlstrlct D tl * Mlrlam P. Block 0. D. Rai nes Dlstrlct E l.l * John A. Edwards Robert R. Gardner * = lncumbents H =wlnner (B) = Black Source: Report of the Wake County Board of Electlons 7,3.l 0.56 2,.l08.64 15 ,7 22 .69 .l ,879 .7 5 4,.l86.70 8,962.1 7 6,945.86 376.26 256. 54 8t 4.00 5,048.98 I , I 03.34 13 ( * * Appendl x 4 0ctober 6. l98l Ralelqh C1 tv Councl I Electlon Campalqn Expendltures At Larqe Sandra P. Babb Ronald Kent Campbel'l Avery C. Upchurch James B. tr,lomble $l 3,834. 35 3,464.66 I 4,6.l I .00 5,469.25 Arthur J. Calloway Mayso Toml i nson, Jr Dlstrlct A Tony Jordan l.l1l11am C. Young 0lstr1ct B Edward A. t'lalters Dlstrlct C (B) . (B) Dlstrlct D ( no 1 ncumbent ) G.0an1el Coates L. E. Colv'ln, Jr. R. E. Deans Rober t Hoy Walter M. Keller (lncludlng run-off) Charles G. Meeker ( lncludlng run-off) Stephen G. Rea Deslree Hhlte (B) D1 s tr 1c t E 7 ,276.39 55.00 3,644 . 64 5,309 . gt 776.76 5 .00 430 .00 I ,664.40 I 52.40 I ,463.00 I ,567 .26.l,793.02 2,006 . 36 .|,30.l.06!'l * John W = w1 nner Source: Repor t A. Edwards lncumbent (B) = Black*- of the Wake County Board of Electlons l4 ( References Engstrom, Rlchard L. and Mlchael [). HcDonald. "The Electlon of Blacks to Clty Counclls: Clarlfylng the impact of Electoral Arrangements on the Seats/Populatlon Relationshlp. " The American Polltlcal Sclence Review, Vol. 75, No. 2 (June l98l ), 344-354. Engstrom, Rlchard L. and Mlchael D. HcDonald. "Effects of At-Large vs. Dlstrlct Electlons on Raclal Representatlon. " In B. Grofman and A. LlJphart (Eds. ), Electoral Laws and Thelr Polltlcal Consequences. New York: Agathon Press, .l984 forthcomlng. Grofman, Bernard. "Alternatives to S1ng1e-Member Plurallty Dlstrlcts: Lega'l and Emplrlcal Issues." Pollcv Studles Journal Speclal Issue on Reapportlonment, Vol. 9, No. 6 (Apr11 .l981 ), 875-898. Reprlnted 1n B. Grofman, A. LlJphart, R. McKay, and H. Scarrow (Eds.), Representatlon and Redlstrlctlnq Issues. Lexlngton, MA: Lexington Books , I 982, I 07 -l 28 . Grofman, Bernard. Report on the constltutlonsallty of the Hawail Reapportlonment Commlsslon's proposed state leglslatlve redlstrlctlng. Prepared testlmony 1n Travls et al. v. Klng, U.S. Dlstrlct Court for the State of Hawa11, Harch 23-24, 1982(a), photo-offset. Grofman, Eernard. "Hard vs. At-Large Electlons, Part II: A Revlew and Crltlque of Twenty-Three Studies .l970-.l98.l." Unpubllshed manuscrlpt, 1982(b). t5 He11ig, Peggy. "The Abandonment of'Reform'1n a Southern City: 0utcomes of a Return to Dlstrlct Politlcs." Dellvered at the Annual Heetlng of the Mldwest Polltlcal Sclence Assoclatlon,.l978. He1'119, Peggy and Robert J. Mundt. "Do Dlstricts Make a Dlfference?', Urban Interest (Aprll, l98l), 62-75. Jewell, Malcolm E. "The Consequences of Slngle- and Multi-Member 0lstr1cting. " In B. Grofman, A. LiJphart, R. McKay, and H. Scarrow (Eds. ), Representatlon and Redlstrlctlnq Issues. Lexlngton, MA: Lexl ngton Eooks, I 982 , 129 -l 35. Mundt, Robert J. "Referenda 1n Charlotte and Ra1elgh, and Court Actlon ln Rlchmond: Comparatlve Studles on the Rev'lval of Dlstrict Representation." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amerlcan Polltical Science Associtlon, .l979.