1
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
___________________________________________________________
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS
FLOOR SESSION, VOLUME TWO OF TWO
___________________________________________________________
In Raleigh, North Carolina
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Reported by Robbie W. Worley
Worley Reporting
P.O. Box 99169
Raleigh, NC 27624
919-870-8070
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 2 to 5
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Reporter's note: Proceedings in this
matter began at 12:15 p.m.)
CLERK: Representatives Jones and
Hardister are primary sponsors for House Bill 2, a
bill to be entitled An Act to Revise Procedures for
the Conduct of the 2016 United States House of
Representatives Primary Election to Comply with the
Court Order in Harris v. McCrory. It is filed
today, and it is referred to the Committee on
Redistricting.
(RECESS)
SPEAKER MOORE: The House is in order.
Members, we are going to go back into recess
subject to the conditions announced previously, and
the reason for that, just to give an update, the
staff is still working on getting all the bills
drafted that are there. The Elections Committee -the Redistricting Committee is going to go in -- I
believe convenes at 3:30. 3:30, I believe now.
Yes, changed to 3:30. Representative Hager, are
you going to call a caucus? The gentleman is
recognized for an announcement.
REP. HAGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The
Republicans will caucus in 544 immediately after
the Speaker recesses the body.
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if this was the time for announcements yet, but if
it is -SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman is
recognized for that purpose.
REP. HAGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
would want to let the Republican honor of Denise
Weeks, that the Republicans will caucus in 544
right after you've put this body in recess.
SPEAKER MOORE: Members, for your
planning purposes, where we are is, the draft of
the legislation has finally been -- we think
finally, fully crafted. The staff still needs a
little bit of time. Part of the issue today has
been that the staff has been tied up primarily with
the Senate, because they were working on the maps.
And so, we were working on the bill dealing with
the primary, the filing and all that.
So it is -- the Redistricting Committee
will be meeting at 6 p.m. to take up the
Congressional -- the actual primary bill, which is
not the maps, and we were going to come back into
session at 7:00, where we anticipate taking the
bill up at that time. The bill that you also heard
read a few moments ago was the actual map bill, the
districts that came in, and that has now been
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAKER MOORE: So we're going to come
back -- given that we have initially indicated we
would probably come back at 4:00, I don't think
that's going to be fruitful, since the committee
doesn't meet until 3:30. So, subject to the
conditions announced prior, I'm about to put us
into recess until 5 p.m. Do we have any further
notices or announcements? If not, the House will
stand in recess subject to the conditions
previously announced until 5 p.m.
(PROCEEDINGS RESUME)
SPEAKER MOORE: The House will come to
order. Measures from the Senate, the Court will
read.
CLERK: Senate Bill 2, committee
substitute, second revision. A bill to be entitled
An Act to Realign the Congressional Districts As
Recommended by the Joint Select Committee on
Congressional Redistricting to Comply with the
Court Order in Harris versus McCrory.
SPEAKER MOORE: The bill is referred to
the Committee on Congressional Redistricting.
To what purpose does the gentleman from
Rutherford, Representative Hager, arise?
REP. HAGER: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't sure
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
referred to the Redistricting Committee as well.
It is the Chair's intent at this point that that
bill will be heard in committee tomorrow morning.
If anything should change, members will be
notified, but that's the intent of that. And we're
looking at probably -- well, we'll deal with the
session for tomorrow morning later.
But in any event, we're about to go into
recess until 7 p.m. this evening, but when we come
back at 7, I would expect that we would take up
legislation and would be having a vote.
Further notices and announcements? If
not, subject to the filing of bills, ratification
of bills, and messages from the Senate, committee
reports, re-referral bills, resolutions, and
introduction of bills and resolutions, the House
does now stand in recess until 7 p.m.
(RECESS)
SPEAKER MOORE: The House will come back
to order. Representative Lewis is recognized to
file a resolution. The House Chair directs that it
be assigned the title of House Joint Resolution 3.
The Clerk will read.
CLERK: House Joint Resolution 3, a joint
resolution providing for adjournment sine die of
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 6 to 9
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the 2016 extra session. House resolves, Senate
concurs.
SPEAKER MOORE: The Chair directs that
Joint Resolution 3 be added to this evening's
calendar. The Clerk will read.
CLERK: House Joint Resolution 3, a joint
resolution providing for adjournment sine die of
the 2016 extra session. House resolves, Senate
concurs.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman from
Harnett, Representative Lewis, is recognized to
debate the motion -- the resolution.
