Museado / NARA Collection rn-ret — Collection rn-ret
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

WHSF: Contested, 47-17

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

Richard Nixon Presidential Library Contested Materials Collection Folder List Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 47 17 2/20/1973 Campaign Memo To: Mr. Haldeman. From: Robert H. Marik. RE: The future of the data base. 19pgs. 47 17 1/1/1973 Campaign Report 1972 Composite election statistics and brief analysis. 23pgs. 47 17 2/9/1973 Campaign Memo To: Mr. Haldeman. From: W. Richard Howard. RE: Action Plan for the Data Base. 23pgs. 47 17 Campaign Report Data Base Index. 6pgs. Tuesday, March 27, 2012 Page 1 of 1 Committee for the Re-election of the President DETERMINED TO BE AN MEMORANDUM ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING February 20, 1973 E.O. 12065, Section 6-102 By RY NARS, Date 8-5-80 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. HALDEMAN FROM: ROBERT H. MARIK RAMA SUBJECT: The Future of the Data Base SUMMARY This memorandum describes the computerized list of registered voters and the associated software (together referred to as the Data Base) developed for the 1972 Presidential campaign. The utility of the Data Base in future political campaigns is discussed and some specific recommendations are presented. The purpose of this analysis is to present a complete technical description of the Data Base, as one element necessary in determining what kind of organization should be established to control the system over the next four years. DISCUSSION Description of the Data Base The Data Base that is presently housed in our data center in Dallas has more than $1,000,000 invested in list development, socio-economic characteristics, algorithms, software and technical know-how. It consists of a computerized listing of nearly 22 million households (almost 30 million registered voters) in nine large states (Tab A). Additional elements of the system are listed in Tab B. It now has the capacity for the following: Produce computerized lists of registered voters for canvassing and get-out-the-vote, by precinct, and in alphabetical or street address sequence. Record voter responses from canvassing on the master file (i.e., those voters who are for, against or undecided toward the candidate). DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING E.O. 12065, Section 6-102 CONFIDENTIAL By NARS, Date - 2 - For specialized mailings: -Select out surnames indicating ethnic origin: Spanish, Polish, Jewish, Irish, Italian. -Estimate the age and income level of each household listed. -Identify the Census tract, and therefore the general demographic characteristics, of each household. is detailed discussion of the Data Base is given in Tab C, taken from the final report of the Direct Mail Division. ications for the Future The Data Base should be considered as far more than a mailing list. It can be the central part of a total campaign strategy. It provides the vehicle for voter identification through telephone or door-to-door canvassing. It allows for specific direct mail appeals to carefully segmented groups of voters. It can be used produce final lists of favorable voters for Election Day !vities. It can provide lists especially tailored for fund dying, volunteer recruitment, or other campaign functions. :: is rarely possible for local or even statewide candidates to 'est such a sophisticated voter contact operation. However, the data base already in existence and the associated ster software already developed, the President could offer packaged program to local candidates, which could increase vote by as much as 5% to 10%. Yer, in 1976, the Republican Presidential candidate will not the uninterrupted lead time to prepare a new data base, as Hible in 1972. Therefore, it is important that the LOW in existence be kept updated so that the President the option to make it available in 1976. The problem any address list will become obsolete at the rate of per year. If left alone for four years, the present have little value. The objective, then, is to keep the apdated for 1976, and in the process to get maximum it in 1974. mategy for 1974 ended that the Data Base be one element in a concerted national effort to maximize the Republican 1974 Congression races. Other elements would selection. Sinancial assistance, professional DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING E.O. 12065, Section 6-102 CONFIDENTIAL By NARS, Date - 3 - The first step must be to select the target Congressional Districts. The discussion which follows does offer a selection criterion, primarily to illustrate the methods applied to develop cost estimates for use of the Data Base in the 1974 campaigns. It is anticipated that the final selection will be somewhat different, taking into account survey results, field evaluation of the races, retirement of incumbents, availability of attractive challengers, etc. Manyon Millican has prepared an analysis of the Congressional and Gubernatorial races for 1974 (Tab D). He identifies 116 "marginal" seats. Of those seats, the winner in 1972 received 56% or less of the vote in 68 cases (39 Republican and 29 Democrat). Those have been taken as the target districts in this analysis. It will be important to strengthen the marginal Republican incumbents, because they are particularly vulnerable in the mid-term election during a Republican Administration. Twenty-six of the 39 are freshmen. Of the 29 Democrats, 11 were elected for the first time in 1972. In Tab E, the status of Gubernatorial and Senatorial races in 1974 is summarized by state, along with the marginal house races, as defined above. Some marginal Senate races are indicated, where availability of the Data Base might make a significant difference for the Republican candidate. In Tab F, the data processing cost to update the existing Data Base, or expand it to cover new target districts or states, is given in detail. The financial analysis extends into 1976, covering the final updating of the original Data Base for the Presidential campaign. Operation of the Data Base for the Next Four Years Several decisions must be made on how the Data Base will be handled in the future. The organizational structure must be determined in the light of potential legal restrictions, public relations, political considerations and finances. Several alternatives have been raised, including: Establish an independent trust or corporation, accountable to the interests of the President, which would make the Data Base available to selected candidates, possibly through the RNC, or directly. Transfer the Data Base to the RNC, with the assurance that it will remain under the control of a competent general man 'ger. DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING E.O. 12065, Section 6-102 By CONFIDENTIAL NARS, Date - 4 - It is beyond the scope of this memo to recommend which form is most appropriate. It is important, however, to understand that the computer programs and voter lists are only useful when managed by someone who is thoroughly familiar with the system. There should be continuity and a high degree of professional competence in the position of General Manager. Three people now have the experience to perform that job. L. Robert Morgan was the manager of the direct mail operation during the campaign. Bob has returned to the Reuben H. Donnelley Corporation in Chicago, but can be available for occasional consulting on the Data Base. Dr. Thomas Slivinski helped to design the Data Base, and assisted and managed all phases of its application and development. Tom is experienced in computer systems, but he is seeking more diversified experience within the Administration. He is expected to be in the Washington area, and available for consultation, subject to any limitations by Civil Service regulations. James White was a project manager on the political direct mail staff, and as such was the trouble-shooter in the systems area. His background includes both marketing and systems experience. Jim is recommended for the position of General Manager. Tab G shows projected operating costs for the project over the next four years, including staff and administrative overhead. No operating revenue is included. The assumptions are as follows: Any lists or mailing labels provided for candidates are billed at net cost (no margin to cover G & A or development costs). This policy would encourage candidates to use the system and improve their own campaigns. On the other hand, a somewhat higher price would obviously reduce the operating deficit. No revenue from commercial sales is shown. Jim White believes that up to $40,000 in revenue could be realized in 1973 from sales of mailing labels to charitable fund drives and similar organizations. The volume of such sales would be expected to increase in subsequent years. The margin on commercial sales is estimated to be 50% of the selling price. It should be the objective of the General Manager to develop a significant volume of commercial sales; however, until the concept is proven, no reduction in the operating deficit is projected. The major functions of the General Manager, beyond providing labels to candidates and commercial accounts, will be to upgrade the system, the lists to include additional states DETERMINED TO BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING E.O. 12065, Section 6-102 CONFIDENTIAL By NARS, Date - 5 - and find ways of sharply reducing the cost of processing the data and producing mailing labels or lists. New computer hardware will become available in the next few years, allowing some data processing operations to be done far less expensively than is now the case. The research and computer programming costs shown in Tab G are partly intended to achieve cost reductions in the final product. .All of the marginal Congressional Districts, as well as several marginal Senate races, have been covered by the activity reflected in Tab F. If it were desired to keep the net deficit to a smaller amount, certain districts could be added to the Data Base only after adequate revenue were generated from commercial accounts to cover the list expansion costs. It can be seen in Tab G that the "severest projected cost", assuming no off-setting revenue, to maintain and update the existing Data Base for four years is $806,000. The additional cost to expand the Data Base for target races in 1974 is $270,000. The $211,000 shown for list maintenance in 1976 can only be a rough estimate. Computer technology and electoral procedures may by then render obsolete the methods of 1972. There is some speculation that more states will follow the example of California and make current voter lists on computer tape available to campaign organizations at a moderate cost. The pressures in Congress to liberalize registration procedures may take the voter lists out of the hands of the township clerks and county courthouses, to a higher level of government. Such centralization could facilitate list-gathering at lower cost and with shorter lead times. For all of those reasons, it is recommended that list updating be postponed until 1976, in every area where the system will not be used in 1974. Whatever the situation in 1976, the computer software in the Data Base will assure that the data on registered voters can be used to the greatest possible benefit of the 1976 Republican Presidential candidate. RECOMMENDATIONS That you approve the concept of preserving and updating the Data Base for use in 1974 and 1976. (The particular structure in which it will be housed is yet to be decided.) DISAPPROVE COMMENTS DETERMINED TO ADMINISTRATIVE E.O. 12065, Section 6-102 By RH. NARS, Date CONFIDENTIAL - 6 - That you approve the appointment of Jim White as General Manager of the Data Base. APPROVE DISAPPROVE COMMENT That you approve the general operating plan described in this memo, with the understanding that the specific states and Congressional Districts to be used in 1974 can be decided at a later date (but preferably not later than November, 1973). APPROVE DISAPPROVE COMMENT Attachments: TAB A TAB B TAB C TAB D TAB E TAB F TAB G cc: The Honorable John N. Mitchell Jeb S. Magruder TAB A CONTENTS OF THE DATA BASE STATE NUMBER OF VOTING NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS REGISTERED VOTERS California 6,020,000 8,626,400 Connecticut 906,000 1,373,500 Illinois 1,787,000 1,682,300 Maryland 775,000 1,349,100 Michigan 1,798,000 1,688,600 New Jersey 2,131,200 3,196,200 Ohio 2,352,600 3,381,500 Pennsylvania 3,609,400 5,157,100 Texas 2,605,500 3,970,300 Total 21,984,700 30,425,000 TAB B ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN THE DATA BASE OR AVAILABLE FROM THE CAMPAIGN Partial lists of registered Republican voters: Florida - 350,000 voters from ten counties Massachusetts - 13,000 key Republicans New Hampshire - 80,000 households (total state) New York - 350,000 voters from 5 counties Lists potentially available from the 1972 campaign: Telephone program key leaders lists (2,400 names) Telephone centers' volunteer lists (55,000 names) State Chairmen's volunteer lists (130,000 names) Finance Committee contributor lists (800,000 names) Democrats for Nixon volunteer lists (2,000 names) LIST DEVELOPMENT DATA BASE DEVELOPMENT The Voter Registration Data Base was established in two phases. During the first phase individual vendors were contracted to collect the voter regis- tration lists of specific states and to computerize this information into a standard format specified by the Committee. Standard edit programs were supplied to each vendor to validate the data. In the second phase, at University Computing Company in Dallas, the base voter registration data was expanded with specific demographic information added. This section dis- cusses the establishment of the Voter Registration Data Base. DATA BASE ORGANIZATION The Voter Registration Data Base was organized as sequential data sets on magnetic tape. The basic processing entity was a county within a state. With several minor exceptions, the entire county was processed at one time. Counties were placed on separate reels of tape and were never combined. If two parts of the same county were processed separately, different county codes were assigned. The concept of stand alone county processing was sound. The only problem arose when zip codes crossed county boundaries. In these cases, the match codes used for adding phone numbers and other data were not valid. Within the county, each voter was supplied a unique sequence number. This number, together with the state and county codes uniquely identified the voter in the entire data base. Members of the same family (with the same surname) who live at the same address and who belong to the same party, were combined into households. Up to four members of a household were planned for. Each member of a household was given a unique sequence member number. In any future design, households should be defined independent of political party registration. The party affiliation should be included for each member, but all members of the household with the same surname should be combined. Within a household, the male head of household was shown first, followed by wife and any other members. If a residence contained individuals with different surnames, these individuals were listed as separate households (the address most likely being an apartment). The sequence numbers were assigned to voters in address sequence for mailing (i.e., by zip code and street address within zip code). Labels or other mailings could be generated for a county without a major sort of the data. 24 Householding in non-city delivery service areas should be limited to those Individuals who can be positively identified as belonging to the same household. Very often in small towns or rural areas, several families with the same surname will live on the same rural route or receive their mail through the same general delivery post office. These individuals cannot be arbitrarily combined into households. If