Note; Memorandum from Winner to Suitts, Guinier, Williams, Wheeler, and Chambers; The North Carolina Redistricting Process, 1965-66 - The Evidence for Discriminatory Intent Paper

    {t,a, Nsr6L



TO:

FROM:

DATE:

RE:

Steve Suitts ,(^
Raynond l^lheeler
Leslie Winner
February 1, L982

MEMORANDUM

ni Guinier, Napoleon Williams,
and Jui-ius Chambers

\;"/

GingLes, et a1. v. Edmisten, et al.

This is a preliminary report from the professor at
IINC who was examining the history of the constitutional
amendment. He is willing to continue doing research andis willing to continue doing research and is willing to
deepen it or -edit it as is needed. If anyone has aiy
suggestions for additional or different direction, please
let me know. .Also give some thought to how this can best
be-utilized given the current posture of the suit. perhaps
this can be on the agenda for our February Ll, meeting.



-1-

THE NORTH CAROLTNA REDISTRICTTNG PROCESS, 1965_66
The Evidence for Discriminatory Intent

The constitutional amendments which prescribe the present system of

legislative representation in North Carolina were adopted by the General

Assembly in 1967 and approved by the voters in 1968. rn the generar

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

which read "FOR constitutional amendments continuing the present system

of representation in the General Assembly" or "AGAINST cons,titutional

amendments continuing the present system of representation in the

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

devised by a special session of the legislature which met in January,

7966. The work of that special session r^ras prepared by senate and

house committees on redistrict.ing which met in December, L965. These

committees received ve.ry active assistance from Mr. John Sanders and

his colleagues at the Institute of Government,. The amendments passed

in \967 and 1968 were proposed by the Legislative Research Commission

(several of whose members had been very active in the earlier redist,ricting

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

i-n effect I^Iere actually formulated in 1965-66 by substantially the same

men who later put them into the North Carolina constitution, Ehe key to

the intent of these amendments actually lies in the years before L967.

The legislature's intenEior" "r"*not easy to d.etermine because

its special committees and the sessions of both houses were conducted

under ext.raordinary rules of secrecy. The rules vrere ostensibly adopted

because redistricting required confidential discussion of individuals,

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

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



-2-

General Assembly intended to discriminat,e agaJ.nst, blacks by continuing
\a political system that had denied theur fu11 political participation

since the end of ReconstrucEion.

The evidence fa11s under three major heads. First, the climate

of white opinion in the state was inflamed against blacks in 1965-66

and numerous state poliEicians had come into office by appealing to

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

attitudes into the redj.stricting process. Second, the North Carolina

political system had long rested on a pattern of discrimination against.

blacks. Despite this fact, white political leaders in the rnid-1960s

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

possible despite redistricting. Since we can prove that Nort.h Carolina,s

political traditions r^rere discriminatory, pledges to perpetuat,e those

traditions show an intent to discriminate. Finally, the reported words

and actions of legislative leaders during the redistricting process,

when taken as a whole, show a pattern of discriminatory intentions.

The climate of opinion among white North Carolinians in 1965 may be

judged from public statements and incidents in state politics. on

December 20, 1965, while redistricting was under consideration by

legislative couunittees, the Raleigh News and observer reported that

Ms. Sara small, a black housewi-fe andrcivil rights worker, had won 6,000

votes in a Democratic party primary conLest. for representative from

the First congressional District. Ms. sma1l 1osE. to state senaEor

Llalter Jones, who had received 25r000 votes. The newspaper reported

that, even thi-s modest demonstration of black vot.ing strength had alarmed

local whites and quoted a Bertie county official who pointed to 1ow

whiEe voter registrati.on and said "maybe this is a good thing for



-3-

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

story the same day declared that "political observers in the First District

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

admini-stration than he was with the administration of John F. Kennedy,"

and identified "the racial policies of the national administration"

as the cause of dissatisfact.ion.