REP. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker;
thank you, members of the House. What you have
with House Joint Resolution 3 is standard,
boilerplate language. This simply provides that
when the House and the Senate adjourn tomorrow,
Friday, February 9th, 2016, that they will stand
adjourned sine die. I'll be happy to answer any
questions, Mr. Speaker, but I would urge adoption
of the resolution.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion and
further debate on the resolution? If not, the
question before the House is the adoption of House
Joint Resolution 3 on the second reading. Those in
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REP. BRAWLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
found that a small cushion in the shape of a North
Carolina flag and a bookend were on my desk. These
aren't mine, and they may have been placed here by
the workmen. If you're missing such items, I have
them.
SPEAKER MOORE: Members, we're awaiting
the receipt of the committee report. The House
Redistricting Committee did meet and did pass out
the legislation, but we have not received the
formalized committee report just yet, so we will be
momentarily at ease.
(Pause.)
Representative Lewis, the chair of the
committee of -- the Redistricting Committee, is
recognized to send forth the committee report. The
Clerk will read.
CLERK: Representative Lewis,
Redistricting Committee report, House Bill 2, 2016
House of Representatives primary, favorable
committee substitute, unfavorable original bill.
SPEAKER MOORE: The original bill is
placed on the unfavorable calendar. The committee
substitute will be calendared for immediate
consideration.
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
favor will vote aye; those opposed will vote no.
The Clerk will open the vote.
(Votes recorded.)
SPEAKER MOORE: The Clerk will lock the
machine and record the vote. 91 having voted in
the affirmative, none in the negative, House Joint
Resolution 3 passes its second reading and will be
read a third time.
CLERK: The House resolves, Senate
concurs.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion and
further debate? If not, the question before the
House is the passage of House Joint Resolution 3 on
its third reading. Those in favor will say aye?
(Voice vote.)
SPEAKER MOORE: Those opposed, no? The
ayes have it. House Joint Resolution 3, having
passed its third reading, will be sent to the
Senate by special messenger.
For what purpose does the gentleman from
Mecklenburg, Representative Brawley, arise?
REP. BRAWLEY: A quick announcement, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor for an announcement.
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
House Bill 2, the Clerk will read.
CLERK: House Committee Substitute to
House Bill 2, An Act to Revise Procedures for the
Conduct of the 2016 Primary Election to Comply with
the Court Order in Harris v. McCrory. The General
Assembly of North Carolina enacts.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman from
Rockingham, Representative Jones, is recognized to
debate -- debate the bill.
REP. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, you have before
you House Bill 2, which has been quite a monumental
effort. I just want to take the opportunity, as I
did in committee, to recognize the expertise and
the dedication of our hard-working staff. It's
quite a bit more complicated than most people might
imagine to try to put this together, and it's been
a lot of hard work that went into this, a lot of
items to consider, but I just want to recognize
those people that really worked so hard on this.
I will walk you through, real quickly,
the bill, if you will. Section 1(a) says that we
are going to conduct a 2016 primary election for
the U.S. House of Representatives. Section 1(b)
says that that primary election will be Tuesday,
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 10 to 13
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
June the 7th, 2016. Section 1(c) establishes the
filing period for that election, which would be
beginning at 12 noon on March the 16th. I would
just point out to you. I would just point out to
you that that is, of course, the day after the
March 15th primary election, and it would close on
March the 25th.
Section 1(d), about the eligibility to
file. You must be affiliated with your political
party for at least 75 days before registering to
file with that political party for Congress.
Section 1(e) says that you cannot run for
two separate offices at the same time. Current
state law says that you cannot do this. Since we
are having a separate primary for the Congressional
primary, you are allowed, if you are currently the
nominee for a different office in the state, you
can file to run for Congress, but if you win that
primary on June the 7th, then you would have to
withdraw from one of those races, after which you
could not run for both offices in the November
election.
Section 1(f) returns the filing fee for
anyone that might have filed for Congress already
in the election that was underway when this
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
January the 1st, 2015, in other words, the maps
that are currently in place, before we would adopt
these new maps. And you can just imagine how much
havoc it would wreak on the political party
structures in the state if they had to go back and
redistrict all of the current districts in the
state, re-elect officers, have county conventions,
district conventions. It would be practically
impossible to do that, so for the purpose of
electing presidential electors, they would continue
to use the current maps as they are now.
Section 4 has to do with temporary
orders. This accommodates the scheduling of the
primary, and the State Board of Elections is
empowered to issue certain temporary orders that
could affect this. The rest of Section 4 is rather
technical with that. It orders, not rules, the
orders expire and become void ten days after the
certification of the 2016 Congressional primary
elections, and then in 4(d), we define what an
order is.
And Section 5, any ballot that is cast on
March the 15th for the Congressional primary,
obviously, the ballots have already been printed
up, and so the Congressional candidates are going
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exercise began, so for a person that filed for
that, they could have their filing fee -- they're
eligible to have their filing fee returned.