supplements were required for a county, the sequence numbers for these additions began at 5,000,000. This eliminated the possibility that voters would be multiply updated. The Voter Registration Data Base and other name lists were combined through the use of match codes. These codes are extracted from key parts of the name and address. The match code for City Delivery Service Areas (Type 1 addresses) was: state, county, zip, last four characters of house number, first character of street name and first, third and fourth characters of surname. John Smith who lived at 1121 Elm Street, Chicago, Illinois 61610 was coded: 1L031616101121ESIT. The match code for other type addresses was state, county, zip and first, third and fourth characters of last name. This did not always produce a valid match. Names such as DAVIS, DAVIDSON, DEVITT in the same zip code were considered equivalent. A new match code for non-street type addresses needs to be defined. One potential code would be state, county, zip, first character of owner name and the first seven characters of the last name. AVAILABILITY OF VOTER LISTS In general, lists of registered voters are available from county or local registrars across the country. These lists are normally available to any candidate. Two exceptions should be noted: (a) some states or counties do not require registration; and (b) citizens vote on their personal cognizance. Also, the voter lists may be available only through political sub-divisions within the county, e.g., Michigan, where each township maintains the voting list. The voting lists normally include name, address and party affiliation (if voters register by party). In some states (such as New Jersey and Ohio) only those voters who participate in the primary elections have party designation. In other states, there is not attempt at the county level to record party; Republican and Democratic voter lists are kept separate by the county organizations. In determining the availability of voter lists, a primary consideration is 25 access to computerized voter lists. Because the cost of keypunching or optically scanning hardcopy lists is approximately 4-6 times as much as reformatting a computer tape, it is cost-efficient to obtain voter regis- tration on magnetic tape. The Table at TAB 14 lists all counties by state which were included in the Voter Registration Data Base. If a computerized source tape was available, the table lists the office or individual which supplied the tape. The availability of computerized voter lists does not preclude massive conversions or data additions. Many tapes do not include zip codes for example. Others contain only one name for each household. It is not sufficient that the voter lists be computerized, but must be standardized and most often enriched. Another critical factor in the availability of voter registration data is the date that the lists were prepared. This is critical for two reasons. First, on a national average, 20% of the population moves each year. Data which is not current decreases in value accordingly. Second, redistricting can occur between the time that the list is produced and the present election. This was an especially critical problem in the 1972 Election since many areas were under court order to reapportion the population based on the 1970 census. Therefore, it is very important to know the date of the voter registration data used. REGISTERED VOTER LISTS VERSUS OTHER LISTS Many direct mail corporations maintain separate lists which may be used for mailings. The Reuben H. Donnelley list is probably the most complete in coverage. This was the list used by the Committee in Michigan and Wisconsin. Experience in Michigan indicates that there are three major problems with use of such lists. 1. They do not include any political information (such as precinct). As a result, such data must be coded into the file by the canvassers. 2. They do not include county designation. Because zip codes cross county boundaries, many individual voters were placed in the wrong county. 3. One name is normally shown in each household, the male in whose name both the phone and auto are registered. Younger people and wives are not usually shown. Specialized lists can and should be used both for individual mailings, as well as part of the overall data base. 26 Specific lists used in this Campaign were: 1. Farmers list owned by National Farm Journal 2. Youth list assembled by Committee's Youth Group Potential lists which should have application: 1. Subscription lists to conservative publications such as National Review 2. Contributor lists compiled from GAO and state reports filed by Republican candidates 3. Past Nixon-Agnew volunteer lists VOTER LIST CONVERSION The most unique feature of the effort has been the standardization of the data base format and contents. In California, for example, where we compu- terized thirty-one counties all maintained their lists in different formats. Thus, unique programs were written for each county to produce walking lists, labels or other output. By standardizing the data format and contracting with individual vendors to convert the data into this single format, maximum flexibility was achieved in the use of these lists while minimizing the overall costs. Each vendor was required to collect the voter registration lists for certain states or parts of states. Where the lists were not readily available (parti- cularly where there was a reluctance to release computerized lists) outside Committee pressure was brought to bear. Having obtained the data, each vendor was required to convert it to the standard format as shown in TAB 2. If the data was already on magnetic tape, this involved an analysis of the source tape codes and formats, then the writing of unique programs to convert the tape. Where the source data was in hard copy for written lists it was either keypunched or optically scanned. Each vendor wrote his own conversion software. One of the most severe problems was the very poor quality of the source tapes available from the individual counties. In particular, these tapes often followed no real rules at all in their coding of address, name and political precinct. Some county tapes contained no zip codes and required manual zip coding. purbled and streets misspelled and inconsistently coded. 27 Apartment numbers were inconsistent, e.g., 111 Elm St. A -- Alll Elmst, and Apt A 111 Elm St, all on the same file. The same name appeared three, four or more times on the county voter lists. Precinct codes were non-uniform. This was a great problem in California. Because voters must be grouped together by precinct for walking or phoning, it is imperative that the unique code for each precinct be determined. In California, numerous code combinations were used, most incorrect. This cost much time and extra expense in the generation of the lists. Sex and title codes were incorrect. In Harris County, Texas, all titles were either blank or Mr. (including females). The quality of the hard copy lists varied. Most were typed and could be easily converted. The major problems arose when they were handwritten as shown in TAB 15. Problems normally arose in zip coding the lists (many included no zip code) and in assigning meaningful codes to the political sub-divisions (precincts, wards, townships, etc.). VENDOR APPRAISAL Seven different vendors were used to collect and convert the data. These were as follows: RATING 1. CompuGraphics, Cleveland, Ohio (Ohio) Unacceptable 2. C. Howard Wilson Company Very Poor Van Nuys, California (California, part of Maryland, part of Texas) 3. Premier Printing and Mailing Unacceptable Houston, Texas (Harris County, Texas) 4. Ed Nichols Associates Good Kensington, Maryland (Pennsylvania, part of Maryland, part of Texas) 5. A.R.A.P. Satisfactory Princeton, New Jersey (New Jersey) 6. Cambridge Opinion Studies, Inc. Satisfactory New York, New York (Connecticut) 7. Cohasse: Associates Satisfacto. Chicago, Illinois 28 The performance of each vendor is appraised: CompuGraphics is headed by Terry McCarthy and has close ties with the Cuyahoga County Republican organization through William Bennett. This firm maintains the Cuyahoga County Voter Lists. This firm performed very poorly and should not be considered for any future business. They underestimated the jobs and did not have the technical management talent to accomplish the tasks. One of the Committee's staff was sent to Cleveland to direct the project. C.. Howard Wilson Company is headed by C. Howard Wilson. This company also did a very poor job. Data was in many cases 30 or more days late. Failure to check outputs for correct precinct structure in California caused numerous re-runs, cost the Committee more than $10,000 and delayed delivery of a usable product more than four weeks in some areas. Technical management was poor. Mr. Wilson left the project to attend to other business. Numerous counties had to be removed from Wilson and given to other vendors because of his poor performance. One of the Committee's staff was sent to California to direct the project. Although Premier Printing and Mailing had responsibility for only one county, Harris County, they were unable to perform the job and the county was sent to another vendor for conversion. This firm is operating in the dark ages of automation and should not be considered for any work of this type. Ed Nichols Associates is headed by Edward Nichols and performed creditably for the Committee. Most of the work which was taken from other vendors was sent to Nichols. As the volume of work increased, the quality of the out- put went down. Nichols was not sufficiently staffed to handle the greater volumes. Second, Nichols made certain promises to Pennsylvania Republicans to allow them access to the data in exchange for their cooperation in ob- taining the source data. This was done without Committee approval and against his specific instructions. A.R.A.P. converted the data for New Jersey and wrote the Committee's edit programs. They subcontracted all programming and computer work to Automated Data Research (ADR), also of Princeton. The A.R.A.P. group was headed by Evan Gray and the ADR programmer was Robert Wickendon. Because A.R.A.P. subcontracted all programming, it is difficult to assess that aspect. However, the technical management at A.R.A.P. was not good. Wickendon was the only person who understood their software. After the last shipment, Wickendon left for a prolonged vacation and no one was available for more than two weeks to correct several problems that developed in their last shipment. 29 Cambridge Opinion Studies converted voter data for Connecticut. The project was headed by Richard Hochhauser. All the work was from hard copy source data. A major error was made in the position of the telephone number, which caused only the first six digits to be shown on manuscripts. Cambridge regenerated these lists for each one affected. Cohasset Associates is headed by Bob Williams. All work was done on a subcontract basis. Work was delivered on time. The only complaint is that Williams does not stand behind his work. When errors were detected in pre- cincting the data, causing a re-run, Williams originally agreed to cover the cost of correcting the error and Vegenerating the manuscript. He later reneged on this agreement. One other vendor was used during the primary -- Compass Systems of San Diego, California. Compass was contracted to convert California data for the primary election. Tom Hoefeller was Project Manager. The firm did a very poor job -- delivering data for only 20 of the 31 counties required. In summary, no firm which converted voter registration data did an out- standing job. Some, such as CompuGraphics, Wilson and Premier, did extremely poor jobs and should not be used in the future. Others, such as Nichols, Cohasset, A.R.A.P. and Cambridge did average jobs. In choosing any firm, three criteria must be weighed: technical experience, sufficient manpower and political backing. The greatest single fault with all of the firms with which we dealt was lack of technical management and lack of sufficient resources to do the job. It appears that the companies with political ex- perience in data processing are so small that they lack the means to do the job properly. Similarly, the larger firms, such as UCC, do not have the political experience to handle the jobs. DATA EDIT AND STANDARDIZATION A standard computer edit program was developed and supplied to each in the state vendors and to UCC. The purpose of this program was to validate the data in the original county files prior to submission to UCC. The edit was designed to be run as a final processing step by the state vendors after all data had been converted into the standard format. It was also to be run by UCC to validate that the correct data has been submitted by the state vendor. The edit program was designed to validate input data, not correct errors. Thus, it was designed to display real or potential problems for manual checking rather than attempting to correct them. The edit routine consisted of the following: 1. A set of error-checking sub-routines 30 2. Two error listings 3. A fatal error listing of records containing errors which precluded further processing 4. A warning error listing of potential errors (such as an alphabetic character in the house number field) 5. Two audit reports: Zip City Audit (TAB 16) showing the number of households and voters for Republicans, Democrats, Indepen- dents and others by zip code and the Political Unit Audit (TAB 17) showing the number of households and voters for each precinct, ward and township or city -- summarized by county. Initially, a third audit report containing a statistical dump of the file was envisioned. This idea was dropped as impractical because of the large size of some counties. The key to the edit routines was the geopolitical table. This set of cards was designed to show the permissable relationships between the Zip Code, Post Office name and the political sub-divisions (city/township, ward, district, precinct, state lower and upper house district and congressional district). This table was used to standardize Post Office name spelling and to insure that each voter was assigned to the correct precinct. If the information for a voter was not consistent, this record was rejected as a fatal error. In general, the edit routine provided a very effective audit of the data. Each field was checked to ascertain correct placement of the data and the validity of characters with the field. Extensive checking was done on the "name" fields (given name, surname, and street name) in an effort to guard against misspellings. Character sequences were checked so that such things as four contiguous consonants, three contiguous vowels, or three contiguous identical letters produced warning messages. The A.R.A.P. specifications for the edit routine are included in TAB 18. There were three basic problems with the edit programs: 1. First, and most important, while the programs displayed errors, each vendor was left to his own resources to develop programs and pro- cedures to correct the errors. To the maximum extent possible, the edit program should automatically correct known errors. Standard software should be developed as part of the edit package to allow either single records or groups of records to be corrected and should operate on standard file format. 2. The geo-political table should be re-designed. Defined as it was, the political table was difficult to code. Since it was necessary to specify each precinct separately in order to use the precinct name field, the table often grew unmanageably large. Because the edit routine would not run with- out the table, the majority of vendors generated the table from the county file itself which, of course, defeated the purpose of the validation table. Minimally, if such a table is used, the toles of precincts and zip codes should show the zip codes within a precinct and not vice versa. 