Sen. Jones had won the Democratic nomination for Congress while
'lt

promising to resist those policies in Congress.- Earlier that fa1l, 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 confidential meeting with the KKK Grand

Dragon for North Carolina. The sub3Lct of the meeting was never disclosed,

but the mere fact of the meeting gave a color of respectability to the

Klan and its activities.5 Numerous letters to the state press and

statements in the private papers of leading state politicians confirm

that hostility Eo changes in race relations and to black political

power were widespread among whites at that time.6

When Gov. Moore ca11ed for a special legislative session to meet,

in January, 7966, he told the press that I'our present system of representation'

while not perfecE, has worked well for the best interests of our people

for nearly a century."T Legislative leaders echoed this opinion.

Sen. Thomas J. I,trhite of Kinston, described by the Fayetteville Observer i

tltAfl
as ttthe single most po\^/erfulnin the Legislature" announced that the

existing sysrem of representation "suits me just fine."8 Whige h'as a

member of the senate redistricting committee and also of the subcommittee

of the Legislative Research Commission which later proposed the

constit,uEional amendment.s of 1968. House Speaker Pat Taylor of Anson



-4-

County believed that t'North Carolina would be much, much better off under

the current system. t'9

As longtime participants in North Carolina politics, these men

must have known that t,he system they praised so highly had systematically

discriminated against black citizens. The biased nature of this system

can be documented historically. Though the constitutional provisions

for representation had been written in 1868 by a convention, which included

blacks and which was generally friendly to their interests, subsequent

terrorist acEivities by the Ku Klux Klan had intimidated enough voters

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

rest of the nineteenth century, harassment, intimidati-on, gerrymandering,

and fraud kept black political participation to a minimum without eliminating

iE entirely. During this period, numerous blacks sat in both houses of

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

"B1ack Second" District, flee boundaries of the "Black Second" were

stretched to embrace most of the majority-black counties of the state

in order to isolate and thereby mi-nimize the strengEh of black rot.r".11

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

disadvantaged whites to seek an alliance across racial lines with blacks,

and black political participation surged upward for a second tj-me.

Conservative whites responded with a riiassive barrage of racist propaganda

and violent int.imidation in the "white supremacy campaign" of 1898.

The elecEion was followed by the "I^Iilmington Race Rj-ot", in which a band

of armed whj-tes forced a Wilmington CiEy Council composed of blacks and

their sympathizers to resign and then rampaged through black sections

of the city, burning the office of a black nel^rspaper and killing between

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



-5-

year proposed a constitutional amendment designed to strip blacks

right to vote. The first state laws requiring racial segregation

public accommodations were passed at the same tir..12

of

1n

Ehe

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

imposed a literacy test for voters, but waived it for those who claimed

descent from a lega1 voter of 1867 or earlier. With a few exceptions,

the only possible beneficiaries of this grandfather clause were white.

For years thereafter, many 1ocal officials administered the literacy

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

black applicants failed.13 As a result of these discrirninatory measures,

black participation in the electorate virtually disappeared and the General

Assembly became and remained an all-white body until 1968.

Eventually, enforcement of the literacy test became uneven, and voEing

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

1930s. As late as L960, Mathews and Prothro found rr-i-teracy tests that appeared to be
difficult or arbitrairyrl

'unusually,/ln nine North Carolina counties where the black population was

especiall, ,,..r*.ror'r".14 The prevailing pattern of discrimination caused

26 North Carolina counties to fall under the preclearance provi-sions

of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of L965.

Incumbent North Carollna officeholders in the mid-1960s were thus

the beneficiaries of a longstanding history of racial discrimination.

North Carolina leaders displayed their desire to continue this system i

of discrimination by their praise of the existing system and their

oft-repeated desi-re to protect the legislative and congressional

incumbents who owed Eheir careers to its exi-stence. The desire to

protecE incumbents was particularly blatant in the case of congressional

redistricting but also apparent in the case of legislaEive reapportionment.

, :Li.llri&i;;i-/t'i...;.rr*ii!k1... ;, - :. !)".. j.J.tf,r.:a,



-6-

Thus, Greensboro Daily News reported on December 14 , ]-965 that the
!

senate redistricting had combined warren, Halifax, Edgecombe, and pitt

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

a cl-ash between incumbent senators Julian Allsbrook of llalifax County

and cameron weeks of Edgecombe county.15 Likewise, Lt. Gov. Bob scott,

chairman of the senate redistricting commi.ttee, Eold reporters on

December 17, L965 that his commit.tee had tried "to leave as many districts

as undisturbed as possible" and had not changed 16 of the staters 36

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

part to a longsLanding system of racial discrimination, the attempt

to Protect the interests of these and other incumbents similarly situated

was an attempt to preserve the results of a discriminatory process

and should be viewed as evidence of discriminatory intentions on the

part of the legislature.