Section 2(a) says that there will be no
second primary, and that would be throughout the
2016 primary election cycle, so that would apply to
the March 15th primary, as well as the June 7th
Congressional primary. There would be no second
primary.
Section 2(b) speaks to that as well,
repeals language that has to do with second
primaries.
Section 2(c), authorizes by statute that
is set for the date of the second primary shall be
placed on the ballot at the time. So, any other
election that would be taking place, such as a
judicial vacancy election, would be held at the
same time as that June 7th primary.
Section 3 has to do with nominating
electors to the Electoral College. This has to do
with the presidential election. North Carolina
gets 15 electors, including one elector from each
presidential district. And for the purpose of
electing presidential electors, we would use the
maps that were in place on June -- it says here,
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to be on those ballots and the maps as they are
now, and clearly, that election would be null and
void, and so the State Board of Elections is
directed here not to certify that election, and to
keep any results from that confidential. They
would not be a public record.
Section 6 makes this act effective when
it becomes law, but it applies to this election
cycle unless prior to March the 16th, the U.S.
Supreme Court reverses or stays the decision that
has brought us all here this week. And so, I hope
that clearly explains to anyone. Mr. Speaker, I'd
be happy to entertain any questions. I would urge
my colleagues, please vote green on House Bill 2.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion and
further debate? For what purpose does the
gentleman from Wake, Representative Jackson, arise?
REP. JACKSON: To send forth an
amendment.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman is rec- -the Clerk does not have a copy of the amendment.
Further discussion and further debate, while we're
awaiting the amendment? The House will be at ease
momentarily.
For what purpose does the representative
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 14 to 17
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from Haywood, Representative Queen, arise?
REP. QUEEN: Just for a question to the
bill sponsor.
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman from
Harnett yield to -- oh, excuse me, does the
gentleman from Rockingham yield to the gentleman
from Haywood?
REP. JONES: Yes, sir.
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
REP. QUEEN: Would you explain the -- the
situation where you're running for two offices and
then have to drop out of one once again, just so I
can get that straight?
REP. JONES: Yes, sir. Right now, the
state law says that you cannot run for two offices
at the same time, you cannot file for election for
two offices at the same time. Obviously, this is a
special Congressional primary; it's going to be
conducted later than the other primaries, and no
one knew about this until now. So, what we're
saying is that if you are already the nominee for
the State House, the State Senate, county
commissioner, any other elected official in the
state, you are allowed to file to run for Congress.
But if you win your primary on June the 7th, you
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
workers to only have one primary.
Just today, we had an issue that affects
our Supreme Court election this year. The
retention elections were struck down by a threejudge panel. I have not seen that order, but I
guess, I am speculating that that's going to
require us to open up another filing period and
allow a primary in that race as well. We've got a
lot of other litigation going on in this state. We
have a case in Wake County that is currently
pending in front of the district -- federal
district court that could change our county
commissioner districts and our school board
districts.
And so I tried to pick a date that was
the farthest away, in the hope that we can do this
once and do it right. There would be no runoff, it
would be the same that's in the bill before you,
but hopefully, it would save the State some money
and give us time.
And one of the arguments I want to tell
you is, we are making this -- this bill today
before you with the expectation that the federal
district court will approve the maps that we have
yet to see in this chamber but were seen by the
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cannot go forward as your party's nominee in two
separate offices. You would have to withdraw from
one of those two offices.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman from Wake,
Representative Jackson, is now recognized to send
forth an amendment. The Clerk will read.
CLERK: Representative Jackson moves to
amend the bill on page 1, lines 5 through page 2,
line 28, by rewriting those lines to read.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor to debate the amendment.
REP. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who were not
in the Redistricting Committee, this is the same
amendment I just read a few minutes ago there. It
would move all our primaries, even the bond, to
June 21st. I want to tell you why I chose that
date. That is the latest date we could hold a
presidential primary. I believe D.C. holds their
presidential primary on that day.
I believe this would save some money.
The Board of Elections was clear that it would not
save the entire price of having a primary, because
of the work that's already been done; however, it
would certainly save the labor cost of all the poll
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Redistricting Committee and approved by the Senate
today. However, there were some novel arguments
raised in our Redistricting Committee.
The majority has argued that in drawing
these new maps, they didn't consider race at all,
and instead of using a racial gerrymander, they
replaced it, freely admitting, with a political
gerrymander. I'm telling you that that is a novel
legal argument, to say that in the South, when you
draw Congressional seats, you use race not at all
in consideration.