3. More time must be given to develop the edit programs. The final edit specifications were developed in mid-June and the programs delivered to vendors in mid-July. This was not sufficient time to totally de-bug the programs or to test the applicability of the various complex routines. Numerous minor problems were found in the edits after they had been delivered to vendors. This delayed the acceptance of data. Minimally, two and one half months must be allowed to write the programs after the specifi- cations are firm. Further, vendors should be given several weeks of experience with the edit routines prior to data submission. In determining the specifications for future editing, special attention must be given to the street name field. The correct spelling and categoriza- tion of each street name is essential if effective door-to-door canvass lists are to be produced. The street type (street, drive, road, etc.) should be separated from the rest of the street name in a separate field. The key to developing good reliable addresses under the tight time con- straints imposed by a political Campaign must be to use other address sources which have been compiled, checked and validated at a more leisurely pace. A common directory of street names within each zip code for each metropolitan area could be used to automatically correct spellings and to flag variances. Two good sources for this are the Address Coding Guide developed by Reuben H. Donnelley and the Universal Occupant Lists also developed by the direct mail companies. Name redundancy should be eliminated. This can easily be done by sorting the files prior to editing and then checking for consecutive repeating names. Specific field edit recommendations are shown at TAB 19. ALGORITHMS FOR EXTENDING DATA Ethnic origin of names was determined by comparing the surname with a precompiled list of names and by matching the last set of characters in the name against a prescribed set of endings. Procedures were developed for Spanish, Polish, Jewish, Irish and Italian groupings. The exact lists and endings used for each ethnic group are shown in TAB 20. The greatest potential problem in determining ethnic grouping from the surname is insuring that the ethnic groupings are exclusive, i.e., insuring that if a surname is assigned to a specific ethnic group, that the individual does indeed belong to the group. This problem is most acute in determining Jewish surnames and in separating Irish from other Angle-Saxon names. (For example, the name Schwartz can be both Jewish and German and it is a mistake to arbitrarily assign this name to a Jewish group.) The second potential problem with the use of surnames is the standardization of prefixes. Prefixes such as '0', 'Di', or 'D' must be in standard posi- tions in order that these names be properly assigned. Telephone number, census tract, age groupings and income grouping were all appended to each voter record by combining the Voter Registration Data Base with selected data elements from the Reuben H. Donnelley Universal List. A match code was extracted for each registered voter household. For Type 1 addresses this code consisted of Zip Code, county, state, last four characters of house number, first character of street name and first, third and fourth character of last name. For Type 2 and 3 addresses, this code was Zip Code, state, county, and first, third and fourth characters of last name. A similar match code was extracted from the R.H. Donnelley Universal List. See TAB 21. These two sets of match codes were sorted into the same sequence and compared. Each time a match was found, the telephone number, census tract, dwelling size and FIND (Family Income Detector) code were extracted from the R.H. Donnelley Universal List and appended to the Voter Registration Data Base. The match code technique is the only feasible means of combining two separately developed name lists. However, the actual match code used is variable and can be adjusted depending upon the accuracy required. The match code for Type 1 addresses was valid. The match code for Type 2 and 3 addresses was not valid. The code in these instances should be changed to include more characters in the surname. The Reuben H. Donnelley Universal lists contained 1960 census tract codes. 1970 census tract data was added to each file using the Address Coding Guide supplied by R.H. Donnelley and comparing addresses between the two files. See TAB 22. Peripheral Urban Ethnics (PUE) and black ghettos were determined by 1970 census tract data. All individual voters who resided in ghettos census tracts and whose sur- names indicated that the voter was not one of the specified ethnic groupings (Irish, Jewish, Spanish, Italian or Polish) was designated black. All individual voters who resided in census tracts designated as PUE were so coded. Because some voters had not matched the R.H. Donnelley Universal list and hence contained no census tract codes, it was necessary to extend black and PUE designations through entire precincts. This was accomplished on the following basis: 1. Counts were generated for each precinct showing the total number of households in the precinct, the number of households with census tract, and the number of households designated as black or PUE based upon a match of census tracts. 2. If more than 15% of the households in a precinct contained census tract matches and if more than 50% of all census tract households were designated black or PUE, then all households in the precinct were designated black or PUE. The exception were names which had previously been identified as one of the special ethnic groupings. 24 1972 COMPOSITE ELECTION STATISTICS and BRIEF ANALYSIS for 1974 Prepared by: Manyon M. Millican January 1973 REPUBLICAN GAINS Due to redistricting the 24 states of the East and Midwest lost a total of 9 districts and yet showed a net gain of 6 seats. The 13 states of the South had an increase of only 2 districts, yet gained a total of 5 new seats. The 13 Western states, with an increase of 7 new districts, only gained 2. ne seats, truly disappointing in view of the fact that gains the 50's and 60's came where the population increased. (13) Redistricting Gain Total gained +7 new seats +2R 42D - 34R (13) gained +2 new seats +6R 84D - 37R Idwe (12) lost -4 seats +3R 51D - 70R East (12) lost -5 seats +3R 65D - 52R +13R 242D - 193R Voting statistics substantiate that our gains to become a majority party uld come from the South and the sunbelt of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California in addition to our base in the Midwest. In other words, we must continue our gains in the Last and Midwest and our giant gains in the South and the West (?). However, the West failed to make the significant gains that statistics would indicate it should. the South were not what they should have been in this writer's opinion. At least an additional 12 seats should have been won from this area (there are 19 marginal Democrat districts alone this area) excluding our gain of 6 new seats. (See Table v) Of the 121 districts in the South, there are 84D to 37R seats with 29 of the Demorrcat seats uncontested. Nine of these were in Texas, 6 in Louisiana, 5 in Georgia and 2 in Florida. : significant statistic is that in 1960 the South had only 8 memblican congressmen and in 12 years they are at 37. Yet the total should be close to 60 had proper priorities been emphasized. A tic that would suggest this to be a valid argument is that in 2 the same period the South went from 2 Republican Senators to 10 of 26, a gain of 500%. However, while we were making good Senate gains in the South we were losing such Republican seats as Iowa (2), Maine (2), Montana (1), New Hampshire (1), North Dakota (1), South Dakota (1), Wyoming (1), Colorado (1) and Indiana (2) - a total loss of 12 seats. WHY NO COATTAILS? NO ORGANIZATION It is incredible with a 60% victory by the President that we lost 4 Senate seats plus failing to keep 2 seats that were previously Republican, not to mention the meager 12 seat gain in the House. These losses in the Senate and poor gains in the House are primarily due to lack of organization at the precinct and county level in addition to poor candidate recruitment. The third ingredient, money, was adequate in a boon Republican year for fund-raising. We will not gain control of the Congress until we muster a national, monolithic organizational approach at the congressional district level consisting of precinct organization plans of find 'em, register 'em, vote 'en, and count 'cn, plus a well-coordinated national candidate recruitment drive (plus money, of course) It is the major responsibility of a party (nationally) to cause the aforementioned to happen. If it is not done, then we as a party cannot exploit the President's "New Majority", thus not becoming the majority party nor winning the White House in 1976. HOUSE AND SENATE RACES IN 1974 We need 26 new seats in the House and 8 new seats in the Senate to control both. The odds are stiff to accomplish either in the next 2 years due to incumbencies and/or retirements, and just numbers in the House. However, control of either is possible in 1976 if we do our homework in 1974. 18 Democrats and 15 Republicans are up in the Senate in 1974, with 4 possible Republican retirees and only 2 possible Democrat retirees and 5 of the 18 Democrats from the Deep South (and tought to beat). However, 5 to 8 Democrats could be beaten in 1974 and, if we maintained our strength, substantial guins could made, CONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY * Up in 1974 ** Up in 1973 TP Third Party STATES Electoral Votes: 141 / -4 over 1970) 1970 1972 1974 122 se Districts 69D - 53R 117 House Districts 65D - 52R 12 Governors 6D - 6R 24 ate Seats 9D - 15R 24 Senate Seats I1D - 13R 12 ernors 4D 8R 12 Governors 6D 6R * 3D - 5R St # House Senate + - # House Senate 1974 Gov. Plurality % 1974 Conn 6 4D 2R ID 1R 6 3D 3R 1D* 1R Ribicoff - R* +81,599 53.8 Meskill Del re .1 - 1R - 2R 1 - 1R ID 1R D - Maine 2 2D - 1D 1R 2 ID 1R 2D - D* - -890 49.9 Curtis Maryland 8 5D 3R - 2R S 4D 4R - 2R* Mathias D* - -325,243 32.3 Mandel Mass. 12 SD 4R ID 1R 12 8D 4R ID 1R - R* +259,354 51.8 Sargent N. R. 2 - 2R ID 1R 2 - 2R ID 11:20 Cotton - R* TP+4,200 46.0 Peterson N. J. 15 SD 7R 1D 1R 15 8D 7R ID 1R - R* ** Cahill (') N. Y. 41 23D 18R - 2R -2 39 22D 17R - 2R* Javits - R* +730.006 51.2 Rockefelle Pa. 27 12D 15R - 2R -2 25 13D 12R - 2R* Schweiker D* - -500,175 41.7 Shapp R. I. 2 2D - 2D - 2 2D - 2D D - Verment 1 1R - 2R 1 - IR - 2R* Aiken D - W. Va. 5 5D - 2D - -1 4 4D - 2D - R TOTAL * * * 122 69D 53R 9D 15R -5 117 65D 52R 11D 13R 1D 5R 3D 5R 3D 5R TABLE II CONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY * Up in 1974 MIDWEST STATES (Electoral Votes: 145 / -4 over 1970) 1970 1972 1974 125 House Districts 56D - 69R 121 House Districts 51D - 70R 12 Governor 8D - 4R 24 Senate Seats 14D - 10R 24 Senate Seats 15D - 9R * 6D - 2R 12 Governors 9D - 3R 12 Governors 8D - 4R * 5D - 3R States # House Senate +- # House Senate 1974 Governor Pluralitv % 1974 Illinois 24 12D 12R 1D 1R 24 10D 14R ID 1R ---- D ----- -- Indiana 11 5D 6R 2D --- 11 4D 7R 2D" - Bayh - R ---- -- Iowa 7 3D 4R 1D 1R -1 6 3D 3R 2D* - Hughes - R* +34,483 51 Ray Cansco 5 1D 4R -- 2R 5 ID 4R -- 2R* Dole D* - -71,384 54 Docking Echigen 19 7D 12R 1D 1R 19 7D 12R ID 1R - R* +44,111 50.4 Milliken linn. 8 4D 4R 2D --- 8 4D 4R 2D - --- D" - -116,141 45.5 Anderson Nebraska 3 -- 3R -- 2R 3 --- 3R -- 2R D* - -46,558 43.8 Exon issouvi 10 9D 1R 2D 10 9D 1R 2D* - - Eagleton - R ---- -- D. 2 1D 1R ID 1R -1 1 -- 1R 1D 1R* Young D - Ohio 24 7D 17R -- 2R -1 23 7D 16R --- 2R* Saxbe D:: - -342,811 43.4 Gilligan D. 2 2D -- 2D 2 ID 1R 2D* - McGovern D* - -23,269 45.2 Kneip Wisc. 10 5D 5R 2D -1 9 SD 4R 2D* - Nelson D* - -125,786 44.9 Lucey TOTAL * 125 56D 69R 14D 10R -4 121 51D 70R 15D.9R 5D 3R 8D 4R 6D 2R ABLE I CONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY * Up in 1974 TP Third Party STATES (Electoral Votes: 102 / +7 over 1970) 970 1972 1974 9 1. Districts 39D - 30R 76 House Districts 42D - 34R 13 Governors 7D - 6R 26 Se: :e Seats 15D - 11R 26 Senate Seats 15D - 11R 13 G: nors 6D - 7R 13 Governors 7D 6R 10 up in '74 (5D - 5R) cat # House Senate + - # House Senate 1974 Governor Plurality % 1974 # Maska 1 1D - 1D IR 1 ID - 1D* 1R Gravel : Dis - -5,045 46.9 Egan Arizon: 3 1D 2R - 2R +1 4 ID 3R - 2R* Goldwater - R* +7,303 50.9 Williams Calif. 38 20D 18R 2D - +5 43 23D 20R 2D* - Cranston - R* +501,057 52.8 Reagan Colo. 4 2D 2R - 2R +1 5 2D 3R ID 1R* Deminick - R* +48,567 52.5 Love Hawaii 2 2D - ID 1R 2 2D - ID* IR Inouye D* - -36,563 42.6 Burns Idaho 2 - 2R 1D IR 2 - 2R ID* 1R Church D* - -10,896 47.8 Andrus Montana 2 ID 1R 2D - 2 1D 1R 2D - D - Nevada 1 1D - 2D - 1 - 1R 2D* - Bible D* T.P -6,297 43.8 O'Callaghan N. Mex. 2 1D 1R 2D - 2 ID 1R ID 1R ---- Drs - -14,195 46.4 King Oregon 4 2D 2R - 2R 4 2D 2R - 2R* Packwood - R* +76,072 55.5 McCall Utah 2 1D 1R ID 1R 2 2D - ID 1R* Bennett D Wash. 7 6D 1R 2D - 7 6D 1R 2D* - Magnuson - R Wyoming 1 ID - ID 1R I ID - ID 1R ---- - R* +30,241 62.8 Hathaway TOTAL 69 39D 30R 15D 11R +7 76 42D 34R 15D 11R 6D 4R 7D 6R 5D 5R TABLE IV CONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY it Up in 1974 ** Up in 1975 *** Up in 1973 SOUTHERN STATES (Electoral Votes: 147 / +2 over 1970) 1970 1972 1974 119 House Districts S8D - 31R 121 House Districts 84D - 37R 13 Governors 10D - 3R 26 Schate Seats 18D - SR 26 Senate Seats 16D - 10R Up in 1974 (7D - 1R) 13 Governors 11D - 2R 13 Governors 10D - 3R Up in 1973 (--- 1R) States # House Senate + - # House Senate 1974 Governor Plurality % 1974 Mabana 8 5D 3R 2D - -1 7 4D 3R 2D* - Allen D* - 100 Vallace Arkansas 4 3D IR 2D - 4 3D 1R 2D* - Fulbright Dr - Bumpers Florida 12 9D 3R ID IR +3 15 11D 4R ID IR" Gurney Drs - Askew corp 10 SD 2R 2D - 10 9D 1R 2D* - Talmadge D* - Carter Kentucky 7 5D 2R - 2R 7 5D 2R 1D 1R* Cook D / Louislana 8 SD - 2D - 8 7D 1R 2D* - Long D - ** 1975 Missionippi 5 5D - 2D - 5 3D 2R 2D - D - : N. Car lina 11 7D 4R 2D - 11 7D 4R 1D* IR Ervin I R Oklah 6 4D 2R 1D IR 6 5D 1R - 2R* Bellmon D* - -2,181 48.1 Hall Carolina 6 5D 1R ID 1R 6 4D 2R 1D* 1R Hollings D* - -29,318 45.6 West Tenne 9 5D 4R - 2R -1 8 3D 5R - 2R - R* +66,256 52.0 Dunn Texas 23 20D 3R 1D IR +1 24 20D 4R 1D 1R D* - -101,369 45.0 Briscoe irginis 10 4D 6R 2D - 10 3D 7R ID 1R I R* *** Holton TOTAL * * 119 8SD 31R 18D 8R +2 121 84D 37R 16D 10R 6D 3R 10D 3R 7D 1R NATE INVENTORY BY REGION 1 Democrat and 5 Republicans 5 Democrats and 3 Republicans 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans 6 Democrats and 4 Republicans 18 Democrats 15 Republicans CUSE INVENTORY (Table V) called "safe" seats (178D and 141R) of the 435 : marginal seats (67D and 49R) to fight over for : control. Democrats are most vulnerable in the th 40 of their 67 marginal seats. We are most Midwest with 17 seats that are marginal. the House we would have to win 67% of. the total while not losing any of our 141 so-called "safe" =y difficult task! That should be our objective 7% of the 116 marginal seats. Should we only marginal seats we will then be only 7 seats away 1976. be implemented at the county and precinct tional districts by our national party if we are party. have: ididates 4 TABLE V HOUSE INVENTORY Total of Marginal and Safe Districts EASTERN (117 Districts) M - D M - R Total S D S R Total 21 10 31 45 41 86 : SOUTHERN (121 Districts) M - D M - R Total S ID S R Total 19 14 33 65 23 88 MIDWESTERN (121 Districts) M D M - R Total S D S R Total 13 17 30 38 53 91 WESTERN (76 Districts) M D M - R Total S - D S - R Total 14 8 22 30 24 54 67 (58%) 49 (42%) 178 (56%) 141 (44%) 116 : 319 Total Marginal Total Safe 27% 73% 5.5. to Makeup Democrat 243 Republican 192 51 26 seats for majority TABLE VI MARGINAL CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS TP--Third Party EASTERN STATES SOUTHERN STATES (con.) House % Plurality House % Plurality Conn. #5-R 51.1 +5,256 La. #3-R 51.8 +4,213 #3-D 46.8 -14,947 Miss. #4-R 47.1 +3,257 Del. NONE #5-R 55.2 +11,628 Maine #2-R 54.4 +13,240 N. C. #4-D 49.7 -971 #1-D 41.7 -26,049 7-D 40.3 -16,623 