Although the legislators were determined to preserve as much of the

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

task in complying with the one-person one-vote rule threatened to do

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

shift of legislative seats from rural to urban counties was unsettling

in itself, but if che urban counties were also subdivided into numerous

single-member districts, raci-al and political minorities would have

greatly expanded opportunities to elect candidates responsive to their

interests. The legislature was well aware of this fact and took pains to

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

district,s.

When John Sanders of the Institut,e of Government testified before

the redistricEing commi-ttees in December, 1965, he warned them that



-7-

if redistricting were left to the federal courts, the new districts \

would likely be single-member districts that subdivided countles.

Saunders also informed the committee that rnultimember districts ran

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

the political influence of racial and political minorities.lT

State leaders were thus remi.nded of the racial implications of

multimember districts but t,hey showed no evidence of a desire to protect.

minorily rights. rnstead, elected officials responded with repeated

cal1s for a quick redistricting by the legislature itself that would

forestall any court-ordered redistricting p1an. In his opening address

to the special sessi.on in January, 1966, Gov" Moore h/as insist.ent. t'Let

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

yourselves," and he reminded legislators that court-ordered redistricting

in oklahoma had resulted in districts whicir crossed county lirr.".18

Similar warnings came from House Speaker Pat Taylor and influential

legislators Herbert L. Hyde of Buncombe Count,y and Ruffin Bailey of Wake
10

County. "

The st.ate house and senate redistricting committees gave additional

evidence of t,heir desire to deny political polser to minorities by adoption

of seat numbering proposals for multimember districts. The avowed

intention of these provisions was to prevent single-shot voting, an

acknowledged tactic for insuring minority representation in an at-large

election. Henry W. Lewis and John Sanders of the Instj-tute of Government,

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

County \^rere among those who explained t.he purposes of t.he plrrr.20 Rep.

Thomas Bunn of wake county was perhaps the most explicit. "r dontt see

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

it should harm--and thatrs the single-shot voters."21



-7-

if redistricting were left to the federal courts, the new districts :

would likely be single-member districts that subdivided counties.

Saunders also informed the committee that multimember districts ran

the risk of court challenge on the grounds that they t.ended to reduce

the political influence of racial and political minorities.lT

State leaders were thus reminded of the racial implications of

multimember districts but t,hey showed no evidence of a desire to protect

minority rights. Instead, elected officials responded with repeated.

ca11s for a quick redistricting by the legislature itself that would

forestall any court-ordered redist.ri-cting plan. In his opening address

t.o the special session in January, 1966, Gov. Moore was insistent. t'Let

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

yourselves," and he reminded legislators that court-ordered redistricting

in oklahoma had resulted in districts which erossed county 1i.,"".18

Similar warnings came from House Speaker Pat Taylor and influential

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

_19Uounty.

The state house and senate redistricting committees gave additional

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

of seat numbering proposals for multimember district.s. The avowed

intention of these provisions was to frevent single-shot voting, an

acknowledged tactic for insuring minority representation in an aE-large

electi.on. Henry W. Lewis and John Sanders of the Inst,itute of Government,

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

County were among those who explained the purposes of the plr.r.20 Rep.

Thomas Bunn of Wake County was perhaps the most explicit. "I don't see

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

it should harm--and thatrs the single-shot voters."21



-8-

Representatives of racial and political minorit.ies denounced the.

seat-numbering proposal. Dr. Reginald Hawkins of Charlotte, a prominent

black dentist and civil rights acLivist declared that seat-numbering

was "aimed at disgranchising the Negro and diluting his uot"."22 Eldon

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

seat numbering in public hearings on January 10, 1966. "It is clearly

discriminatory against the Negro and other minority groups," he declared.23

Seat numbering was not included in the redistricting plans finally adopted

by the legislature in L966. Published report,s indicated that there was

doubt that seat numbering would win court approval and thus, by implicaEion,
?L

might threagen the whole concept of multirnember districts.-' As Rep.

