A City and County Divided? Durham and the District Attorney's Race

What normally would have been a quickly forgotten district attorney's primary election became a national spectacle in the spring of 2006. Members of the Duke University lacrosse team were accused of raping an African-American woman on March 13, 2006, in a private home just off Duke's campus. Soon after, the Durham district attorney, Mike Nifong, announced he would investigate the accusations and prosecute the case. Within weeks, on April 18, two White lacrosse players were arrested on charges of rape and sexual assault by Nifong, and by this time the case had become a media circus. Soon after, a third White lacrosse player was charged. Reporting for Newsweek, Thomas and Meadows (2006) described the media coverage of the case as “a morality tale of pampered jocks gone wild.” The Raleigh News and Observer described the media horde in Durham (Chambers 2006): “Journalists … have descended on the town like locusts to cover the Duke lacrosse team story.” The horrific rape allegations and subsequent coverage focused particularly on possible racial divisions, but also on gender and class. Carroll Rogers (2006), writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted that “[t]he [dividing] lines being cut here cross between male and female, black and white, underprivileged and well-off.” David Brooks (2006), writing in a New York Times op-ed, stated: “In almost every article and piece of commentary, the event is portrayed not as a crime between individuals but as a clash between classes, races and sexes.”

The national media in particular seized on the assumed racial and economic divisions, often misrepresenting facts about Durham's population. Mary Ann Black of the Durham Chamber of Commerce pointed out that Durham was a “diverse community”: “To imply that almost all the people in Durham are black and poor is not the correct way to portray Durham” (Zimmer 2006). In fact, the median incomes of both Whites and African-Americans in Durham County, according to 2000 census data, are higher than the White and African-American median incomes, respectively, in both North Carolina and the United States as a whole, and Durham has a long history of African-American business and economic success (Weare 1993). Even though the national commentary sometimes bordered on stereotype, without question, this was a racially charged case being prosecuted by a White attorney in a city where the African-American and White populations are about equal in number.

As the case garnered national attention, Nifong faced increasing scrutiny as well. His high-profile public appearances about the case were both praised and criticized by observers: On April 10, 2006, John Fitzpatrick, a Durham lawyer, stated that Nifong was “showing he's not afraid to take on a challenge” (Niolet 2006a). Nicholas Kristof (2006), in an op-ed in the New York Times, argued that Nifong used stereotypes in publicly convicting the accused. Without question, his handling of the rape charges would be a key part of Nifong's primary bid for reelection as Durham district attorney.

Voter Cues, Race, and Low-information Elections

In local elections, Kaufmann (2004) has theorized that partisan cues are often not important; instead, group interest theory predicts that racial and ethnic cues may predominate. Durham is an excellent case to test some implications of this theory. The city and county votes overwhelmingly Democratic in local and state elections, and thus partisan cues are not particularly important. Further, the elections studied here were within the Democratic primary or were nonpartisan elections. Further, the city (and to a lesser extent, the county) has historically been divided almost 50-50 between African-American and White voters over the last few decades (though as McClain et al. 2006 points out, the city has recently become much more diverse with an influx of Latinos). A governing coalition of African Americans and White liberals, similar to those identified by Browning, Marshall and Tabb (1984), have typically worked together—though sometimes in opposition—in local elections in Durham.

Without this high-profile lacrosse case garnering substantial media attention, the Durham D.A.'s race would have likely been decided based on preexisting cues typically used in local elections. Though the incumbent, Nifong had been appointed to the D.A. position by North Carolina Governor Mike Easley following a vacancy. Nifong's challengers were Freda Black, who is White, and Keith Bishop, who is African American. However, Black and Bishop had advantages coming into the election that Nifong did not. Black had received extensive media attention for her prosecution of several high-profile cases in Durham. However, she also garnered some negative publicity for dating a criminal defendant that she was also prosecuting (Saunders 2006).