Md. #4-R 59.2 +25,881 #3-D('70) 40.0 -13,841 Mass. #4-D/TP 45.0 -9,433 #6-D 35.0 -26,954 #5-R/TP 53.4 +18,026 #11-D 40.5 -29,544 #12-D 49.7 -1,207 Okla. 1-D 43.9 -19,426 N. H. NONE #5-D 41.9 -16,367 N. J. #1-R 52.8 +9,615 S. C. 1-D 44.9 -11,635 #3-D 46.7 -12,176 #6-R 52.5 +5,425 #4-D 42.1 -25,878 Tenn. #3-R 55.3 +19,913 #9-D 44.2 -24,756 #5-D 37.1 -37,051 #13-R 56.3 +22,951 #6-R 55.1 +16,441 15-D 47.9 -17,749 #8-R 55.5 +18,529 N. Y. #3-R/TP 53.8 452,069 Texas #5-R 55.7 +15,236 #6-D 47.6 -9,449 #13-R 54.8 +15,061 #15-D/TP 43.5 -11,899 221-D 41.9 -23,580 (17-D 41.1 -19,224 Va. #4-R 49.9 +11,998 23-R 53.4 +10,089 #6-R 54.3 +20,544 #26-R/TP 48.7 +18,262 #8-R 44.9 +8,897 #31-R/TP 54.3 +22,824 #10-R 56.6 +23,310 32-D 43.7 -20,849 Pa. #4-D 44.1 -26,965 MIDWESTERN STATES #22-D 40.4 -22,602 23-R 57.4 +20,536 House % Plurality #25-D 44.4 -16,050 R. I. NONE Ill. #10-R 51.6 +7,173 Vermont NONE #11-D 46.8 -13,268 W. Va. #4-D 40.0 -30,443 #21-R 54.8 +17,443 22-D 43.2 -26,228 SOUTHEIN STATES Ind. #1-1) 49.3 -1,811 2-R 54.1 +14,615 llouse % Plurality #3-D 43.8 -22,456 #4-D 48.4 -5,833 Ala. 2-R 55.3 -19,952 #11-R 51.1 +4,241 Fla. 4-D 44.0 -18,692 Iowa #1-D 44.8 -16,788 #5-D 44.5 -18,611 #2-D 41.3 -19,219 #8-D 42.4 -22,315 #6-R 51.4 +4,350 #11-D 39.8 -37,502 Kansas #2-D 36.8 -29,364 #15-D 43.4 -19,601 Mich. #6-R 50.6 +2,239 Ga. #5-D 46.5 -9,136 #12-D 49.1 -2,944 57-D (0.1 -17,705 #14-D 42.7 -25,518 425,040 #18-R 54.9 +22,851 -7,237 TABLE VI (con.) : MIDNESTERN STATES (con.) House % Plurality Minn. #6-R 51.1 +4,744 #7-D 41.0 -39,977 Neb. NONE Mo. #4-D 42.3 -22,658 #6-D 45.3 -19,045 #8-D 39.3 -27,575 N. D. NONE Ohio #8-R 51.7 +1,592 #16-R 53.8 +9,711 #23-R/TP 50.1 +3,561 S. D. #2-R 55.0 +12,750 Wisc. #3-R/TP 54.7 +19,886 #8-R/TP 50.5 +3,504 WESTERN STATES House % Plurality Alaska AL-D 44.8 -8,018 Ariz. #4-R 53.5 +9,686 Calif. #2-D/TP 22.5 -86,427 #7-D/TP 38.0 -40,500 #8-D 47.1 -11,076 #11-D/TP 37.0 -43,925 #12-R 54.0 +21,287 #31-D/TP 42.5 -16,078 #36-R/TP 52.7 +5,468 #38-D 43.7 -17,397 Colo. #1-D/TP 47.4 -9,639 #4-R 51.4 +5,265 Hawaii #]-D 45.4 -12,424 #2-D 43.0 -19,577 Idaho N 0 N E Mont. #1-R 57.6 +11,407 Nev. AL-R 51.5 +4,596 N. Mex. NONE Orc. NONE Utah #2-D 44.9 -19,167 Wash. #1-D 49.7 -1,090 #4-D 47.3 -7,697 Wyo. AL-D 48.3 -4,872 TABLE VII MARGINAL AND SAFE DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN SEATS Total M-D(#) M-R(#) S-D(#) S-R(#) MIDWEST STATES Illinois 24 1(22) 3(10,11,21) 8(1,2,5,7, 12(3,4,6,12-20) 9,23,24) Indiana 11 3(1,3,4) 2(2,11) 1(9) 5(5-8,10) Iowa 6 2(1,2) 2(5,6) 1(4) 1(3) Michigan 19 2(12,14) 3(2,6,18) 6(1,13,15, 8(3-5,7-11) 16,17,19) Kansas 5 1(2) 4(1,3-5) Minnesota 8 1(7) 1(6) 3(4,5,8) 3(1,2,3) Nebraska 3 3(1,2,3) Missouri 10 3(4,6,8) 6(1-3,9,10) 1(7) N. Dakota 1 1(AL) Ohio 23 3(8,16,23) 7(9,14,18-22) 3(1-7,10-13,15,17) S. Dakota 2 1(2) 1(1) Wisconsin 9 2(3,8) 5(1,2,4,5,7) 2(6,9) 121 13 17 38 53 WESTERN STATES Alaska 1 1(AL) Arizona 4 1(4) 1(2) 2(1,3) California 43 5(2,7,8 3(6,12,36) 19(1,3-5,11, 16(10,13,17,18,20,23- 31,38) 14-16,19, 25,27,28,32,33,39, 21,22,26, 40,42,43) 29,30,34, 35,37,41) Colorado 5 1(1) 1(4) 1(3) 2(2,5) Hawaii 2 2(1,2) Idaho 2 2(1,2) Montana 2 1(1) 1(2) Nevada 1 1(AL) New Mexico 2 1(1) 1(2) Oregon 4 2(2,3) 2(1,4) Utah 2 2(1,2) Washington 7 2(1,4) 5(2,3,5-7) Wyoming 1 1(AL) 76 14, 8 30 24 EASTERN STATES Connecticut 6 2(1,3) 1(5) 1(6) 2(2 4) Delaware 1 1(AL, Maine 2 1(1) 1(2) Maryland 8 4(2,3,6,7) 4(1,4,5,8) TABLE VII (con.) Total M-D(#) M-R(#) S-D(#) S-R(#) Massachusetts 12 3(4,9,12) 1(5) 6(2,3,6,8,11) 2(1,10) New Hampshire 2 2(1,2) New Jersey 15 5(3,4,9,11, 2(1,13) 3(8,10,14) 5(2,5,6,7,12) 15) New York 39 4(6,15,17, 5(1,3. 17(7-14,16, 13(2,4,5,25,27,29, 32) 23,26, 18-22,24, 30,33,34,35,36, 31) 28,37) 38,39) Pennsylvania 25 3(4,22,25) 1(23) 10(1-3,6,11, 11(5,7-10,12,13, 14,15,20, 16-19) 21,24) Rhode Island 2 2(1,2) Vermont 1 1(AL) West Virginia 4 1(4) 3(1,2,3) 117 19 11 46 41 SOUTHERN STATES Alabama 7 1(2) 4(3,4,5,7) 2(1,6) Arkansas 4 3(1,2,4) 1(3) Florida 15 5(4,5,8,11, 6(1-3,7,13, 4(6,9,10,12) 15) 14) Georgia 10 2(5,7) 7(1-3,6,8,10) 1(4) Kentucky 7 2(2,6) 3(3,1,7) 2(4,5) Louisiana 8 1(3) 7(1,2,4-8) Mississippi 5 2(4,5) 3(1,2,3) North Carolina 11 3(4,7,11) 4(1,2,3,6) 4(5,8-10) Oklahoma 6 2(1,5) 3(2-4) 1(6) South Carolina 6 1(1) 1(6) 3(3-5) 1(2) Tennessee 8 1(5) 3(3,6,8) 2(4,7) 2(1,2) Texas 24 3(8,21,24) 2(5,13) 17(1,2,4,6,9- 2(3,7) 12,14-20,22, 23) Virginia 10 4(4,6,8,10) 3(1,3,5) 3(2,7,9) Totals 121 19 14 65 23 C Election 1972 SUMMARY OF ELECTION RESULTS FOR 50 STATES, D.C. (Complete list of unofficial returns, p. 2993-3001) House (2 R): Incumbent Orval Hansen (R) was elected to a third term, and Steven D. Symms (R) was West elected to the seat vacated by McClure. Nevada. President: Nixon won the state's three President Nixon defeated Sen: George McGovern in electoral votes. 13 western states and won 102 electoral votes. House (1 R): Republicans took over the at-large seat Seven Senate seats and three governorships were up. as David Towell (R), 35, defeated James H. Bilbray (D), year. There were two party turnovers among the 34. Bilbray defeated Rep. Walter S. Baring (D) in the races: Colorado elected a Democratic senator and primary. Mexico a Republican senator. There was no party Montana. President: Nixon won the state's four nover among the governors. electoral votes. Of the 76 House districts the West, the Democrats Senator: Incumbent Lee Metcalf (D), 61, was elected 43 and the Republicans won 33. or the seven new to a third term. seats added by reapportionment, the Republicans Governor: Lt. Gov. Thomas L. Judge (D), 38, was four and the Democrats won three. Party control of elected. defeating State Sen. Ed Smith (R), 52. Gov. scats Was reversed, giving the Republicans a net Forrest H. Anderson (D) is retiring. of one representative. House (1 D, I R): Both incumbents won re-election. Alaska. President: Vixon won the state's three elec- New Mexico: President: Nixon took the state's four votes. electoral votes. Senator: Incumbent Ted Stevens (R), 4S, was elected Senator: Pete V. Domenici (R), 40, will replace retir- first full term. ing Sen. Clinton P. Anderson (D) in the Senate. Domenici House (1 D): Nick Begich (D), 40, was elected to a defeated former State Rep. Jack Daniels (D). ond term as Alaska's at-large representative. Begich House (1 D, 1 R): Both incumbents were re-elected. appeared in a light plane while campaigning Oct. 15. Oregon. President: Nixon won the state's six elec- he survived, Gov. William A. Egan (D) must call a toral votes. election to replace him. Senator: Incumbent Mark O. Hatfield (R), 50, was Arizona. President: Nixon won the state's six elec- elected to a second term. defeating former Sen. Wayne votes. L. Morse (D), 71. House (1 D, 3 R): All three incumbents were re- House (2D, 2R): All four incumbents were re-elected. and ? Republican was elected to the new seat Utah. President: Nixon won the state's four electoral as a result of reapportionment. votes. California. President: Nixon won the state's 45 elec- Governor: Calvin L. Rampton (I), 58, won a third votes. term. House (23 D, 20 R): All 34 California incumbents House (2 D): Both House seats went Den atic as re-election were successful. Democrats gained incumbent K. Gunn McKay (D), 47, was re-elected and seats and Republicans two, reflecting the five new attorney Wayne Owens (D), 35, defeated incumbent seats in California because of reapportionment. Sherman P. Lloyd (R), who has served five terms. Colorado. President: Nixon won the state's seven Washington. President: Nixon won the state's nine votes. electoral votes. Senator: Former State Rep. Floyd K. Haskell (D), Governor: Incumbent Daniel J. Evans (R), 46, was defeated Sen. Gordon Allott (R), G5, denying him a elected to a third term. term. House (7 D): All six Democratic incumbents were re- House (2 D, 3 R): Republicans had an over-all gain elected. and the Democrats picked up the seat of retiring seat. Incumbent James D. (Mike) McKevitt (R) Rep. Thomas M. Pelly (R). defeated by Patricia Schroeder (D): but Republicans Wyeming. President: Nixon won the state's three two other seats-one in a new district created when electoral votes. lorado gained one sent because of reapportionment, the Senator: Incumbent Clifford P. Hansen (R), 59, was in Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall's (D) district. He was elected to a second term. eated in a primary. House (1 D): Teno Roncalio (D), JE, was elected to Hawaii. President: Nixon won the state's four elec- a third term as Wyoming's at-large representative. votes. House (2D): Both incumbents won re-election. East IcAho. President: Nixon WOD the state's four elec- Nixon cerried 11 of 12 states in the East with 124 electoral votes. McGovern won in Massachusetts and is replace retiring Sen. the District of Columbia, the two sources of his total of (R). only 17 electoral votes. Nov. 11, 1972-PAGE State Summaries 2 In the seven Seriate races in the East, incumbents Senator: Incumbent Republican Clifford P. Case, held five and lost, two. Incumbents Margaret Chase 68, was elected to a fourth term, defeating former Rep. Smith (R Maine) and J. Caleb Boggs (R Del.) both were Paul J. Krebs (D 1965-67), 60, and three minor-party defeated by Democrats. candidates. There were two party turnovers in the five House (8 D; 7 R): Thirteen districts re-elected in- governors' races. In Delaware and Vermont, Democrats cumbents-five Republicans and eight Democrats. Repub- will replace Republicans. licans were elected to a seat being vacated by a Repub- or the 117 House seats at stake, Democrats_won-60 lican and to a new seat created by redistricting. and Republicans won 51. Party control of five-seats New York. President: Nixon won the state's switched hands for a Republican net gain of three seats. 41 electoral votes. Connecticut. President: Nixon won the state's eight House (22 D, 17 R): Thirty-three incumbents-20 electoral votes. Democrats and 13 Republicans-were re-elected to the House (3 D; 3 R): Three Democratic and two House from New York, which lost two seats for a new Republican incumbents were re-elected, but incumbent total of 39. Four new Republicans and two new Demo- Democrat John S. Monagan, 60, lost his 5th Dis- crats were elected. trict seat to State Rep. Ronald A. Sarasin (R), 37. Pennsylvania. President: Nixon won the state's Delaware. President: Nixon won the state's three 27 electoral votes. electoral votes. House (13 D, 12 R): Incumbents were re-elected in Senator: Democrat Joseph R. Biden Jr., 20, un- 24 of 25 districts in Pennsylvania, which lost two seated two-term incumbent J. Caleb Boggs (R), 63, in a seats through reapportionment. In the only race without major upset. An American Party candidate was third. an incumbent candidate, a Republican was elected in Governor: State house minority leader Sherman W. the new 9th District. Tribbitt (D), 49, defeated incumbent Republican Gov. Rhode Island. President: Nixon won the state's Russell W. Peterson, 55, with an American Party candi- four electoral votes. date running third. Senator: Incumbent. Democrat Claiborne Pell, 53. House (1 R): Incumbent Republican Pierre S. (Pote) won a third term by defeating Republican John H. du Pont, 37, was elected to a second term. Chafee, 49, former Rhode Island governor and former Maine. President: Nixon won the state's four elec- secretary of the Navy. toral votes. Governor. Democrat Phillip W. Noel, 41, the Senator: Incumbent Republican Margaret Chase mayor of Warwick, defeated Republican Herbert F. Smith, 74, lost to Rep. William D. Hathaway (D), 48, DeSimone, 42, and an independent candidate. in an upset. House (2 1)): Both incumbents were re-elected. House (1 D, 1 R): Incumbent Democrat Peter N. Vermont. President: Nixon won the state's three Kyros, 46, won a fourth term, and Republican William electoral votes. S. Cohen, 32, mayor of Bangor, captured the Democratic Governor: Thomas P. Salmon, 40. the Democrat- seat vacated by Bathaway. Independent Vermonters Party candidate, upset Repub- Maryland. President: Nixon won the state's lican Luther F. Hackett, 39, the chosen successor to re- 10 electoral votes. tiring Gov. Deane C. Davis (R). House (4 1), 4 R): Seven incumbents-four Demo- House (1 R): Incumbent Republican Richard W. crats and three Republicans-were re-elected. A Repub- Mallary, 43, was elected to a full term. lican was elected to the new 4th District seat. West Virginia. President: Nixon won the state's six electoral votes. Massachusetts. President: McGovern won the Senator: Incumbent Democrat Jennings Randolph state's 14 electoral votes. 70, was elected to a third full term, defeating Senator: Republican Edward W. Brooke, 52, was Republican State Sen. Louise Leonard, 53. elected to a second term. Governor: Incumbent Republican Arch Moore, 49. House (9 D; 3 R): Nine incumbents-seven Demo- defeated Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV, 35, the secre- crats and two Republicans-were re-elected. But Demo- tary of state. crat Louise Day Hicks, 52. lost her 9th District seat to House (4 D): Four incumbent Democrats were TO: Boston city councilman John Joseph Mockley, 45. a elected. A fifth Democratic seat was abolished through Democrat who ran as an independent candidate. Repub- licans and Democrats split two seats vacated by Repub- reapportionment. District of Columbia. President: McGovern won licans. A Republican won in the 5th District and a the District's three electoral votes. Democrat won in the 12th. New Hampshire. President: Nixon won the state's South four electoral votes. Senator: Incumbent Democrat Thomas J. McIntyre, Nixon defeated McGovern in all 13 states of th: 57, won a second full term by defeating former Gov. South and won the region's 147 electoral votes. Wesley Powell (1959-63), 56, the Republican candidate. In the 12 Senate races, party control switched in four Governor: Republican Meldrim Thomson Jr., GO, states. Republicans took over in North Carolina, Oklahom defeated Democrat Roger J. Crowley Jr., 53, and in- and Virginia. A Democrat will I place a Republican i. dependent condulate Maler in Melane, 47. the House (2R): Both incumbents were re-clected. Of the tizee races for povernor, oniv m No. New Jersey. President: Nixon won the state's 17 Carolina was there a party change from Democrat : electoral votes. Republican. PAGE 2054-Nov. 11, 1072 State Summaries 3 or the 121 House seats in the 13 states, 84 were won Governor: James E. Holshouser (R), 37, was elected, by Democrats and 37 by Republicans. There were changes defeating Hargrove (Skipper) Bowles Jr. (D), 52. and an in party control of nine seats for a net gain of five seals American Party candidate. Gov. Robert W. Scott (D) for the Republicans. was ineligible for another term. Alabama. President: Nixon won the state's nine House: (7 D, 4 R): There was no change in the electoral votes. party breakdown. A Democrat won the 4th District seat Senator: Incumbent John J. Sparkman (D), 72, was vacated by Galitianakis. elected to a sixth term, defeating Winton M. Blount Jr. Oklahoma. President: Nixon won the state's eight (R), 51, and three minor-party candidates. electoral votes. House: (4 D, 3 R): All seven incumbents were re- Senate: Former Gov. Dewey F. Bartlett (R 1967- elected. Alabama lost one seat because of redistricting. 