You've Got Mail

By J. Barlow Herget
Published: Aug. 5, 2002

RALEIGH - If you’re lonely for some mail, you’re about to get some.

The state Board of Elections has set a date -- Tuesday, September 10 -- for the state’s primary election. The setting of the election date was followed by a brief, new filing period that has already come and gone. And candidates wasted no time in sending out letters, begging for money. I’ve received three from one candidate alone! The phone calls are coming too. And the tidal wave of glossy direct mail extolling candidates’ virtues is coming soon.

Setting the date has lit up campaigns as if someone turned on a switch. So little time and so much politicking to do.

North Carolina’s spring and summer courtroom wrangling over redistricting plans had left both voters and candidates in the dark about who was running and where. That changed when Superior Court Knox Jenkins imposed his redistricting plan, which was subsequently approved by the state Supreme Court and the federal Justice Department. You now can determine the districts in which you reside, for this year at least. (The court has ordered the legislature to repeat the process again next year.)

But wait. There is another twist to this year’s election: there’s no primary runoff. Whoever gets the most votes -- not a majority, not even necessarily 40 percent -- on September 10 will be his or her respective party’s nominee. Period. (If this is news to you, read this paragraph again!)

All of these events promise to keep the politically afflicted busy speculating about the effect this will have on this year’s elections.

For example, candidates report that the lengthened uncertainty over districts and an AWOL primary election date made it difficult to raise money. That’s understandable. Why would you want to give money to a candidate until you knew if he or she was in your district?

Or whether he or she was really going to run? Judge Jenkins’ redistricting plan caused many candidates to stop campaigning and withdraw. Powerful veteran Sen. Aaron Plyler, D-Union, for example, decided to retire rather than run in a district he viewed as hostile to Democrats.

The plan had the opposite effect on others who jumped into races. Former Raleigh Mayor Paul Coble, a Republican, decided he could win in his new district against three-term Democrat Sen. Eric Reeves. One report counted a dozen or so former state legislators who have decided to run again in their respective new districts.

The shortened primary season also offers to test two theories about modern day politicking in the U.S. Senate race. One, can a candidate win in today’s elections without a strong, well-financed campaign? And two, does a primary runoff always work against minority candidates?

On the first question, State Rep. Dan Blue (D-Wake), and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D-Harnett) are running on shoe-string budgets in the Democratic Primary against banker Erskine Bowles, son of the late Democratic gubernatorial nominee Hargrove “Skipper” Bowles. Erskine Bowles has raised over $4.2 million, and is running the most visible campaign.

Similarly, Republican and former Red Cross President Elizabeth Dole has raised more money than anybody and has a landslide lead over her nearest competitor, Republican or Democrat, according to the same poll.

On the second matter, African Americans in the South have long argued that primary runoffs worked against them. In many cases, they could win a plurality in the primary but lose in a runoff in which race always became an issue, spoken or silent. Blue, an African American, believes a successful grass-roots campaign among his supporters can win him a plurality. If true, he wins the nomination because there is no runoff.

Political leaders are also looking at this year’s abbreviated election seasons for future reference. State Sen. Tony Rand (D-Cumberland), for example, has expressed his interest in the delayed primary as a way to shorten political campaigns.

One constant in all the changes, however, is the influence of money and the people who give it. Citizens are beginning to understand the relationship between scandalous corporate wrongdoing and special interest political influence. It is such influence that reduced government oversight on damaging business practices of executives at Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Adelphia, etc.

Understanding this corruption is leading to anger, especially when wealthy CEOs continue to live the high life while millions of others lose jobs, college funds and retirement investments.

And angry people vote.