I think it's going to take the federal
district court a while to look at that and look at
what we've done. And if it takes them one month or
two months to approve these new districts, we are
going to wish that we had the latest primary we
could have, and because of that, I'm going to ask
you to support this bill.
Now, earlier, we had some people stand
up, or speak in committee, and they said, 'Well,
you know, this isn't fair to our current candidates
who are all on the March primary who think that
they're having an election in March.' And I agree
that it's probably not fair, but we're changing the
rules on those folks already, because those folks
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 18 to 21
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
filed to run in districts, sometimes thinking,
well, they just needed to get to the runoff. They
didn't have to win the primary on March 15th. They
just had to be second place and make sure the
winner didn't pass that 40 percent threshold, but
we've done away with that. So we have already
changed the rules on them. This would at least
give them more time to be ready for this winnertake-all format.
And the second thing I want to say is, it
was pointed out, and I know this bothered a lot of
people on the Congressional races. The way this
current bill is set up is that if the Court issues
a stay prior to March 16th, then the current
districts will stay in place and the current
elections scheduled for March 15 would count.
So what that means is, if you're a
current Congressional candidate in this state, and
you see these new maps and say, "Oh, I may not be
in my district," or "I may be in a different
district," or "I may be running for something
else," it doesn't matter. You've got to continue
running and spending money, because if the Court
steps in on March 14th and issues a stay, whatever
happens on March 15th is going to count. There
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have already been campaigning, spending money.
The gentleman mentioned the State saving
money. Before, we heard earlier from the director
of the State Board of Elections, was that, you
know, these ballots have already not only been
printed, but the coding that goes into them is, you
know, more expensive, really, than the printing
part. So, I don't see where there's going to be a
cost savings, but honestly, I think the best reason
to vote this down is that we don't need to create
further chaos and disruption for every election in
North Carolina, and for that reason alone, I would
ask for you to please defeat this amendment.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Wake, Representative Martin, arise?
REP. MARTIN: To debate the amendment.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor to debate the amendment.
REP. MARTIN: After listening to the -both the amendment sponsor and the bill sponsor, it
sounds like we've all got the same end in sight
that we're all striving for, which is to reduce the
chaos around this election, and to reduce the
impact on North Carolina. I tend to side with my
friend from Wake County, the amendment sponsor,
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will be no primary in June for you.
So, for all those reasons, I think this
is the safer, more responsible. I think it will
give certainty, and we'll all leave here today
knowing we're not going to be back here in a month,
and I'd ask for your support.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Rockingham, Representative Jones,
arise?
REP. JONES: To debate the amendment.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor to debate the amendment.
REP. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
certainly appreciate my friend from Wake and his
amendment, but, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to
ask that you would please defeat this amendment.
You know, we're here this week and recognize that
what has happened has been a tremendous disruption
for the Congressional elections in North Carolina,
those 13 elections. What we're proposing here
would be a disruption of hundreds of elections
across the state. I don't think we want to create
more disruption than is necessary. I believe that
we are better suited to go forward on March 15th
with all those people that have planned to run and
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
where he says that there's still a lot of issues to
be decided here.
Now, it really doesn't matter whether you
sort of agree with the Republican side of the
argument or the Democratic side of the argument on
how this litigation might play out, and it really
doesn't matter at all. Heck, we can blame the
judiciary for being slow in deciding these things.
Regardless of your opinion there, though,
I think we can all agree that there are many issues
to be decided, and it's going to take a good amount
of time for those issues to finally be decided.
And if we rush ahead a little bit and schedule the
elections too soon, we are putting the State at
serious risk of having, perhaps, to send us back
here to reschedule the dates of the elections, or
some other thing that's going to add to greater
chaos.
I agree with pretty much everything that
my colleague from Wake, the amendment sponsor,
said, except for I just want to elaborate on one of
his points. He argued that his amendment would
actually be better for all the candidates who are
already -- who have already been put into a great
period of uncertainty, and that's true. I do think
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 22 to 25
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
his amendment would help those candidates who have
put their -- staked themselves out there to serve
the public.
But at the end, I think the main reason
to vote for his amendment is that it will reduce
the likelihood of chaos, not for the candidates,
but for the greater population of North Carolinians
who they seek to serve. So I'd urge you to support
his amendment.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd,
arise? For what purpose does the lady from
Buncombe, Representative Fisher, arise?
REP. FISHER: To ask the amendment
sponsor a question, please.
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman from
Wake, Representative Jackson, yield to the lady
from Buncombe?
REP. JACKSON: Yes, sir.
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
REP. FISHER: Thank you, Representative
Jackson. During the committee meeting, was there
any talk about what the estimated cost of running
these primaries might be for North Carolina
taxpayers?
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an amendment that would help us out of this problem
we're in right now, so I appreciate Representative
Jackson's work on this, and staff as well.