71), 53, defeated Rep. Ed Edmondson (D), 53, and three Arkansas. President: Nixon won the state's six minor-party candidates. Sen. Fred R. Harris (D) did not electoral votes. seek re-election. Senator: Incumbent John L. McClellan (D), 76, was House (5 D, 1 R): Democrats picked up the 1st Dis- elected to a sixth term, defeating Wayne 11. Babbitt trict seat (Tulsa) retiring Rep. Page Belcher-(R). (R), 44. Edmondson's seat remains Democratic. Governor: Dale L. Bumpers (D), 47, was elected to South Carolina. President: Nixon won the state's second term, defeating Len E. Blaylock (R), 53. eight electoral votes. House: (3 D, 1 R): The party breakdown for the Senate. Incumbent Strom Thurmond (R), 69, was delegation remains the same, as before, although Rep. elected to a fifth term, defeating Eugene N. Zeigler (D), 51, David H. Pryor, 3S, resigned his 4th District seat to chal- and a minor-party candidate. lenge McClellan in the Democratic Senate primary. House (4 D, 2 R): Republicans gained one seat, in Florida. President: Nixon won the state's 17 the 1st District electoral electoral votes. Tennessee. President: Nixon won the state's 10 House: (11 D, 4 R): Florida gained three seats electoral votes. through redistricting. All 12 incumbents were re-elected. Senate: Incumbent Howard H. Baker Jr. (R), 46, was Democrats captured two of the new seats, and a Repub- elected to a second term, defeating Rep. Ray Blanton lican won the third. (D), 42. Georgia. President: Nixon won the state's 12 House: (3 D, 5 R): Democrats suffered a net loss of electoral votes. two seats, one because of the defeat of a Democratic Senate: Sam Nunn (D), 34, was elected, defeating meumbent, William R. Anderson, in the 6th District, Rep. Fletcher Thompson (R), 47. Sen. David H. Gam- and the other because of redistricting which cost brell (D) was defeated in the primary by Nunn. Tennessee one seat. House: (9 D, 1 R): The Democrats picked up the Texas. President: Nixon won the state's 26 5th District sent vacated by Thompson. electoral votes. Kentucky. President: Nixon won the state's nine Senate: Incumbent John G. Tower (R), 47, was electoral votes. elected to a third term. defeating Barefoot Sanders (D), Senate: Walter (Dee) Huddleston (D), 46, was 47, and two other candidates. elected, defeating former Gov. Louie B. Nunn (R 1968- Governor: Dolph Briscoe (D), 49, was elected, de- 72), 48, and American Party and People's Party candi- feating Henry C. Grover (R), 45, and two other candi- dates. dates. Incumbent Preston Smith (D) was defeated for House (5 D, 2 R): The party breakdown remains the renomination by Briscoe. same, with a Democrat replacing a retiring Democrat in House (20 D. 4 R : The Republicans had a net gain the 6th District. of one seat. A Republican defeated incumbent Earle Louisiana. President: Nixon won the state's 10 Cabell (D), in the 5th District. Incumbent Robert Price electoral votes. (R), defeated another incumbent, Graham Purcell (D), Senate: J. Bennett Johnston Jr. (D). 40. defented after redistricting forced the two into opposition in the Ben C. Toledano (R). 40. and John J. McKeithen (In- 13th District. Democrats were elected in the two new dependent), 54, a former Democratic governor (1964- seats created by redistricting. 72). Virginia. President: Nixon won the state's 12 House (7 D, 1 R): Veters sent a Republican to Con- electoral votes. gress from the state for the first time this century. elect- Senate: Rep. (1966-72) William Lloyd Scott (R), ing him in the 3rd District to replace a retiring Democrat. 57, defeated incumbent William B. Spong Jr. (D), 52. Mississippi. President: Nixon won the state's seven House (3 D, 7 R): Republicans gained a sent being electoral votes. vacated by a retiring Democrat in the 4th District. Senate: Incumbent James O. Eastland (D), 67, was elected to a sixth term, defeating Gil Carmichael (R), 45, and two independent candidates. Midwest House: (3 D, 2 R): Republicans picked up two seats formerly held by Denactors Richard Nixon carried all 12 states in the Midwest tricts. Incural North Carolina. President: INON won the seven Senate in 13 electoral votes. two changed party control. lowa and South Dakota both Senate: Jesse Helms (R). SO, defeated Rey. Nick' Peinecrats to seats held previously by Repub- Califianakis (D), 41 State Summaries 4 In the seven contests for governorships, five remained House (9 D; 1 R): All incumbents were re-elected. in the saine party column, a Democrat defeated the North Dakota. President: Nixon won the state's Republican governor 'of Illinois and a Missouri Republi- three electoral votes. can will replace a retiring Democratic governor. Governor: Rep. Arthur A. Link (D), 58, was The Midwest in 121 House races chose 70 Republicans elected, defenting Lt. Gov. Richard F. Larsen (R), 36. and 51 Democrats. Party control of five sents switched House (1 R): Because of reapportionment. North for a net gain of three for the Republicans. Dakota lost one seat held by the Democrats. Incumbent Illinois. President: Nixon won the state's 26 elec- Mark Andrews (R), 46, was elected to a fifth term, de- toral votes. feating Richard Ista (D), 43. Senator: Incumbent Charles H. Percy (R), 53, was Ohio. President: Nixon won the state's 25 elec- elected to a second term, defeating Rep. Roman C. toral votes. Pucinski (D), 53. House (7 D, 16 R): Ohio lost one Republican seat Governor: Daniel Walker (D), 49, defeated incum- as a result of redistricting. bent Richard B. Ogilvie (R), 49. South Dakota. President: Nixon won the state's House: (10 D, 14 R): Republicans gained two seats four electoral votes. in Illinois. One incumbent, Abner J. Mikva, was Senator: Rep. James Abourezk (D), 41, was elected, defeated in a new district. defeating Robert Hirsch (R), 46. Indiana. President: Nixon won the state's 13 Governor: Incumbent Richard F. Kneip (D), 39, was electoral votes. elected to a second term, defeating Carveth Thompson. Governor: Otis R. Bowen (R), 54, defeated former (R), 39. Gov. Matthew E. Welsh (1961-65), 60. House (1 D, 1 R): Abourezk's seat was filled by a House (4 D, 7 R): All incumbents but one-Andrew Republican. The other Democratic incumbent was re- Jacobs Jr. (1)), 40-were re-elected. elected. Iowa. President: Nixon won the state's eight Wisconsin. President: Nixon won the state's 11 electoral votes. electoral votes. Senator: Dick Clark (D), 43, defeated incumbent House (5 D, 4 R): Wisconsin lost one Republican Jack Miller (R), 56. sent as a result of redistricting. (incumbent David R. Governor: Incumbent Robert Ray (R), 42, was elected Obey (D), 33, defeated another incumbent, Alvin E. to a third term, defeating Paul Frazenburg (D), 55. O'Konski (R), 55, to represent their combined consti- House (3 D, 3 R): Because of redistricting, Iowa lost tuencies in the new 7th District. one Republican seat. John H. Kyl (R) was defeated in his race. against another incumbent Neal Smith (D). Incumbent Fred Schwengel, 65, accounted for another (Continued from p. 2960) Republican los to Edward Mezyinsky_(D). Kansas. President: Nixon won the state's seven HOUSE RACES electoral votes. Senator: Incutabent James B. Pearson (R), 52, was trouble defeating Republican John H. Kyl in Iowa's elected to a second term. defeating Arch O. Tetzlaff (D), 4th District, while David Obey trounced 30-year-veteran 46, and a Conservative Party candidate. Alvin E. O'Konski (R) in Wisconsin's 7th. Governor: Incumbent Robert Docking (D), 46, was elected to a fourth term, defenting Morris Kay (R), 40. West House (1D. 4R): All five incumbents were re-elected. Michigan. President: Nixon won the state's 21 Returns from the West were dominated by electoral votes. California, with its rich prize of five new House seats. Senator: Incumbent Robert P. Griffin (R), 48, Neither party had the votes to pass a partisan redistrict- was elected to a second term, defeating Frank J. Kelley ing bill, so they settled on a compromise that divided (D), 47. the five new seats this way: two Democratic, two Repub- House: (7 D, 12 R). No seats changed parties. lican, one tossap. That was the way it worked out. Rep. Minnesota. President: Nixon won the state's 10 Paul N. McCloskey Jr. (R), who led an anti-war crusade electoral votes. against President Nixon in the 1972 presidential prim- Senator: Incumbent Walter F. Mondale (D), 44, aries, moved into one of the Republican districts and won was elected in a second term, defeating Philip Hansen it. The other Republican district went to a popular state (R), 44. and a Socialist Labor candidate. senator, Republican Clair M. Burgener. The two Demo- House (4 D, 1 R): All eight incumbents were re- cratic districts went to Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. a black elected. state representative, and to former U.S. Rep. George E. Nebraska. President: Nixon won the state's five Brown Jr. (1) 1963-71). The tossup district went narrowly electoral votes. to State Rep. William M. Ketchum (R). Senator: Incumbent Carl T. Curtis (R). 67, was Colorado's new suburban district went Republican, elected to a fourth term, defeating Terry M. Carpenter as expected, for State Sen. William L. Armstrong. But (D), 72 two Colorado sents switched parties. In Denver, Democrat re-elected. Patricia Schroeder won an upset victory over freshman 12 Rep. James D. (Mike) McRevitt (11). And Republics James T. Johnson won the sent held by veteran Hep. Governer Christopher (Kit) Bond (R), 33. was Wayne N. Aspinall (D), who was defeated in " primary term. feating Edward L. Dowd (D). by law professor Alan Merson. House 4 HOUSE MEMBERSHIP IN THE 93RD CONGRESS ALABAMA 2. Hole Boggs (D) 1. Jock Edwords (R) HOUSE LINE-UP 3. David C. Treen (R)* 2. William 1. Dickinson (R) 4. Joe D. Waggonner (D) 3. Bill Nichols (D) Democrats 244 Republicans 191 5. Otto E. Passmon (D) 4. Tom Bevill (D) 6. John R. Rorick (D) 5. Robert E. Jones (D) 7. John B. Breoux (D) Freshinan Democrats 27 Freshman Republicans 42 6. John Buchonan (R) 8. Gillis W. long (D)*# Freshman Representative #Former Representative 7. Walter Flowers (D) MAINE ALASKA COLORADO 5. John C. Kiuczynski (D) 1. Peter N. Kyros (D) 1. Potricio Schroeder (D)* 6. Harold R. Collier (R) 2. William S. Cohen (R)* AL Nick Begich (D) 2. Donald G. Brotzmon (R) 7. George W. Collins (D) 3. Fronk C. Evons (D) 8. Don Rostenkowski (D) MARYLAND ARIZONA 4. James T. Johnson (R)* 9. Sidney R. Yotes (D) 1. Williom O. Mills (R) 1. John J. Rhodes (R) 5. William L. Armstrong (R)* 10. Samuel H. Young (R)* 2. Clarence D. Long (D) 2. Morris K. Udall (D) 11. Fronk Annunzio (D) 3. Paul S. Sorbanes (D) 3. Sam Steiger (R) CONNECTICUT 12. Philip M. Crone (R) 4. Marjorie S. Holt (R)* 4. John B. Conlon (R)* 1. William R. Coller (D) 13. Robert McClory (R) 5. Lowrence 1. Hogan (R) 2. Robert H. Steele (R) 14. John N. Erlenborn (R) 6. Goodloe E. Byron (D) ARKANSAS 3. Robert N. Giaimo (D) 15. Leslie C. Arends (R) 7. Perren J. Mitchell (D) 1. Bill Alexander (D) 4. Stewart B. McKinney (R) 16. John B. Anderson (R) 8. Gilbert Gude (R) 2. Wilbur D. Mills (D) 5. Ronold A. Sarasin (R)* 17. George M. O'Brien (R)* 3. John Poul Hommerschmidt (R) 6. Ello T. Grosso (D) 18. Robert H. Michel (R) MASSACHUSETTS 4. Roy Thornton (D)* 19. Tom Railsback (R) 1. Silvio O. Conte (R) DELAWARE 20. Pcul Findley (R) 2. Edword P. Bolond (D) CALIFORNIA AL Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont (R) 21. Edward R. Modigon (R)* 3. Horold D. Donohue (D) 1. Don H. Clausen (R) 22. George E. Shipley (D) 4. Robert F. Drinon (D) 2. Horold T. Johnson (D) FLORIDA 23. Melvin Price (D) 5. Poul W. Cronin (R)* 3. John E. Moss (D) 1. Robert L. F. Sikes (D) 24. Kenneth J. Groy (D) 6. Michael J. Horrington 10, 4. Robert 1. leggett (D) 2. Don Fuquo (D) 7. Torbert H. Mocdonald 0, 5. Phillip Burton (D) 3. Charles F. Bennett (D) INDIANA 8. Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D) 6. Williom S. Moilliard (R) 4. Bill Chappell Jr. (D) 1. Roy J. Modden (D) 9. John Joseph Mockley (D;* 7. Ronold V. Deliums (D) 5. William D. Gunter Jr. (D)* 2. Eorl F. Londgrabe (R) 10. Margaret M. Heckler (R) 8. Fortney H. (Pete) Stork (D)* 6. C. W. Bill Young (R) 3. John Brodemos (D) 11. James A. Burke (D) 9. Don Edwards (D) 7. Som Gibbons (D) 4. J. Edword Roush (D) 12. Gerry E. Studds (D)* 10. Charles S. Gubser (R) 8. James A. Holey (D) 5. Elwood H. Hillis (R) 11. leo J. Ryon (D)* 9. Louis Frey (R) 6. William G. Bray (R) MICHIGAN 12. Burt 1. Tokott (2) 10. L. A. (Skip) Sofolis (R)* 7. John T. Myers (R) 1. John Conyers Jr. (D) 13. Charles M. Teague (R) 11. Poul G. Rogers (D) 8. Roger H. Zion (R) 2. Morvin L. Esch (R) 14. Jerome R. Woldie (D) 12. J. Herbert Durke (2) 9. Ice H. Homilton (D) 3. Garry Brown (R) 15. John J. Mcf oil (D) 13. William Lehmon (D)* 10. David W. Dennis (R) 4. Edword Hutchinson (R) 16. B. F. Sisk (D) 14. Cloude Pepper (D) 11. Williom H. Hudnut III (8)* 5. Gerold R. Ford (R) 17. Poul N. McCloskey Jr. (R) 15. Donte B. Fosceli (D) 6. Charles E. Chamberfain (F 18. Robert B. (Sob) Mathias (R) IOWA 7. Donold W. Riegle Jr. ($) 19. Chet Holifield (D) GEORGIA 1. Edword Mezvinsky (D)* 8. Jomes Harvey (R) 20. Carlos J. Moorhood (R)* 1. Ronold B. (Bo) Ginn (D)* 2. John.C. Culver (D) 9. Guy Vonder Jogt (R) 21. Augustus F. Howkins (D) 2. Dawson Mothis (D) 3. H. R. Gross (R) 10. Elford A. Cederberg (R; 22. James C. Cormon (D) 3. Jock Brinkley (D) 4. Neal Smith (D) 11. Philip E. Ruppe (R) 23. Del Clawson (R) 4. Ben B. Elockburn (R) 5. William J. Scherle (R) 12. James G. O'Hara (0) 24. John H. Rousselot (R) 5. Andrew Young 10,* 6. Witey Mayne (R) 13. Charles C. Diggs Jr. (D: 25. Charles E. Wiggins (R) 6. John J. Flynt Jr. (D) 14. Lucien N. Nedzi (0). 26. Thomos M. Rees (D), 7. John W. Davis (D) KANSAS 15. William D. Ford (D) 27. Borry M. Goldwoter Jr. (R) 8. W. S. (Bill) Stuckey (D) 1. Keith G. Sebelius (R) 16. John D. Dingell (D) 28. Alphonzo Bell (R) 9. Phil M. Londrum (D) 2. William R. Roy (D) 17. Martho W. Griffiths (3, 29. George t: Danielson (D) 10. Robert G. Stephens Jr. (D) 3. terry Winn Jr. (R) 18. Robert J. Huber (R)* 30. Edward R. Roybol (D) 4. Garner E. Shriver (R) 19. William S. Broomfield (R) 31. Chories H. Wilson (D) HAWAII 5. Joe Skubitz (R) 32. Craig Hosmer (R) 1. Spark M. Motsunaga (D) MINNESOTA 33. Jerry L. Pettis (R) 2. Polsy T. Mink (D) KENTUCKY 1. Albert H. Quie (R) 34. Richard T. Honno (D) 1. Fronk A. Stubblefield (D) 2. Ancher Nelsen (R) 35. Glenn M. Anderson (D) IDAHO 2. William H. Notcher (D) 3. Bill Frenzel (R) 36. William M. Ketchum (R)* 1. Steven D. Symms (R)* 3. Romons 1. Mozzoli (D) 4. Joseph E. Korth (D) 37. Yvonne brothwoite Burke (D)* 2. Orvol Honsen (R) 4. M. G. (Gene) Snyder (R) 5. Donald M. Fraser (D) 38. George E. Brown Jr. (D)*/ 5. Tim Ice Corter (R) 6. John M. Zwach (R) 39. Andrew J. Hinshow (R)* ILLINOIS 6. John B. Breckinridge (D)* 7. Bob Bergland (D) 40. Bob Wilson (k) 1. Helph 11. Metcolle (D) 7. Corl D. Perkins (D) 8. John A. Blatnik (D) 41. Lianel Ven Deerlin (D) 2. M 1969 Marply (ii) 42. Cluir W. European (ii)* 3. Rebut 2 LOUISIANA MISSISSION 43. Victor V. Veysey (R) 4. Edword 1. Derwinski (R) 1. F. Edword Hebert (D) 1. Jamie 1. Whitten (D) PAGE 11, 1072 House 5 244 DEMOCRATS, 191 REPUBLICANS David R. Bowen (D)* 15. Hugh L. Corey (D) 2. Clem Rogers McSpadden (D)* 4. Roy Roberts (D) G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (D) 16. Elizabeth Holtzmon (D)* 3. Carl Albert (D) 5. Alon Steelman (R)* Thod Cochron (R)* 17. John M. Murphy (D) 4. Tom Steed (D) 6. Olin E. Teogue (D) Trent Lott (R)* 18. Edword I. Koch (D) 5. John Jormon (D) 7. Bill Archer (R) 19. Charles B. Rongel (D) 6. John N. Hoppy Comp (R) 8. Bob Eckhordt (D) SOURI 20. Bello S. Abzug (D) 9. Jock Brooks (D) Williom (Bill) Cloy (D) 21. Hermon Bodillo (D) OREGON 10. J. J. Pickle (D) James W. Symington (D) 22. Jonathen B. Bingham (D) 1. Wendell Wyott (R) 11. W. R. Pooge (D) Leonor K. Sullivon (D) 23. Peter A. Feyser (R) 2. AI Ullman (D) 12. Jim Wright (D) William J. Randoll (D) 24. Ogden R. Reid (D) 3. Edith Green (D) 13. Robert Price (R) Richard Bolling (D) 25. Homilton Fish Jr. (R) 4. John Dellenback (R) 14. John Young (D) Jerry Litton (D)* 26. Benjonin A. Gilmon (R)* 15. Eligio de lo Garza (D) Gene Taylor (R)* 27. Howard W. Robison (R) PENNSYLVANIA 16. Richard C. White (D) Richard H. Ichord (D) 28. Somuel S. Strotton (D) 1. William A. Borrett (D) 17. Omor Burleson (D) Williom 1. Hungote (D) 29. Corleton ). King (R) 2. Robert N. C. Nix (D) 18. Borbaro C. Jordan (D)* Bill D. Burlison (D) 30. Robert C. McEwen (R) 3. William J. Green (D) 19. George Motion (D) 31. Donald J. Mitchell (R)* 4. Joshua Eilberg (D) 20. Henry B. Gonzolez (D) NTANA 32. James M. Hanley (D) 5. John Ware (R) 21. O. C. Fisher (D) Richard G. Shoup (R) 33. William F. Walsh (R)* 6. Gus Yotron (D) 22. Bob Cosey (D) John Melcher (D) 34. Fronk Horton (R) 7. towrence G. Willioms (R) 23. Abraham Kozen Jr. (D) 35. Borber B. Conable Jr. (R) 8. Edword G. Biester Jr. (R) 24. Dole Milford (D)* RASKA 36. Henry P. Smith III (R) 9. E.G. Shuster (R)* Charles Thone (R) 37. Thoddeus J. Dulski (D) 10. Joseph M. McDade (R) UTAH John Y. McCollister (R.) 38. Jack F. Kemp (R) 11. Doniel J. flood (D) 1. K. Gunn McKoy (D) Dave Mortin (R) 39. Jomes F. Hostings (R) 12. John P. Saylor (R) 2. Wayne Owens (D)* 13. R. lowrence Coughlin (R) ADA NORTH CAROLINA 14. William S. Moorhead (D) VERMONT Dovid Towell (R)* 1. Walter B. Jones (D) 15. Fred B. Rooney (D) AL Richard W. Mollary (R) 2. 