Bishop, before the Duke lacrosse case broke, likely had advantages based on racial cues voters frequently use.⁵

The first obvious racial cue used in elections is the racial backgrounds of candidates themselves. Scholars have shown repeatedly that voters are less likely to vote for candidates of different races when a viable candidate of their own race/ethnic background is running. Since Bishop was the only African American in a three-way election where the other candidates were White, a successful electoral strategy for him would be to maximize Black voter support. To win a primary in North Carolina, a candidate must win 40% of the vote to avoid a runoff. Bishop had considered running for an open judicial race, but instead, near the filing deadline, decided to run for district attorney. He announced he was running only after White candidates Nifong and Black announced their bids (Stevenson 2006b). Bishop, a Durham lawyer and first-time candidate for elected office, had strong connections to the Durham Committee. As the Durham Herald-Sun reported before the Duke lacrosse case broke (Stevenson 2006b): “Several court observers predicted … Bishop, who is black, might have a decent shot at becoming district attorney if the primary vote divided along racial lines—with Nifong and Black splitting the white electorate and Bishop raking in most of the community's black ballots.”

The second racial cue for African-American voters in Durham is the endorsement of a key political organization (see, e.g., Bullock 1984; Lieske 1989; and Liu 2003 for the importance of endorsements in local elections). The Durham Committee endorsed Bishop. Before running for district attorney, Bishop had played an active role in the Durham Committee as one of its officers (Gronberg 2006a). The Durham Committee has historically been a very important interest group in Durham's politics, and while not always able to swing election outcomes, it typically has provided a very important endorsement cue resulting in substantial African-American support (for scholarly discussions of the Durham Committee, see Swain 1995, 160; Keech 1968; and Kousser 1999, 257).⁶

Postscript: The November 7, 2006, General Election

As frequently happens in Durham County elections for local offices, there was initially no Republican opposition for D.A. in the November 7, 2006, general election. Going into the primary election on May 2, 2006, Nifong and the other two primary candidates assumed that the primary victor would be unopposed in the general election. However, following the results of the primary, two other candidates decided to launch campaigns in the general election. Lewis Cheek, a White county commissioner and Democrat, ran as an unaffiliated candidate in the general election. Cheek only declared his candidacy after Nifong won the primary. Cheek promised to resign the office if elected, which would have resulted in a replacement through gubernatorial appointment. A third candidate, Republican Steve Monks, also launched a write-in campaign against Nifong once the primary election results were known.

The general election campaigns of both Cheek and Monks were somewhat quixotic. Cheek did not aggressively campaign for the position of D.A., given that he promised to resign if elected (Niolet 2006c). After offering his name as an unaffiliated candidate and garnering enough signatures to be placed on the ballot, he pulled out of the race as a formal candidate (Phillips 2006). A group called “Recall Nifong/Vote Cheek” campaigned on Cheek's behalf, and argued that a vote for Cheek would essentially be the equivalent of a recall election against Nifong (Gronberg 2006b). Monks had support among some Republican voters according to published reports (Gronberg 2006b), though Durham County's heavily Democratic leanings and his write-in campaign made his candidacy quite an uphill battle.

Unlike in the spirited primary election, Nifong garnered the endorsement of the Durham Committee (Dopart 2006). The final vote in the November general election was 49.5% for Mike Nifong, 39.5% for Lewis Cheek, and 11.0% for write-in candidates according to official tallies from the Durham Board of Elections. As with the above primary election analyses, I also analyzed the voting patterns by race among Black and non-Black voters for the D.A. general election. I estimated the extent of the vote for Nifong, Cheek, and Monks with precinct-level data using Goodman's regression. Results of these analyses are displayed in Tables 5 and 6 and reveal racial polarization in the general election. Unlike the primary election, Nifong received most of his support from African-American voters based on the results displayed in Table 5. Over 95% of Black voters supported Nifong in the general, while Cheek and Monks received very little Black voter support. In contrast, as shown in Table 6, 26.6% of non-Black/White voters supported Nifong, while Cheek received 56.2% of non-Black/White voter support. Write-in candidates (and most of these votes were for Steve Monks) received 17.2% of non-Black/White voter support.¹⁰

African-American Voter Support for Durham D.A. Candidates, Nov. 7, 2006, General Election*

Non-Black Voter Support for Durham D.A. Candidates, Nov. 7, 2006, General Election*

Nifong's heresthetic trumpeting of the high-profile lacrosse case during the primary upset the existing equilibrium based on racial cues and may have had some lasting impact in the general, as Nifong received overwhelming support from African-American voters. However, the voting populace clearly reverted to those cues used in most local elections in Durham for the general election, which was more racially polarized. Thus, Nifong's heresthetic maneuver in the primary election may have only temporarily upset the electoral equilibrium based on racial cues. With the release of additional public information by defense lawyers on the lacrosse case following the primary, with rising criticism of Nifong among some voters, and with Cheek's promise not to serve as D.A., the general election became a referendum on Nifong himself. Nifong and observers had initially expected no opposition in the general election. However, even with these unusual, additional candidacies in the general, Nifong was still able to garner reelection, although the general was much more competitive than would have normally been expected. Given that all three candidates in the general were White, conclusions regarding racial cues based on candidate race are obviously not possible.