We're in a situation right now where the
focus is really going the wrong way, and that might
be why we're in the position that we're in now. As
you heard people speak tonight, one of the main
reasons for saying don't support this amendment
was, it's going to be inconvenient to candidates,
and it's going to cost them more money.
We're trying to do, or should be focused
on, what's going to be fairer to the people of
North Carolina as they try to vote for their
representation, and we should focus on that.
And so, putting this deal back and giving
us time not only to ensure everybody knows who
they're running -- who's running in their district,
who is going to represent them, and have a clear
knowledge of what their abilities are, is key. So
we do need the time to educate the voters, or give
us an opportunity to educate the voters.
The question of chaos on these districts,
or the question of chaos in the election, we made
major changes in the election to make it harder for
every individual North Carolinian to vote with the
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REP. JACKSON: The testimony was that
generally, a second primary costs between 9-1/2 and
10 million dollars. However, that's a lot
different this time, because the election has
already started, and the ballots have been printed,
and all the coding. So while you would save the
labor costs from the poll workers, there would be
more labor cost involved in recoding and doing
another set of ballots. And so, everybody was
speculating based on what they heard. There was no
hard and fast evidence as to, it would save this
amount or it would cost that much.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion,
further debate on the amendment? I believe
Representative Floyd, the gentleman, he wishes to
debate the bill, so not on the amendment, is that
correct?
REP. FLOYD: Correct.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall, arise?
REP. HALL: To speak on the amendment.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor to debate the amendment.
REP. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I
appreciate the work that's gone into trying to find
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
voter ID law that we passed, and we didn't use that
as a reason not to do it. So we have an
opportunity to take more time, to get it right, to
have these elections settled, and educate the
people of North Carolina. It's going to cost
something, somewhere.
You know, democracy is messy. It's not
free, and candidates may have to spend, or maybe
not spend more money, depending upon these
districts. And so, I'd ask you to support the
amendment. Let's think about the interests of
North Carolinians. Let's think about the interests
of the voters. Let's give them some time and
opportunity to understand this.
We're up here, some folks were in on
drawing this plan, and they feel comfortable that
it's the right thing to do. Other folks weren't in
on the fast track, don't have an idea, and they
will be confused about who their representatives
are, who they're voting for, what they're voting
for. And we certainly want North Carolinians to
participate. We don't want them to be turned off
and think this is just an inside game.
So, I hope you'll give fair consideration
to the amendment. I hope you'll consider passing
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 26 to 29
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it and giving the priority to the voters of North
Carolina and not just to the candidates.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager,
arise?
REP. HAGER: To debate the amendment.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor to debate the amendment.
REP. HAGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There's two issues I hear here, guys. One is, I
think Representative Jackson, he brought his side
up, and I brought my side up in committee, that
this may save us a little money, but as he said
earlier, that the coding of these ballots that has
already taken place for the March 15th ballot has
already been paid. It actually will probably cost
us more to recode the June 7th or the date that he
had out there for more candidates on there. So it
has a high potential of costing us more money to
move all these primaries to June -- to the June
time frame.
Now, we talked about -- Representative
Hall talked about doing the right thing for North
Carolinians. You know, I'm pretty sure that the
folks on that side of the aisle got the news, maybe
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
this amendment.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Wake, Representative Jackson, arise?
REP. JACKSON: To speak a second time.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor to debate the amendment a second time.
REP. JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
couldn't disagree with Representative Hager any
more. To say that this bill only affects 13
Congressional districts, we are taking the right to
run in a second primary away from every candidate.
I mean, that -- that's big, folks. There are a lot
of people who have laid out a lot of campaign
strategy the last three months, the last four
months, planning to only have to get into that
runoff. They just wanted to be in the top two.
And you're taking that away from them. So it's
going to affect people across the state.
You're changing the game on a lot of
candidates right before an election. So we should
consider that. It does affect a lot more than 13
Congressional. It affects anybody with a primary
with more than two candidates in it.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion,
further debate on the amendment? If not, the
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
even quicker than we did, of this three-judge panel
discussion and opinion. So at that time, they had
the same amount of time to draw these maps as we
did. But yeah, Representative Lewis worked hard,
and I commend him for doing that. Senator Rucho
worked hard to get maps to the table that we'll
have in front of us tomorrow.
Now, what they want to do is say, 'Well,
let's wait three more months so everybody can run
now,' when this issue only affects 13 races. It
doesn't affect the 120 races in this House. It
doesn't affect the 50 races over in the Senate, and
it doesn't affect anything but 13 races in the
state of North Carolina. But yet, we've got to
wait three months so everybody understands what's
going on.