1. H. Fountain (D) 16. Edwin D. Eshlemon (R) HAMPSHIRE 3. David N. Honderson (D) 17. Hermon T. Schneebeli (R) VIRGINIA Louis C. Wyman (R) 4. like F. Andrews (D)* 18. H. John Heinz III (R) 1. Thomas N. Downing (D) Jomes C. Cleveland (R) 5. Wilmer Mizell (R) 19. George A. Goodling (R) 2. G. Williom Whitehurst (?) 6. 1. Richardson Preyer (D) 20. Joseph M. Goydos (D) 3. David E. Satterfield III (D) JERSEY 7. Chorles G. Rose III (D)* 21. John H. Dant (R) 4. Robert W. Doniel Jr. (R)* John E. Hunt (R) 8. Eorl B. Ruth (R) 22. Thomas E. Morgan (D) 5. W.C. (Don) Doniel (D) Charles W. Sondmon Jr. (R) 9. James G. Mortin (R)* 23. Albert W. Johnson (R) 6. M. Coldwell Dutler (R)* James J. Howard (D) 10. Jomes T. Broyhill (R) 24. Joseph P. Vigorito (D) 7. 3. Kenneth Robinson (P.) Fronk Thompron Jr. (D) 11. Roy A. Toylor (D) 25. Fronk M. Clark (D) 8. Stanford E. Parris (R)* Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen (R) 9. William C. Wompler (R) Edwin B. Forsythe (R) NORTH DAKOTA RHODE ISLAND 10. Joel T. Broyhill (R) William B. Widnoll (R) AL Mark Andrews (R) 1. Fernand J. St Germoin (D) Robert A. Roe (D) 2. Robert O. Tiernon (D) WASHINGTON Henry Helstoski (D) OHIO 1. John Hemplemonn (D)* Peter W. Rodino Jr. (D) 1. Williom J. Keating (R) SOUTH CAROUNA 2. Lloyd Meeds (D) Joseph G. Minish (0) 2. Donold D. Cluncy (R) 1. Mendel J. Davis (D) 3. Julio Dutler Hansen (D) Matthew J. Binoldo (R)* 3. Charles W. Wholen Jr. (R) 2. Floyd Spence (R) 4. Mike McCormock (D) Joseph J. Moroziti (R)* 4. Tennyson Guyer (R)* 3. William Jennings Bryan Dorn (D) 5. Thomas S. Foley (D) Dominick V. Daniels (D) 5. Delbait L. Lotto (R) 4. James R. Mann (D) 6. Floyd V. Hicks (D) Edword J. Potten (D) 6. Williom H. Harsha (R) 5. Tom S. Gellys (D) 7. Brock Adams (D). 7. Clorence J. Prown (R) 6. Edword 1. Young (R)* MEXICO 8. Wolter E. Powell (R) WEST VIRGINIA Manuel lujon Jr. (R) 9. Thomas L. Ashley (D) SOUTH DAKOTA 1. Robert H. Mellohon (D) Horold Runnels (D) 10. Clarence E. Miller (2) 1. Fronk E. Denhulm (D) 2. Harley O. Staggers (D) 11. J. William Stanton (R) 2. James Abdnor (R)* 3. John M. Slock (D) YORK 12. Samuel 1. Devine (R) A. Ken Hechier (D) Otis G. Pike (D) 13. Charles A. Mosher (R) TENNESSEE James R. Grover Jr. (R) 14. John F. Seiberling (D) 1. James H. (Jiminy) Quillen (R) WISCONSIN Angelo D. Roneollo (R)* 15. Cholmers P. Wylie (R) 2. John J. Duncon (R) 1. Les Aspin (D) Normon F. tent (R) 16. Ralph S. Regula (R)* 3. LaMor Boker (R) 2. Robert W. Kostenmeier (D) John W. Wydler (2) 17. John M. Ashbrook (R) 4. Joe 1. Evins (D) 3. Vernon W. Thomson (R) Lester I Woll (D) 18. Wayne L. Hays (D) 5. Richard Fulton (D) 4. Clement J. Zablocki (D) Joseph P. Addobbo 10) 19. Charles J. Corney (D) 5. Robin 1. Beard Jr. (R)* 5. Henry S. Reuss (D) Benifimin S. Rose other (D) 20. James V. Stanton (D) 7. Ed Jones (D) 6. Williom A. Steiger (R) C. Lon Kuykended (i) 7. David R. Obey (i) 8. Howard V. free Mich (i)* (-) TEXAS 9. Glenn R. Davis (R) 1. Wright Potmon (D) 2. Charles Wilson (D)* WYOMING 2. M. Colina (R) At Tano Concolno (D) SUMMARY OF MARGINAL 1974 RACES BY STATE STATE MARGINAL GOVERNOR 1 MARGINAL SENATOR 2 MARGINAL HOUSE 3 New England Maine Curtis (D) 50.1 - #2R New Hampshire Thomson (R) 41.6 X - Vermont X X - Massachusetts X - #4D, #5R, #12D Rhode Island Noel (D) 52.9 - - Connecticut Meskill (R) 53.8 Ribicoff (D) 54.3 #3D, #5R Middle Atlantic New York Rockefeller (R) 52.4 Javits (R) 49.8 #3R, #6D, #26R, #31R New Jersey X (1973) - #1R, #3D, #9D, #13D Pennsylvania X Schweiker (R) 51.9 #4D, #25D Delaware - - - Maryland Mathias (R) 47.8 - West Virginia - - - South Virginia Holton (R) 52.7 ('73) - #4R, #6R, #8R North Carolina - X #4D South Carolina West (D) 51.7 X #1D, #6R Georgia X X #5D Alabama X X #2R Mississippi - - #4R, #5R Louisiana - X #3R Arkansas X X - Tennessee Dunn (R) 52.0 - #3R, #6R, #8R Kentucky - Cook (R) 51.4 #6D Texas Briscoe (D) 48.1 - #5R, #13R Oklahoma Hall (D) 48.4 Bellmon (R) 51.7 : Florida X X #4D, #5D Midwest Ohio Gilligan (D) 54.2 Saxbe (R) 51.5 #8R, #16R, #23R Indiana - Bayh (D) 51.7 #1D, #2R, #4D, #11R Illinois - X #10R, #11D, #21R Michigan Millikan (R) 50,4 - #6R, #12D, #18R Wisconsin Lucey (D) 52.4 X #3R, #8R Minnesota Anderson (D) 54.0 - #6R Iowa X Hughes (D) 50.2 #1D, #6R Missouri - Eagleton (D) 51.1 #6D Kansas X X - Nebraska Exon (D) 53,8 - South Dakota X McGovern (u) 56.00 North Dakota - X TAB E (CONT.) STATE MARGINAL GOVERNOR 1 MARGINAL SENATOR 2 MARGINAL HOUSE 3 West Montana - - - Wyoming X - (At-Large)D Idaho Andrus (D) 52.2 X - Colorado Love (R) 52.5 X #1D, #4R Utah - Bennett (R) 53.7 #2D Nevada O'Call'n (D) 48.1 Bible (D) 54.8 (At-Large)R New Mexico King (D) 51.3 - - Arizona Williams (R) 50.9 X #4R California Reagan (R) 52.8 Cranston (D) 51.8 #8D, #12R, #36R Oregon X Packwood (R) 50.2 - Washington - X #1D, #4D Alaska Egan (D) 52.4 Gravel (D) 45.1 (At-Large)D Hawaii X X #1D Notes 1 - Where names are listed, the incumbent received less than 55% of the vote in the last election. The symbol (x) indicates other states with gubernatorial election in 1973 or 1974. The symbol (-) means no gubernatoriel race in the state. 2 - Same symbols as described in note #1. 3 - House districts where the winner in 1970 received 56.0% or less of the total vote. * - Although Senator McGovern received more than 55% of the vote in South Dakota, he is considered potentially vulnerable after the 1972 Presidential race, and therefore included on the list of marginal seats. TAB F PROJECTED OPERATING PLAN FOR UPDATING THE DATA BASE (All costs in thousands of dollars) MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING FILES Costs State and Activity 1973 1974 1975 1976 Total California 1974 (3 Cong. Dists) - 6.0 1976 (purchase new lists) - 60.0 66.0 Connecticut 1974 (update entire state) * - 7.5 1976 " " " - 7.5 15.0 Illinois 1974 (update entire state) * - 15.0 1976 " 11 " - 15.0 30.0 Maryland 1974 (update entire state)* - 6.5 1976 11 " " - 6.5 13.0 Michigan 1974 (get list from Donnelley) * - 15.0 1976 " " " " 15.0 30.0 New Jersey 1974 (update 4 CD's) - 8.0 1976 (update entire state) - 25.0 33.0 Ohio 1974 (update entire state)* - 20.0 1976 (update entire state) - 20.0 40.0 Pennsylvania 1974 (update entire state)* - 30.0 1976 (update entire state) - 30.0 60.0 Texas 1974 (update 2 CD's) - 4.0 1976 (update entire state) - 32.0 36.0 Totals to maintain existing lists: 0 112.0 0 211.0 323.0 Costs if candidates in states 65.0 0 211.0 276.0 denoted by asterisk (*) pay one half the cost of updating lists. TAB F (CONT.) PROJECTED OPERATING PLAN FOR ADDING NEW STATES AND CONG. DISTS. IN 1974 Full States (Races of Interest) Cost ($ thousands) Indiana (Senate, 4 CD) * 50.0 South Dakota (Senate, 1CD): * 15.0 Nevada (1 CD) (possibly Sen. or Gov.) 7.5 Alaska (Senate, House) 5.0 Kentucky (Senate) * (1 CD) 50.0 Oklahoma (Senate)* 37.5 Iowa (Senate) * (2 CD) 25.0 Wyoming (House) 5.0 Oregon (Senate)* (data on tape from state) 5.0 Virginia (3 CD) (data on tape from state) 1.0 Total 201.0 Total if statewide candidates 110.0 denoted by asterisk (*) pay one half the cost of updating the lists in those states Marginal Congressional Districts in states 160.0 not having full data in the system. (It is estimated that each CD will cost $5 thousand to put into the system. There are 32 such districts. The remaining 36 of the 68 target districts discussed in the text of the memo are accounted for in states where the total state has been put in the Data Base) The states, and number of districts in each are as follows: Maine (1) ; Massachusetts (3); New York (4) ; North Carolina (1); South Carolina (2); Georgia (1); Alabama (1); Mississippi (2) ; Tennessee (3) ; Louisiana (1); Florida (2) Wisconsin (2) ; Minnesota (1); Missouri (1); Colorado (2); Utah (1); Arizona (1); Washington (2); Hawaii (1). MAINTENANCE AND USE OF THE DATA BASE PROJECTED OPERATING STATEMENT (NO INCOME INCLUDED) Expense Items 1973 1974 1975 1976 Total Data Base Maintenance 1 - 65,000 - 211,000 276.000 Project Administration 2 60,000 90,000 60,000 90,000 300,000 Computer Programming 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 140,000 Research and Development 20,000 30,000 30,000 10,000 90,000 Data Base Expansion- 1 - 270,000 - - 270,000 Totals 100,000 495,000 130,000 351,000 1,076,000 Notes 1 - - See detail of cost by states in Tab F. 2 - Includes salary of General Manager, office space and supplies, secretary, programmers. TAB G THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON February 9, 1973 MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. HALDEMAN FROM: W. RICHARD HOWARD SUBJECT: Action Plan for the Data Base Purpose: The purpose of this memorandum is to present a plan for the utili- zation of the CREP data base and the volunteer/contributor files developed for "Operation Thank You. 11 Since the election, the CREP staff has scattered and no formal arrangements have been made with respect to maintenance and utilization of the multi-million dollar voter data base. Several sets of labels have been printed and copies of data tapes have been disseminated without official approval. This data base can be of immediate benefit in our efforts to commu- nicate with the New American Majority. At the direction of the President, it can be of use to support Republican candidates in 1973, 1974, and 1976. If properly maintained, through periodic use and updating, it will increase in value, and become a significant tool for selected congressional and local candidates, as well as offset the cost of several million dollars for developing another data base for the 1976 Presidential elections. This plan is presented as follows: Description of the Data Base Functional Use of the Data Base Potential Uses of the Data Base Coverage for the 1973-1974 Elections Coverage for the 1976 Elections Plan for the 1976 Presidential Election Recommendations: #1 - Disposition of the Data Base #2 - Data Base Operation #3 - Maintenance of the Data Basc #4 - Data Base Budget - 2 - For each of the recommendations, objections to the methods are outlined and selected alternatives are discussed. DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA BASE The CREP Voter Identification Data Base contains names, addresses, socio-economic, geo-coding and political attitude data on approxi- mately 40 million voters in 12 states, including 8 million voters favor- able to President Nixon. States with complete coverage are: - California - Connecticut - Illinois - Maryland - New Jersey - New York - Ohio - Pennsylvania - Texas States with records of Republicans only are three additional states which conduct Presidential Primaries: - Florida - New Hampshire - Wisconsin For each voter record the following data is recorded: Name and address Household member names Party registration Attitude toward R. M. Nixon Socio-economic level Age group Military veteran status Ethnic Name category Periferal urban ethnic indicator Neighborhood type Complete geo-coding such as precinct, ward, district, census track, zip code - 3 - In addition to the CREP Voter Identification, Data Base described above, we have developed data files for "Operation Thank You" in a compatible format which contains names and address records of CREP and GOP staffers (3,000), Campaign volunteers (300, 000), and contributors of over $100 (30,000). The RNC maintains a listing of 450,000 ethnic, civic, and special group leaders and mem- bers. The RNFC maintains 600,000 records of contributors of less than $100. FUNCTIONAL USE OF THE DATA BASE During the 1972 Presidential primaries and in the general election, the Voter I.D. Data Base was used as an information systems tool to support the following campaign functions: Political Direct Mail: issue persuasion volunteer recruitment contribution solicitation Voter Identification: walking canvass sheets tele center call sheets hostess-business call sheets Voter Information Feed Back: Nixon attitude other candidates important issues volunteer Voter Influence: undecided mailings get out the vote telegrams poll watching sheets victory squad sheets POTENTIAL USES OF THE DATA BASE In addition to the previous uses made of the data base, there are soveral potential uses which should be developed. 4 -- #1 Developing Prospect List for GOP Fund Raising : By selecting Republicans in higher income groups favorable to President Nixon, an excellent prospect list could be developed and tested. Bob Odell of the RNC Finance Committee has re- quested Jim White (our consultant) to look into the cost and feasability of this. In addition, we have a file of local CREP contributors which RNC does not have. #2 Issue Polling and Voter Sampling : Selected samples of voter types can easily be retrieved for the telephone or direct mail polling for reaction to national issues. #3 Support 1974 and 1976 Congressional Elections. For approved candidates, we can provide direct mail labels, by voter types within a congressional district, and for the total state. For candidates running in key races, we can arrange to have can- vass sheets, telephone sheets, advertising, fund raising, direct mail, and poll-watching sheets provided through a source other than the Republican Party, but using our Data Base and programs. #4 Substantive Election Results Analysis: Using the voter I.D. 