Conclusion

Was Durham, North Carolina a city divided by race in its May 2, 2006, primary elections? Media accounts have focused on the alleged divisions within Durham following the accusations in the Duke lacrosse case, and some have even claimed that a racial divide existed in the primary results of the district attorney's race (Dorell 2006). Without question, the Duke lacrosse case raised questions of race that likely would not have been as prominent in a typically low-profile district attorney's election. However, the empirical evidence, based on the voting results in the May 2, 2006, D.A. primary, does not substantiate the popular conception that Durham, North Carolina is a city and county divided along racial lines. In the district attorney's race in particular, voting was more similar between Black and non-Black voters than it was dissimilar. Ironically, in the other local and state elections held concurrently, where the Duke lacrosse case and its racial overtones were not relevant, African-American and non-Black voters were more likely to exhibit racially polarized voting. The power of racial cues, both the Durham Committee endorsement and candidates' racial backgrounds, was evident in elections other than the D.A.'s race held during the May 2 primary. However, Nifong was clearly able to cobble together a coalition of African Americans and Whites to achieve victory in the primary. Following the initial public outcry about the sickening sexual assault charges, his decision to aggressively prosecute the Duke lacrosse case in the court of public opinion helped him win the support of a plurality of Black voters and a strong second place with non-Black voters. His aggressive public positioning on the case is a classic example of a successful heresthetic maneuver, where he was able to upset the underlying equilibrium that typically predicts the outcome in local elections in Durham.

This study's intentions are neither to praise nor indict Nifong for his actions, but simply to analyze the electoral results. Supporters of Nifong and his handling of the case may conclude that his behavior was a positive and necessarily aggressive response to the needs of an alleged rape victim, and many have suggested that Nifong bravely took the side of the powerless in his public prosecution of the case. This study's results show he was rewarded by a coalition of Black and White voters on the primary Election Day. In contrast, Nifong's detractors may view this study's results and conclude that his actions were determined primarily by his Machiavellian concerns. While he won the primary and faced no general election opposition from Republicans, his trumpeting of the case drew opposition from an unaffiliated White candidate and a write-in campaign from another White candidate. Even with the tide of public opinion turning somewhat against Nifong between the primary election and the general election, Nifong won the general election with 49.5% of the vote. This study examined Nifong's use of heresthetics to upset the existing racial equilibrium in a primary election in a city and county where racial cues have typically trumped other voting cues. While not the focus of this study, Nifong's strong support among African-American voters, combined with some support among non-Black voters, clearly helped him secure the general election victory as well.

While a very interesting case study in its own right given the extensive media attention, this primary election answers and raises broader questions regarding the role of race and politics generally. Scholars should examine the lasting impact this case has on race relations in Durham and should also examine broader questions related to race, class, and gender. As Hancock (2006) has argued, “[t]he politics surrounding this case is not simply a matter of a primary election for district attorney.” These primary elections—and the exception of the D.A. primary election—demonstrate the continuing importance of racial voting cues in elections. More broadly, strategic politicians can use heresthetic maneuvers to garner electoral victories when the existing cues used by voters would not lead to a favored result. While infrequent, White candidates do win in majority-Black settings with the support of African Americans (e.g., Jerry Brown as mayor of Oakland, California; Scott King as mayor of Gary, Indiana), and Black candidates also occasionally win in majority-White settings with support from White voters (e.g., Sanford Bishop and David Scott in a majority-White congressional districts in Georgia; Ron Kirk as mayor of Dallas, Texas; Bill Johnson as mayor of Rochester, New York). It suggests that candidates who do not share the racial or ethnic backgrounds of voters can perhaps win support from these voters when they aggressively trumpet issues in a way that shake up the underlying equilibrium in the electorate, even when facing candidates of other racial backgrounds.