Well, it's a wait, wait, wait, wait issue
on the minority side. I think we all owe it to our
citizens and to our constituents, to let's settle
our piece of it. Let's settle the 120 House races.
Let's settle the 50 Senate races. Let's settle the
Council of State races, the governor's race. Let's
get that done, and then let's worry about educating
folks for the next three months for the -- for the
Congressional districts. So, please vote no on
29
1
question before the House is the adoption of
2
amendment 1 set forth by Representative Jackson to
3
House Bill 2. Those in favor will vote aye; those
4
opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the
5
vote.
6
7
(Votes recorded.)
SPEAKER MOORE: The Clerk will lock the
8
machine and record the vote. 32 having voted in
9
the affirmative and 69 in the negative, the
10
amendment is not adopted. We are now back on the
11
bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from
12
Cumberland, Representative Floyd, arise?
13
14
REP. FLOYD: To see if the bill sponsor
will yield for a question, Mr. Speaker.
15
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman from
16
Rockingham yield to the gentleman from Cumberland?
17
REP. JONES: Yes, sir.
18
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
19
REP. FLOYD: I was trying to find it in
20
here, where the thing was about the second primary.
21
Could you elaborate on that just a little bit?
22
REP. JONES: Okay. Section 2 speaks to
23
the second primary. Do you want me to elaborate on
24
section 2?
25
REP. FLOYD: Yes, sir, because I want to
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 30 to 33
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
make it very clear, because this is something that
I have been working on for eight years, so I just
want to make sure that I get it correct. I know
that they are going to have some effect on some,
but this would save the State millions of dollars,
so I just wondered.
REP. JONES: Okay. Thank you for your
question, Representative Floyd. What this bill
would do is, it's only for the 2016 primary
election cycle. There would be no second
primaries. Obviously, for reasons that we're here,
we're condensing the election cycle for the
Congressional primary, and we thought that the best
route would be not to have second primaries for
either the March 15th election or the June 7th
Congressional primary, so no second primaries, but
that's this year only.
REP. FLOYD: Follow-up, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman yield
for an additional question?
REP. JONES: I yield.
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
REP. FLOYD: If it were a second primary
this year, the estimated costs would be
approximately?
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it this time, and I just hope that this is
something that we may visit again in the future.
Thank you.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Wake, Representative Jackson, arise?
REP. JACKSON: A question for the bill
sponsor.
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman from
Rockingham yield to the gentleman from Wake?
REP. JONES: I yield.
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
REP. JACKSON: Representative Jones, I
heard the explanation in the Redistricting
Committee, but perhaps the other members might not
be familiar. Since we are going to run a second,
statewide election on June 7th for all 13
Congressional districts, why could we not have a
runoff election for the March 15th candidates on
that same day, since we'll be doing statewide
elections anyway?
REP. JONES: That is an excellent
question; I appreciate you posing it. I was
thinking that I would speak again and explain it
anyway, so you gave me an opportunity.
A primary reason for doing it, quite
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REP. JONES: I believe the figure that I
know Representative Jackson quoted earlier was
9-1/2 to 10 million dollars for a second primary,
so I will accept that figure.
REP. FLOYD: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on
the bill now?
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman is
recognized to debate the bill.
REP. FLOYD: Mr. Speaker, given eight
years of just trying to do a study to see how the
second primary would affect the State, and the
millions of dollars that it would cost the State,
I'm just happy to see that at least it is tried
this year, so that we can save the millions of
dollars, just the first time, just to try and see
and look at the second primary. Although the
second primary was held about seven weeks after the
first primary, but at the same time, as
Representative Jackson mentioned, there's a lot of
individuals look at the first primary, and then set
for you at the second primary, and you've spent all
your money in the first primary. Seven weeks
later, you don't have sufficient enough funds to
run in the second primary.
So, it's a blessing that we're looking at
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
honestly, is that normally, after an election, the
poll books are closed. But in this case, because
we would be having this second election on June the
7th, those poll books would remain open. So,
normally, in order to vote in a second primary, you
had to be eligible to vote in the first primary.
In this case, by leaving it open, you
would not only be opening the second primary to
people that might register to vote between those
times, but theoretically, and I think practically
that would be the case, you could be encouraging
people to go out and change parties for that
particular time, just so they could vote in a
second primary. And we just felt like in weighing
all the options, the best thing to do was just to
eliminate the second primary altogether.
Quite frankly, it made the administration
of it much, much simpler for the Board of
Elections, but it also took away the opportunities
that I just discussed, and we felt like it was the
best option. Thank you, Representative Jackson.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Robeson, Representative Graham,
arise?
REP. C. GRAHAM: A question of the bill
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 34 to 37
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sponsor.