's data, we can select voter types for ques- tionnaire surveys at the precinct level. #5 Advance Men Support: The data base can be used to recruit known volunteers and local leaders to promote rally, parade, etc., turnouts for candidates or the President. Advanced announcements and reminders can be mailed by locality and by voter type. - 5 - - DATA BASE COVERAGE FOR THE 1973-1974 ELECTIONS As presently constructed, the data base can be used to support the 1973 Governor's race in New Jersey. With an adequate mainten- ance program, we can support up to 290 candidates in the 1974 congressional and governors' races plus various other local races as desired by the President and the RNC. We have good state voter records for the following 1974 races: California Senate - Cranston - D Governor - Reagan - R House - 43 Connecticut Senate - Ribicoff - D Governor - Meskill - R House - 6 Illinois House - 24 Maryland Senate - Mathias - R Governor - Mandel - D House - 8 New Jersey House - 15 Ohio Senate - Saxbe - R Governor - Gilligan - D House - 23 Pennsylvania Senate - Sweiker - R Governor - Shapp - D House - 25 - 6 - Texas Governor - Briscoe - D House - 24 We have incomplete voter files for the following state elections: Florida (Republicans in large counties) Senate - Gurney - R Governor - Askew - D House - 15 Massachusetts (Republicans only) Governor - Sargent - R House - 12 New Hampshire (Republicans only) Senate - Cotton - R Governor - Peterson - R House - 2 New York (Selected Counties) Senate - Javits - R Governor - Rockefeller - R House - 39 Wisconsin (Republicans only) Senate - Nelson - D Governor - Lucey - D House - 9 Virginia (Selected counties) Governor - Holton - R House - 10 - 7 - DATA BASE COVERAGE FOR THE 1976 ELECTIONS If the Data Base is adequately maintained from 1973-1976, we can support at least 175 candidates in the 1976 congressional and state races as well as a Presidential candidate in the primaries and general election. By 1976, we should be able to support Republican candidates in these major congressional and state elections: California Senator - Tunney - D House - 43 Connecticut Senate - Weicker - R House - 6 Illinois Senate - Stevenson - D Governor - D House - 24 Maryland Senate - Beall - R House 8 New Jersey Senate - Williams - D House - 15 Ohio Senate - Taft - R House 23 Pennsylvania Senate - Scott - R House 23 - 8 - Texas Senate - Bentsen - D House - 24 With the recommended expansion of the data base we could support another 120 GOP candidates in congressional and state contests plus provide strengthened primary races. In addition to the above states, we should consider expanding the data base for 1976 to include the following states: Florida expand from Republicans in major counties to all voters due to consistent ticket-splitting and new support for GOP candidates locally by Democrats. Indiana At minimum we should include Republicans due to some key races and coming Republican candidates. Massachusetts Should be expanded from just Republicans to all voters. Michigan We have no list of Michigan - we had to lease a mailing house list in 1972 and return it. New Hampshire We need to have the best possible data for the '76 primary. New York We need to work closely with the GOP in New York to develop a better list. Tennessee We have some coming candidates and growing areas for the GOP. Wisconsin We need to expand and improve our GOP voters list for the '76 primary. Virginia The state is paying to develop the list which we can purchase and maintain in conjunction with the state GOP. - 9 PLAN FOR THE 1976 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION If the data base is properly maintained during the 1973-1976 period, it will be a valuable tool in electing a Republican president in 1976. Since the key states will not be changed drastically, and the emerg- ing political technology of direct mail, telephone and walk- ing canvass, voter identification, and get out the vote will not be much different from the CREP operation in 1972, we will have an edge going into the '76 campaign with an adequate data base to sup- port these programs. The major difference between the 1972 and 1976 campaigns is that the GOP candidate may not be certain until after the convention. However, planning and development for utili- zation of the data base must begin at least one year before the gen- eral election in order to properly integrate the direct mail, can- vass and telephone operations. Thus, while we are planning and designing our programs (as did CREP) in early 1976, the RNC may have to supply mailing labels to any GOP candidate in the primaries who can afford to pay RNC for them. On the other hand, should a candidate warrant the unofficial support of the President, we would encourage this candidate to contract with the RNC data base support company to provide direct mail support, canvass sheets, polling, telephone sheets, volunteer recruitment, advance event advertising, and the telegrams, etc. After the GOP convention, an agreement can be negotiated between the successful candidate, the RNC, the White House and the com- puter support organization, concerning the future use of the data base. - 10 - RECOMMENDATION #1 Data Base Disposition That the Republican National Committee be given title to the data base with the written understanding that it may only be utilized under the stipulations explained in the Operating Plan (see Recommendation #2), i.e., White House approval of use, Washington base operation and maintenance, general mailing monitoring, break even cost to the GOP candidates, etc. APPROVE DISAPPROVE Alternative #1 Corporate Form A general business or non-profit corporation could be formed to hold title and operate the data base. Disadvantages 1. Would not necessarily strengthen the GOP candidates or the RNC. 2. White House and RNC lose control unless the White House secretly controls the operation. This would pre- sent a real problem if and when the secret control was discovered. 3. The major problem with corporate form is raised by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Act prohibits any contribution to a political party by a cor- poration. It would be argued that the sales of data are bargain sales resulting in contributions to the Republican Party and therefore prohibited by the Act. 4. Additional problems are raised if the corporation is dissolved. Any distribution of the data at that time to the Republican Party would be a direct contribution of prop- erty under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Accordingly, the corporation could not be dissolved by distributing the property to the Republican National Committee or an individual candidate. - 5. In addition to the above problems under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, there would be potential - 11 tax liaiblity on dissolution. The normal rule is that a share- holder receives a capital gain when the property is distributed on dissolution; equal to the difference between the fair market value of the property and the shareholder's basis in the cor- poration. Alternative #2 - Unincorporated Committee 1. The data could be retained by CREP or transferred to a similar unincorporated committee. This form would avoid any problems un- der the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This would not help strengthen the GOP and we would not have direct control. 2. The major disadvantage of this form is the lack of limited liability. The members of the committee would be individually liable for con- tracts. From a tax standpoint, the committee would be structured in a form that would be taxable either as a trust or corporation in order for any tax to be on the committee. This would avoid individual tax liability on the members of the committee. Alternative #3 - Unincorporated Trust The data base could be placed in trust for the RNC. Disadvantages 1. The trust would be basically self-defeating since the RNC would be the benefactor, however, RNC and the White House would lose direct control to the trustees. 2. While the trust is not subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, such organizations may become subject to future legislation. 3. The profitable sales of labels, etc., by the trust would be taxable. 4. Accumulated income of the trust would be taxable. 5. The trust could have limited life with all of the inherent difficulties of the dissolutionment. Specific Recommended Actions 1. That a. letter be sent to U.C.C. indicating the designated represen- - 12 - tative of the President for all data base items. Since all of the Political Direct Mail and computer staff of the CREP have ter- minated with CREP, I recommend that our representative be either Kathleen Balsdon or Mr. Jim White (former CREP staff), who is our computer consultant. Either way, Jim is our expert in residence and would be responsible for management of the data base project. APPROVE DISAPPROVE 2. That the remaining assets of the computer data base which consist of extra tapes, tape racks, etc., be swapped with U. C. C. for future services including shipping the data base and further documentation of the data base. A draft contract for the desired services has been prepared. APPROVE DISAPPROVE 3. That the RNC arrange a suitable area for storage of a duplicate copy of the data tapes at RNC Headquarters under secure conditions. APPROVE DISAPPROVE RECOMMENDATION #2 The proposed operating plan is dependent upon the approval of recom- mendation #1 concerning the disposition of the data base, and the approval of the budget as recommended. The Republican National Committee will provide mailing labels or computer letter services at break even cost to any Republican can- didate with the stipulation that all returned mail will be supplied for data base maintenance and that a representative will be allowed to "monitor" the use of the mailing labels. During 1973 and early 1974, we can utilize our labels to generate some direct mail of non-political materials under the franking pri- vilege for incumbent congressmen to help make their seats safe for the 1974 elections. This will also allow more thorough main- tenance of the data for each state. Any other use of the data base must be approved by the President (or his designated representative) upon the written explanation of the proposed use. Thus, no candidate may use the data base for - 13 - canvass sheets, poll watching, etc., without written approval from the White House. Since the RNC does not have a computer facility nor a professional computer systems staff and no one at RNC is familiar with the data base, it must be maintained by persons who are thoroughly familiar with its coding, structure, and use. Furthermore, we have found that the White House or the RNC would have much better control of the data base and attain much more responsive service if the data base was operated here in Washington by persons who have demon- strated an understanding of responsiveness to the RNC and the White House. All revenue from the sales of mailing labels to candidates will be applied against the maintenance cost and hopefully in the long run period will offset the total maintenance expense. Any changes, additions, and/or deletions to the data base will be approved in writing by the RNC and the White House representative. Recommendation That the operation of the data base be managed as outlined above. APPROVE DISAPPROVE RECOMMENDATION #3 Data Base Maintenance That maintenance of the data base be accomplished by stipulating that all users of the list must agree to provide returned mail and that the RNC computer support organization will work with the RNC and local GOP county chairmen to obtain listings of additional voters. It is anticipated that within the four year period, the sales of labels to can- didates will offset the cost of list maintenance. APPROVE DISAPPROVE The maintenance of the data base encompasses many operations. These - 14 - include adding new voter names, deleting obsolete voter names, correcting records, changing portions of records and editing all of the changes. Data preparation and maintenance should be conducted for the RNC by the computer support organization. It is important that specific states be updated prior to key elections in those states. According to the operating plan one of the stipulations for use of the data base mailing lists is that all undeliverable return mail be pro- vided for list purging. By making the mailing labels available to Republican Senators, Congressmen, and Governors, and local officials under our monitorship, we should obtain adequate mail re- turns for list maintenance. The RNC will have to work with local GOP county chairmen to obtain lists of newly registered voters. This was done successfully in ob- taining lists for the CREP project. California is an exception since the Secretary of State provides updated lists. Additional list updates can be purchased from organizations such as the telephone companies and mailing firms at a nominal cost. Alternative #1 If the data base is not adequately maintained for the next four years, a new data base will have to be developed for 1976. This is not feasible since the cost would be excessive and since the RNC would have great difficulty getting cooperation from local officers due to loyalties to several Presidential candidates. To try to develop a data base after the convention is an impossible task. Alternative #2 Another alternative would be to scrap the data base and let the 1976 Presidential candidate contract with mailing firms to do direct mail from an "occupant" list, and conduct canvassing with cold canvass forms. Needless to say, this is a step backward. 15 - RECOMMENDATION #4 Operating Budget The operating budget is illustrated at three alternative funding levels, Level 1 is a bare bones funding level for continuous data base main- tenance, but no data base expansion. Level 2, provides for expansion of the data base into five additional key states which we do not now have an adequate data base. Also, a moderate research and develop- ment effort is funded to seek methods of cost cutting without impairing responsiveness. Level 3 provides funding for data base expansion into eleven additional states and the R&D budget. All of the cost figures are based upon break even cost levels for com- puter services, in order to provide labels to candidates at the lowest possible costs. Recommendation That the proposed project be funded at Level 2, with an allocation of $200, 000 from remaining CREP funds. The cash flow, audit, and financial reporting arrangements should be administered through the Republican National Finance Committee. Additional funding needed for 1975 and 1976 would be funded through RNC after submittal of financial statements and revised budget pro- jections. APPROVE DISAPPROVE Alternative Level 1 - (See Table 1) The lowest alternative budget provides for funding the maintenance of the present data base with no bata base expansion or improvement over the next four years. Income is based upon minimum sales of labels and $30,000 of surplus property at U.C.C. remaining from the campaign. Expense items are for data base updating, project administration, label printing and computer programming. This funding level is not recommended because we need to expand the data base to cover the presidential primary in Michigan and all voters in Florida, New York, and Indiana. The State of Vir- ginia is computerizing their voter lists and they will be available at minimum cost. - 16 - Alternative Level 2 - (See Table 2) This alternative level of funding is similar to Level 1 except that it provides for expansion of the data base in Michigan, Florida, New York, Indiana, and Virginia. It also provides for a $20, 000 per year R&D budget to lower our cost. This funding level is recommended with the approach that we need more complete coverage in Michigan, New York and Florida. Indiana is needed for some key races in '74 and '76, and because 5 of the 11 Congressional seats are marginal, 3 Democrat and 2 Republican. Virginia is naturally a no cost inclusion and does have 4 marginal Congressional seats held by Republicans. The return on the investment of $146, 000 for this expansion will be several new seats and significant aid in holding some marginal seats. Alternative Level 3 - (See Table 3) The highest of the projected budgets provides for significant ex- pansion of the data base. In addition to the five states included in level 2, it provides for inclusion of Missouri, Minnesota, Georgia, Tennessee, Washington and Oregon. This funding level was not recommended for several reasons. Although the costs of including these six states might be signi- ficantly offset by additional sales of labels, they are not consi- dered key states. After discussions with Jim White, I feel that if we desire to do so, he may be able to expand into the larger counties of some of these states with money which has been saved through cost reduction. The question is, would we want to apply cost savings to lowering the price of labels to candidates or to expansion into new states? We will conduct a study of the cost of including the larger counties in every state with nine or more electoral votes. Projected Budget - Level 1 Income Items 1973 1974 1975 1976 Total Label Sales $120,000 $480,000 $200,000 $640,000 $1,440,000 Surplus Property 30,000 30,000 150,000 480,000 200,000 640,000 1,470,000 Expense Items Data Base Maintenance 50,000 250,000 200,000 100,000 600,000 Project Administration 60,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 300,000 Label Printing 60,000 240,000 100,000 320,000 720,000 Computer Programming 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 190,000 580,000 390,000 510,000 1,670,000 Deficit ($40,000) ($100,000) ($190,000) $130,000 ($200,000) Table 1 - Projected Budget : Alternative Level 1 Projected Budget - Level 2 Income Items 1973 1974 1975 1976 TOTAL Label Sales - Old D.B. $120,000 $480,000 $200,000 $640,000 $1,440,000 Label Sales - Expanded D.B. 80,000 24,000 180,000 284,000 Surplus Property 30,000 30,000 150,000 560,000 224,000 820,000 1,754,000 Expense Items Data Base Maintenance 50,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 590,000 Project Administration 60,000 90,000 90,000 120,000 360,000 Label Printing 60,000 240,000 112,000 400,000 812,000 Computer Programming 20,000 40,000 20,000 40,000 120,000 Research & Development 20,000 20,000 20,000 