Graham Tart of Sampson CounEy explained, "We would be better off runni-ng

at large."25 Sen. Ashely Futtrell of Beaufort County, an original sponsor

of the idea, withdrew his support over doubts about how run-off primaries

would be conduc ted,.26 Even though seat numbering was not accepted in 1966,

its adoption at the committee leve1 is clear evidence that discriminatory

intentions were very influential in the redistricting process. A seat

numbering plan was subsequently added to the North Carolina representation

system and invalidated by the U. S. Just,ice Department in l97l as a

violation of section 5 of the Voring Rights Acr of 1965.

Perhaps the clearest indications of discriminatory int.entions in
:

legislative redisEricting appeared in the related process of congressional

redistricting which Eook place at the same time. Then as now, North

Carolina legislators wished Eo neutralize the political Power of the

nuuerous and well-organized black community of Durham County. A proposal

in December of 1965 to create a Research Triangle District composed of

Durham, Wake, and Orange Counties produced what reporLer David Cooper of



-9-

Lhe Winston-Salem Journal- ca1led ila private howl from conservatives in

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

plan. During executive session, Wake County Senator Jyles Coggins

reportedly warned his colleagues that it "wou1d create a district with a

heavy concentration of coL1eges, white and Negro." When asked to explain

this remark before the redistricting committee, Jyles was quoted at one

point in debate as saying "letts don't put.a11 our eggheads in one

basketr" and other testimony before the committee reported warned against

the political effect of "Negro bloc votes" in Durham Corrnty.2T Reporter

David Cooper of the Winston-Sa1em Journal agreed thatrrbeneath the surface

the argument was that the presence of--so many colleges and Negroes in

the triangle might create a district. that would elect a liberal congressmanr"

or j-n this context, a congressman responsive to black political interests.23

Afrer much debaEe, the committee finally settled on a gerrymander

that put Durham County in the Fifrh District with distant Forsyth County,

location of the city of WinsLon-Salem. Durham County Senator Claude

Currie explained the reasons succinctly. "Nobody \^7ants Durham. They

dont t like our Negro situation. They nailed down everything else and

Ehen tacked us on." Currie added "there's going to be a lawsuit about

this," but the threatened court action never materialir"d.29

It may be objected that the legislaturets intention to discriminate 
i

in congressional redistricting has no bearing on its intentions in

legislative redistricting, but Ehis is most implausible. Though technically

separate, the three redistricting processes were underEaken at the same

time by Ehe same individuals, in response to the same judicial decision

in the case of Drum v. Seawel1. Common underlying motives undoubt,edly guided

policy-making in each aspect of the overall process. Taken as a whole,

I
\

\



-10-

therefore, the facts sur{ounding t,he redistrict.ing process show a pervasive

intention to discrimi-nate on the grounds of race. Ilajor elements of this

pattern include the prevailing climate of opinion in the state in the

mid-1960s, the desire for secrecy and speed, the openly-expressed fears

of court-ordered redistricting, the desire to preserve nultimember

districts in the face of warnings of the discriminatory impact of such

districts, the desire to preserve the essentials of a discriminatory

status quo by protecting the seats of incumbents, and the overtly anti-black

statements made in relation to Durham Countyrs place in congressional

redis tricting.

After the ad hoc system of redistricting was adopted by the 1966

special sessj-on, there was a natural desire to formali-ze its provisions

in a constitutional amendment. The necessary drafting was undertaken

by John Sanders of the Institute of Government at the instance of a

subcommittee of the Legislative Research Commission. Sanders' proposal

WAS CONTAiNCd iN "A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO REWRITE ARTICLE II,

SECTIONS 4, 5, AND 6 OF THE CONST]TUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA, I^]ITH RESPECT