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman from
Rockingham, Representative Jones, yield to the
gentleman from Robeson?
REP. JONES: Yes, sir.
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
REP. C. GRAHAM: Thank you,
Representative Jones. Just to clear my mind, we
have folks who are voting right now for these
Congressional districts. Explain to me again what
will happen to those votes. Make sure I'm clear in
my mind; I want to be able to explain that to folks
when I'm asked.
REP. JONES: Okay. What we're basically
saying here is that in response to the three-judge
panel and their ruling, that our Congressional
election will, frankly, start over. There will be
new districts, new maps, new candidates will come
in, and they will have to file for those offices,
and that election will start over, and under this
bill, it would be held on June the 7th. So any
votes that have been or will be cast for the March
15 primary election will be null and void, because
those Congressional districts will no longer exist.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion or
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rockingham yield to an additional question from the
gentleman from Scotland?
REP. JONES: Yes, sir, I yield.
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
REP. PIERCE: As -- and I mean, I'm not
sure, but as a candidate, by filing for office,
being assured or assumed that there would be a
runoff, are there any legal ramifications that a
candidate could say, well, I thought this was
always the case, and it's off to the legislative,
we're going to change it, but is there anything
legally that a candidate who comes in second place
could argue in a case? I'm just trying to look at
it from that standpoint. Is there anything that a
second-place candidate can do, even though we're
going to do what we're going to do, is there
anything a candidate could do, if they come in
second place? Thank you.
REP. JONES: Thank you for that question.
We contemplated that. I think the answer from
legal scholars is that no one has a constitutional
right to a second primary, but quite honestly, yes,
they -- they would have gone into the original
election thinking that we were having a second
primary. We are seeing now that we're not, but
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
further debate? For what purpose does the
gentleman from Scotland, Representative Pierce,
arise?
REP. PIERCE: Just wanted to ask the bill
sponsor a question.
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman from
Rockingham, Representative Jones, yield to the
gentleman from Scotland?
REP. JONES: Yes, sir.
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
REP. PIERCE: Representative Jones, you
did a good job explaining that. But the candidates
that are presently running, it's obvious that the
40 plus 1, that's off the table, right, if you -no, that's -- if a person's in second place, what's
usually the numbers that would constitute a runoff?
REP. JONES: As the law currently exists,
if a candidate fails to get a 40 percent plurality,
then the other candidate can call for a second
primary election, and this bill would say there
would be no second primary, so, you know, the
highest vote-getter would win the election.
REP. PIERCE: Mr. Speaker, follow-up
question?
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman from
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
obviously, in response to this three-judge panel,
very unusual situation, we're having to make
changes in our election. So thank you for your
question.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Haywood, Representative Queen,
arise?
REP. QUEEN: To ask another question just
for clarification to the bill sponsor.
SPEAKER MOORE: Does the gentleman from
Rockingham, Representative Jones, yield to the
gentleman from Haywood?
REP. JONES: I yield.
SPEAKER MOORE: He yields.
REP. QUEEN: So, whenever -- if this
legislation moves forward, if there were ten new
filers for a Congressional district, and the -- the
vote was cast, and, you know, the leading votegetter got 15 percent of the vote, he would be the
candidate?
REP. JONES: Well, technically, all the
filers will be new filers, because it will be
district. But to answer your question, yes, that's
how it works. If there is no second primary,
regardless how many candidates there are, whoever
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 10 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 38 to 41
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gets the most votes wins.
REP. QUEEN: Thank you.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion,
further debate? If not, the question before the
House is the passage of House Bill 2 on its second
reading. Those in favor will vote aye; those
opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the
vote.
(Votes recorded.)
SPEAKER MOORE: The Clerk will lock the
machine and record the vote. 71 having voted in
the affirmative and 32 in the negative, House Bill
2 passes its second reading and will be read a
third time.
CLERK: The General Assembly of North
Carolina enacts.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion,
further debate. For what purpose does the
gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall, arise?
REP. HALL: To speak on the bill.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor to debate the bill.
REP. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And
I understand that some items in the bill, as
quickly as it was formulated this evening and
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gentleman from Rockingham, Representative Jones,
arise?
REP. JONES: To debate the bill a second
time.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman is
recognized to debate the bill. It's on third
reading.
REP. JONES: Oh, thank you. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. Just in response to my friend's
comments, I just wanted to point out that
obviously, it's a very unusual situation that we
have a new special Congressional primary. Nobody's
trying to establish a precedent here. But just to
make it clear, no one can continue -- it will
continue that no one can run for two offices. If
you become the nominee for Congress, you cannot
remain the nominee for any other office. We'll
make that very clear, that the bill clearly states
that you would have to withdraw from one of those
offices within a week of certification of those
results. So, I thank him for his comments and just
wanted to clarify ours. And thank you for your
good vote, and would appreciate your green vote
again on third reading.