TO REPRESENTATION IN THE GENEML ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA. '' This dTaf t

bill and Sander's explanation of it v/ere appended to the subcommitt.ee

report to the Legislative Research commission, which was appended in

turn to the LRC's reporE t.o the General Assembly in 1967.30

In drawing up the proposed amendment, Sanders noticed one final

threat to the system of multimember districts set up L966. The provisions

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

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

sha11 cont.ain . . an equal number of inhabitants" and also that "no

county sha11 be divided in the formation of a senate district unless such



-11 -

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

report, Sanders pointed out that these clauses "Isuggest] that single-senator

districts are intended by the Constitution, " though he maintained that

multimember districts had been part of every districting plan adopted

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

Court had ruled that. multimember districts were not inherrently contrary

to the Fourteenth AmendmenE, but that "giVen the plain J-anguage of the

present constitutional provision . , a court might very well hold

that the Constitution directs that there must be 50 single-member senatorial

districts in North Carolina, notwi-thstanding ancient practice to the

contrary."32 To eliminate this poss,lbility, Sanders included in his

draft bill section 4(1), which read "Each Senator shal1 represent, as

nearly as may be, an equal number of inhabitants, the number of inhabitants

which each Senator represents being determined for this purpose by

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

Senators apportioned to that district" and section 4(3), "No county shall

be divided in the formation of a senat.e dist.rict."33

Sanders t proposals were accepted by the committee and the legislature

wi-t.hout change. Indeed, this subtle but crucial change in the constitution

was adopEed by the voters wit.hout any apparent. public discussion at all.

That is not. surprising, for the ,"gr"'ro.ding of the amendment referendum .

gave voters virtually no practical opport,unity to find out what exact.ly

it was that. they were voting for. In his report to the LRC subcommittee,

Sanders offered the opinion that "i-t would Eend to fractionalize counties

unnecessarily to split thern up into two or more senatorial district"."34

There is no additional evi-dence to explain his or the legislature's

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



FOOTNOTES

I.tlegislative Research Commission, rrReport No. 1: Report on the

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

t""Tentative House Plan Drawn," (Raleigh) News and Observer Ihereinafter

abbreviated as N&0], December 9, 1965, pp. 1, 2.

3"Candidatets Showing Is Cause for Wonder in Bertie,t' N&OrDecember 20,

1965, p.6.

4"rnd"r the Domer" N&0, December 20, 1965, pp. l, 6.

5-Fayetteville Observer, September 1 and 2, L965.

63." fo. example George D. Herr,ing to the editor of the Greensboro

Daily News [hereinafter abbreviated as GDN] , December 7, 1965,

7"Gorr...ror Says Act Before Court Does,tt NqO-, January 11, 1966, p. 6.

8f"v"ttu"ifr" OU*, September 26, Lg65.

9"rrrd", the Domer" N&0, september 23, 1965, pp. 1, 8.

looaao Olsen, rrthe l.u l.h:x r'Ian: A Study in Ileconstrustion : oliiics and

Propap;andartt llorth Caroilna lii-storical iieview IJXIX, I (Juty, 1962), 3l+0-62.

llXric.f,-nderson, E,ace and I'olitics in }Iorth Carolina. 1872-190]: ?he Black

Second (5aton irou6e: Louisiana State ;iniversity P-'ess, 19U1), igggj4.

't)*-He1en G. Edmonds, The Negro and Fusion Poli-tics in North Carolina,

1891+-1901 (Uhapel ili11: University of llorth Crirolina i-ress., l95L), passino

'l?*"V. O. Key, Southern Politics in State and Nation (liew .ork: rlf:.ed A.

llnoy.lf, f9lr9), 56r, 65L.

In 1939, WPA interviewer Berenice Kel1y Harris recorded the recollections

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



-2-

Smith described the disfranchisement process vividly. ". . . when I first

took hold o' registeri.ng voters 1L902], a right smart o' niggers come

to register at first, claimint they could meet the requirements. Some

wrote the Constitution I reckon as good as a l-ot o'white men, but I'd

find somethinr unsatisfacLory, maybe an i not dotted or a t. not crossed,

enough for me tJdtsqualify rem. The 1aw said tsatisfactory to the"l
registrar. I A few could get by the grandfather clause' for they was

some free niggers before the Civil I,Iar, but they couldntt get by an

undotEed i or an uncrossed t." Original in the Berenice Kelly Harris

Papers, Southern Historical Collection' UNC-CH.

14Don"1d R. I'Iatthews and James W;' Prothro, Ile(roes and the lieu Southern

Politics (Chapel I{i11: The Jniversity of ilorth Carolina }ress, 1966)r lil+-55.

I5"S"r,"t"rs Trouble Spots rroned Outr" GDN, December 14, Lg65, PP. 1, 2.

16"Scott Says l,lost Senators Satisfied with Districts," N&0, December 18,

1965.

17"TenE.tive House Plan Drawnr" N&o, December 9, 1965, pp. 1, 2;

"Redistricting Plan Drawn,r' GDN, December 9, L965, PP. 1, 2.

l8"aor"trror Says AcE Before court Doesr" N&0, January 11, L966, p' 6;

Winston-Salem Journal, "Special Session Beginsr" JanuarY 11, 1966' pp. 1, 2.

l9"aor.rrror Says Act Before court Doesr" N&o, January 11, Lg66. 'l

20"Tentative House Plans Drawnr" N&0, December 9, 1965, pP. 1, 2;

'rscott Backs More on Apportionment"''!.1!9, September 22, L965; t'Wake

Delegates Sptit on call Session," N&0, september 16, 1965; "Numbered

Seats Backed," N&O, January 4, 1966, pp. 1, 3; "Numbered Seats Proposed

for Both House and Senater" I,I&0, January 6, L966; "Numbered Seat PIan

Opposedr" I{inston-Salem Journal, January 13, L966, p' 27'



POTENTIAL DEPONENTS

Politicians

Robert Morgan
Pay Taylor
Thomas White
Bob Scott
Jyles Coggins
Claude M. Hamrick, Forsyth
Claude Currie, Durham l
Clyde Harriss, Rowan t
Ralph Scott, Alamance I
Joel Lambert, Cumberland I

Graham Tart, Sampson Co. I

Ashley Futtrell, treaufort J

COLLECTIONS OF PAPERS NOT YET CONSIILTED FIILLY

Robert Morgan Papers, East Carolina University (sealed)
H. P. ("PaE") Taylor Papers, East Carolina University (sealed)
Thomas J. White Papers, Southern llistorical Collection, UNC-CH (unprocessed)
TranscripEs of WRAL-TV editorials of Jesse Helms, N. C. Col-l-ection, UNC-CH

legislators quoted as opposed to
seatnumbering

Institute of Government

John Sanders
Henry W. Lewis

Reporters

David Cooper, I^linston-Salem Journal
Russell Clay, N&O
Roy Parker - tn* *t^i- cl t:f:*LS di.,,.,.,g,

Legislative Research Commission

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

Members L965-67:
Robt B. Morgan, Pres Pro Tem Harnett
Sen Irwin Belk Meck

Herbert L. Hyde Buncombe
Fred M. Mllls, Jr. Anson
Thomas W. Seay, Jr. Rowan
Thomas J. WhiEe Lenoir

H.P. Taylor, Speaker of House Anson
Rep Philip P. Godwin Gates

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



Ilouse reapportionment co'nmlt,tee

H. P. Taylor (Anson), W. V. Cooper (Grahan), Mark Bennett (Yancey), '
Fred York (Alexander), Eoyl-e Efird (GasLon), Fred Bahnson (Forsyth),
Earl Vaughn (Rockinghan), Marcus Short (Gullford), Shelton Wicker (Lee),
R. D. McMlllan (Robeson), A. A. Zollicoffer (Vance), Thorne Gregory
(Ilaltfax) , Roberts Jernigan (Ilertford), W. J. Lupton (Ilyde), James
Holhouser (Watauga), J. E. Paschall (Wli-son), Joseph Ilorton (Greene)
llolhouser is only Republlcan

Senate reapportlonment comlttee

Frank Forsyth (Cherokee), L. B. Ilollowe1l (Gaston), Ilerman Moore (Meck),
Ralph Scott (A1anance), Robt Morgan (ilarnett), Thouae J. Wtrlte (Lenolr),
Llndeay Warren, Jr. (Wayne), Ashley Futrell (Beaufort), F. rD. B. Hardlng
(Yadkin), Robt Scott (Alanance) Earding ls only Republican