SPEAKER MOORE: Further discussion,
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pushed out of the committee, may have escaped the
attention of members of our body here or maybe the
public, but it is important to understand. We have
made a major change which is going to allow folks
to run for two offices during the same election
cycle, meaning you could run for a state office and
then run for a Congressional office, and then have
to choose, and I think that's an important item for
folks to understand, that we have changed this.
This is a major change, and as people talk about
being educated once again about what's going on and
any confusion that might be in people's minds about
it, it is important to note that.
So, again, this is a major piece of
legislation, and I hope we'll take it seriously as
we consider how to implement it. And ultimately,
we probably need to look at providing for local
boards of election, additional support. In effect,
this could become an unfunded mandate. I hope that
we will look at that and see what we can do in some
way, form or fashion to help our local boards of
election, because what we're getting ready to do is
going to require additional effort on their part,
especially educating voters. Thank you.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
41
1
further debate? If not, the question before the
2
House is the passage of House Bill 2 on its third
3
reading. Those in favor will say aye.
4
(Voice vote.)
5
SPEAKER MOORE: Those opposed, no?
6
(Voice vote.)
SPEAKER MOORE: The ayes appear to have
7
8
it. The ayes do have it. House Bill 2 passes its
9
third reading, and the bill will be sent to the
10
Senate by special messenger. The House will be at
11
ease.
12
13
(Pause.)
Notices and announcements? And, by the
14
way, members, for your planning purposes,
15
tomorrow's session will be at 11:30.
16
Representative Lewis, has the gentleman previously
17
announced the Redistricting Committee meeting for
18
tomorrow? If not, the chair will recognize the
19
gentleman to do so at this time.
20
REP. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and
21
for an announcement, Mr. Speaker and members, the
22
House Committee on Redistricting will meet tomorrow
23
at 9 a.m., where we will receive public comment
24
from 9 a.m. until 10 a.m.
25
Beginning at 10 a.m., we will debate the
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 11 of 12
House Floor Session, Volume Two of Two
N.C. General Assembly Extra Session on Redistricting 2016
Pages 42 to 44
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2016 contingent Congressional plan which is passed
over to us from the Senate. I would remind all
members and members of the public that may be
listening to this that the plan that passed over
from the Senate that will be considered tomorrow is
online to be reviewed. I would encourage all
members of the committee and all members that are
able to attend or to listen in online to join us
tomorrow at 9 a.m. in room 643. Again, we'll have
public comment from 9 to 10, and we'll consider the
bill beginning when the public comment is completed
or at 10:00. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER MOORE: For what purpose does the
gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall, arise?
REP. HALL: For an announcement, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER MOORE: The gentleman has the
floor for an announcement.
REP. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The
Democratic Caucus meeting previously scheduled for
8:30 tomorrow morning has been canceled. It will
be rescheduled. Thank you.
SPEAKER MOORE: And, members, for
planning purposes, I mentioned earlier the session
will be at 11:30 tomorrow. As previously announced
44
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF GRANVILLE
CERTIFICATE
I, Robbie W. Worley, a duly commissioned Notary
Public in and for the State of North Carolina, do hereby
certify that on February 18, 2016, this proceeding was held
before me at the time and place aforesaid, that all parties
were present as represented, and that the record as set
forth in the preceding 43 pages represents a true and
accurate transcription of the proceedings to the best of my
ability and understanding.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand, this
the 28th day of February, 2016.
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
by Chairman Lewis, the Redistricting Committee will
take up the Congressional redistricting bill, and
we have budgeted the time for that. If, however,
the hearings are continuing and the committee needs
more time, the Chair will certainly delay the
convening hour of session in deference to that.
But we believe 11:30 will be enough time, but that
remains to be seen. But as it stands right now,
session will be at 11:30 tomorrow morning.
Further notices and announcements? If
not, the gentleman from Harnett, Representative
Lewis, is recognized for a motion.
REP. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
move that the House do now adjourn to reconvene
Friday, February 19th at 11:30 a.m.
SPEAKER MOORE: Representative Lewis
moves, seconded by Representative West, that the
House do now adjourn to reconvene on Friday,
February 19th, 2016, at 11:30 a.m. Those in favor
will say aye?
(Voice vote.)
SPEAKER MOORE: Those opposed, no? The
ayes have it. We stand adjourned.
(THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER ADJOURNED)
25
Worley Reporting
Case 1:13-cv-00949-WO-JEP Document 159-5 Filed 03/07/16 Page 12 of 12