15,000 75,000 210,000 550,000 422,000 775,000 1,957,000 List Expansion Michigan 15,000 15,000 Florida 30,000 30,000 New York 60,000 60,000 Indiana 40,000 40,000 Virginia 1,000 1,000 146,000 146,000 Deficit ($60,000) ($136,000) ($198,000) +$45,000 ($349.000) Table 2 - Projected Budget: Alternative Level 2 - Projected Budget - Level 3 Income Items 1973 1974 1975 1976 TOTAL Label Sales - Old D.B. $120,000 $ 480,000 $ 200,000 $ 640,000 $ 1,440,000 Lable Sales - Expanded D.B. 80,000 40,000 310,000 430,000 Surplus 30,000 30,000 150,000 560,000 240,000 950,000 1,900,000 Expense Items Data Base Maintenance 50,000 160,000 210,000 210,000 630,000 Project Administration 60,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 330,000 Label Printing 60,000 240,000 120,000 425,000 845,000 Computer Programming 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 140,000 Research & Development 20,000 30,000 30,000 10,000 90,000 210,000 560,000 490,000 775,000 2,035,000 Data Base Expansion Michigan 15,000 15,000 Florida 30,000 30,000 New York 60,000 60,000 Indiana 40,000 40,000 Virginia 1,000 1,000 Missouri 16,000 16,000 Minnesota 14,000 14,000 Georgia 12,000 12,000 Tennessee 12,000 12,000 Washington 10,000 10,000 Oregon 5,000 5,000 146,000 69,000 215,000 Deficit ($60,000) ($146,000) ($319,000) +$175,000 ($350,000) Table 3 - Projected Budget: Alternative Level 3 DATA BASE INDEX Title Count Category A - Voters Lists A-1 California Voters A-2 Connecticut Voters A-3 Florida Republican Voters A-4 Illinois Voters A-5 Maryland Voters A-6 New Hampshire Republican Voters A-7 New Jersey Voters A-8 New York Voters A-9 Ohio Voters A-10 Pennsylvania Voters A-11 Texas Voters A-12 Wisconsin Republican Voters Category B - Contributors B-1 Contributors $100-999 FCREP 16,253 B-2 Contributors $100-999 Rep. Con. Comm. 7,413 B-3 Contributors $1,000 FCREP 3,560 B-4 Contributors above $1,000 FCREP 3,200 B-5 Direct Mail Contributors - Rep. B-6 Direct Mail Contributors - Demo. B-7 Contributors - Florida Primary B-8 Primary contributors - New Hampshire 601 B-9 Primary contributors - Michigan 459 B-10 Contributors to local CREP B-11 Primary contributors - Maryland 77 B-12 Primary contributors - Wisconsin 850 B-13 Sustaining contributors - spec. list Category C - Volunteers C - 1 Local CREP volunteers 90,237 C-2 CREP telephone center volunteers 31,381 C-3 CREP telephone center supervisors 2,682 C-4 State CREP volunteers C-5 Washington CREP volunteers 113 C-6 RNC Washington volunteers 310 2 - Title Count C-7 Rep. primary volunteers C-8 Volunteers - hostess-business 2,228 C-9 Hosts & Hostesses for Nixon 190 C-10 Rep. Direct Mail Volunteers C-11 Primary volunteers - Florida 5,033 C-12 Primary volunteers - New Hampshire 257 C-13 Primary volunteers - Michigan 849 C-14 Direct Mail contributors - Demo. C-15 Primary volunteers - Maryland 8,053 C-16 Primary volunteers - Wisconsin 1,485 Category D - Campaign Staff, Political Chairmen & Leaders D-1 State CREP Committee members 137 D-2 State CREP staff 591 D-3 State CREP top 6 performers 367 D-4 CREP - Wash. staff directors D-5 CREP - Wash. staff 375 D-6 RNC - Wash. staff directors 184 D-7 RNC - Wash. staff D-8 County/Reg. Rep. and CREP Chairmen 3,907 D-9 Hostess/Business Chairmen 1,106 D-10 State Press staff 90 D-11 CREP officers D-12 County finance chairmen D-13 County Republican chairmen D-14 Ballot Security D-15 State Finance Committee D-16 Asst. to Ballot Security Chairman D-17 Ballot security lawyers D-18 Women leaders for Nixon D-19 GOP convention delegates 172 1,189 D-20 GOP alternate delegates 172 1,178 D-21 Cal. campaign - Anne Graham 215 D-22 Cal. speakers - Anne Graham 419 D-23 European Committee Chairmen D-24 City Chairmen for Nixon 533 D-25 Special Ballots directors 1 D-26 State CREP staff 165 D-27 CREP state chairmen 28 D-28 CREP co-chairmen 27 D-29 CREP vice chairmen 3 D-30 CREP exec. directors 23 D-31 Hutar co-chairmen list 28 - 3 - Title Count D 32 Hutar volunteer chairmen list 36 D-33 Hutar Advisory List 148 D 34 CREP county chairmen 385 D-35 CREP state & local surrogates 560 D 36 Nat'l Comm. members 165 D 37 State Central Comm. Chairmen 60 D 38 State Central Comm. Vice Chairmen 111 D 39 County Chairmen 3, 707 D-40 State Exec. Comm. members 93 D-41 County vice chairmen 2,146 D-42 Campaign surrogates 31 D 43 Economic spokesmen 7 D-44 CREP state chairmen 8 D-45 Women spokesmen for Admin, 36 D-46 CREP youth field staff 7 D 47 Nixonette Chairmen - general 446 D 48 Nixonette key list 21 Category E - Nationalities/Ethnics E-1 Ethnics - undefined 147 E-2 Spanish-speaking E-3 Jewish E -4 Catholics E-5 Black voters E-6 Nationalities/Heritage E-7 Latin Americans 20 E-8 Korean Americans 1 E-9 Latvian Americans 39 E 10 Lebanese Americans 2 E 11 Lithuanian Americans 29 E 12 Polish Americans 39 E 13 Puerto Rican Americans 1 E 14 Rumanian Americans 15 E 15 Russian Americans 15 E 16 Scandinavian Americans 14 E 17 Serbian Americans 12 E-18 Silesian Americans 2 E 19 Slovak Americans 6 E -20 Slovenian Americans 16 E -21 Thai Americans 3 E-22 Ukranian Americans 63 E -23 Spanish-speaking 1,087 E-24 Mexican American Comm E -25 Mexican Americans CREP 114 4 - Title Count E 26 Ethnic/nationalities leaders 4 E 27 Albanian Americans 4 E 28 Arabic Americans 2 E -29 Armenian Americans 14 E 30 Bohemian Americans 1 E 31 Byelorussian Americans 34 E 32 Bulgarian Ame ricans 11 E 33 Chinese Americans 26 E 34 Cossack Americans 3 E- 35 Croatian Americans 9 E 36 Cuban Americans 9 E 37 Czech Americans 8 E- 38 Estonian Americans 16 E- 39 Filipino Americans 20 E- 40 French Americans 1 E- 41 German Americans 47 E- 42 Greek Americans 13 E 43 Hungarian Americans 70 E- 44 Indian Americans 1 E- 45 Irish Americans 5 E 46 Italian Americans 51 E 47 Japanese Americans 152 E- 48 Jewish field leaders 67 E- 49 Chinese Americans 100 E- 50 Ethnics/Nationalities 13 E- 51 Spanish-speaking state chairmen 18 E 52 Black state chairmen 27 E 53 Black dinner participants 40 E- 54 Black dinner participants volunteering to speak 535 E 55 Black Steering Committee 80 E 56 Black surrogates 16 Category F - New American Majority - Other Categories F-1 Volunteers - local Democrats F-2 Youth for Nixon 4, 573 F-3 Older Americans 173 F-4 Veterans 30 F-5 Farm families - ranchers 73 F-6 labor leaders 301 F-7 Veteranse leaders 98 F-8 State farm chairmen 54 F-9 Key agricultural volunteers 59 F 10 County farm chairmen 661 - 5 Title Count F 11 Agri-business leaders 26 F 12 State farm committees 412 F 13 Veterans F 14 Veterans speakers 28 F 15 Democrats for Nixon 76 F 16 Veterans state chairmen 57 F 17 Veterans - card list 248 F 18 Older volunteers - state F- 19 Democrat supporters 1, 386 F 20 Farmers CREP 71 F 21 Labor Task Force - CREP 41 F 22 Older American state chairmen 52 F 23 Veterans for Re-election 75 F -24 Older American county chairmen 15 F -25 Senior Voters for Action 38 F -26 Demo. VIP's favorable 22 F 27 Demo. contributors - Nixon 1 F 28 Demo. volunteers - DFN 2,319 F 29 Demo. vice chairmen - DFN 15 F 30 Farmers for Nixon state chairmen 136 F 31 Student fieldmen 104 F 32 Young voters 38 F 33 Youth spokesmen 600 F 34 College organizations for Nixon 138 F 35 State youth convention directors 64 F 36 College directors for Nixon 40 Category G - Citizens Groups G-1 Lawyers for Nixon 108 G-2 Physicians for Nixon 1 G-3 Citizens 211 G-4 Lawyers 38 G-5 Business & Industry leaders 61 G-6 State Citizens Comm. 73 G- 7 Optometrists 11 G-8 Business women G-9 Physicians & health professors - favorable G 10 Physicians CREP 70 G 11 Dentists CREP 72 G 12 Farmers CREP 71 G- 13 Regional business and industrial leaders 23 G- 14 State business and industrial leaders 75 Lawyers for Re-election 176 G-15 - 6 Title Count G-16 Citizens state directors 46 G- 17 Architects & Engineers - favorable 43 G 18 Environmentalists/Professionals 7 G-1 19 Veterinarians 67 G-20 Pharmacists 50 G -21 Motorcyclists 57 G-22 Community leaders 54 G-23 High performance Industry leaders 55 G-24 Optometrists 60 G-25 CPA's 58 G-26 New car dealers 55 G-27 Insurance agents 47 G -28 Travel agents 58 G -29 Real estate brokers 59 G-30 Life underwriters 70 G-31 Petroleum marketers 47 G-32 Hair dressers 57 G-33 Savings & Loan execs. 47 C 34 Securities industry execs. 40 G-35 Volunteer firemen 16 G-36 Mutual savings bank execs. 7 G-37 Hot rodders 56 G-38 Business & industry leaders 4, 287 G-39 Young Lawyers Adv. Comm. 50 G-40 Lawyers Nat'l. Adv. Comm. 28 G-41 Lawyers State Comm. 368 Category H - VIP's, Local Politicians, Athletes, Celebrities H-1 VIP list - Republicans H-2 VIP list - Democrats H-3 Misc. VIP list 111 H-4 Athletes for the President 496 H-5 Celebrities - Secretaries 4 H-6 Favorable mayors H-7 Favorable state legislators H-8 Favorable athletes and sports execs. 132 II-9 State legislators 25 II- 10 Favorable mayors 40 H-11 Favorable county officials 19

Document source description

This file contains: To: Mr. Haldeman. From: Robert H. Marik. RE: The future of the data base. 19 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/20/1973 1972 Composite election statistics and brief analysis. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/1/1973 To: Mr. Haldeman. From: W. Richard Howard. RE: Action Plan for the Data Base. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1973 Data Base Index. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
0da4abe70fd3b596
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
26146418
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "26146418",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146418",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 47-17",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nTo: Mr. Haldeman. From: Robert H. Marik. RE: The future of the data base. 19 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/20/1973\n\n1972 Composite election statistics and brief analysis. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/1/1973\n\nTo: Mr. Haldeman. From: W. Richard Howard. RE: Action Plan for the Data Base. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1973\n\nData Base Index. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146418",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/18/1464/26146418/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-17.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/18/1464/26146418/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-17.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/18/1464/26146418/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-17.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "26146418",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 47-17",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146418"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "26146418",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146418",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 47-17",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nTo: Mr. Haldeman. From: Robert H. Marik. RE: The future of the data base. 19 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/20/1973\n\n1972 Composite election statistics and brief analysis. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/1/1973\n\nTo: Mr. Haldeman. From: W. Richard Howard. RE: Action Plan for the Data Base. 23 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 2/9/1973\n\nData Base Index. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146418",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/18/1464/26146418/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-17.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/18/1464/26146418/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-17.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/18/1464/26146418/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-17.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146418",
    "naId": 26146418,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/18/1464/26146418/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-17.pdf",
    "mediaId": "0da4abe70fd3b596",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n47\n17\n2/20/1973\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: Mr. Haldeman. From: Robert H. Marik.\nRE: The future of the data base. 19pgs.\n47\n17\n1/1/1973\nCampaign\nReport\n1972 Composite election statistics and brief\nanalysis. 23pgs.\n47\n17\n2/9/1973\nCampaign\nMemo\nTo: Mr. Haldeman. From: W. Richard\nHoward. RE: Action Plan for the Data Base.\n23pgs.\n47\n17\nCampaign\nReport\nData Base Index. 6pgs.\nTuesday, March 27, 2012\nPage 1 of 1\nCommittee for the Re-election of the President\nDETERMINED TO BE AN\nMEMORANDUM\nADMINISTRATIVE MARKING February 20, 1973\nE.O. 12065, Section 6-102\nBy\nRY\nNARS, Date 8-5-80\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. HALDEMAN\nFROM:\nROBERT H. MARIK\nRAMA\nSUBJECT:\nThe Future of the Data Base\nSUMMARY\nThis memorandum describes the computerized list of registered\nvoters and the associated software (together referred to as\nthe Data Base) developed for the 1972 Presidential campaign.\nThe utility of the Data Base in future political campaigns\nis discussed and some specific recommendations are presented.\nThe purpose of this analysis is to present a complete technical\ndescription of the Data Base, as one element necessary in\ndetermining what kind of organization should be established to\ncontrol the system over the next four years.\nDISCUSSION\nDescription of the Data Base\nThe Data Base that is presently housed in our data center in\nDallas has more than $1,000,000 invested in list development,\nsocio-economic characteristics, algorithms, software and\ntechnical know-how. It consists of a computerized listing\nof nearly 22 million households (almost 30 million registered\nvoters) in nine large states (Tab A). Additional elements of\nthe system are listed in Tab B. It now has the capacity for\nthe following:\nProduce computerized lists of registered voters for\ncanvassing and get-out-the-vote, by precinct, and in\nalphabetical or street address sequence.\nRecord voter responses from canvassing on the master\nfile (i.e., those voters who are for, against or undecided\ntoward the candidate).\nDETERMINED TO BE AN\nADMINISTRATIVE MARKING\nE.O. 12065, Section 6-102\nCONFIDENTIAL\nBy\nNARS, Date\n- 2 -\nFor specialized mailings:\n-Select out surnames indicating ethnic origin: Spanish,\nPolish, Jewish, Irish, Italian.\n-Estimate the age and income level of each household listed.\n-Identify the Census tract, and therefore the general\ndemographic characteristics, of each household.\nis detailed discussion of the Data Base is given in Tab C, taken\nfrom the final report of the Direct Mail Division.\nications for the Future\nThe Data Base should be considered as far more than a mailing\nlist. It can be the central part of a total campaign strategy.\nIt provides the vehicle for voter identification through telephone\nor door-to-door canvassing. It allows for specific direct mail\nappeals to carefully segmented groups of voters. It can be used\nproduce final lists of favorable voters for Election Day\n!vities. It can provide lists especially tailored for fund\ndying, volunteer recruitment, or other campaign functions.\n:: is rarely possible for local or even statewide candidates to\n'est such a sophisticated voter contact operation. However,\nthe data base already in existence and the associated\nster software already developed, the President could offer\npackaged program to local candidates, which could increase\nvote by as much as 5% to 10%.\nYer, in 1976, the Republican Presidential candidate will not\nthe uninterrupted lead time to prepare a new data base, as\nHible in 1972. Therefore, it is important that the\nLOW in existence be kept updated so that the President\nthe option to make it available in 1976. The problem\nany address list will become obsolete at the rate of\nper year. If left alone for four years, the present\nhave little value. The objective, then, is to keep the\napdated for 1976, and in the process to get maximum\nit in 1974.\nmategy for 1974\nended that the Data Base be one element in a\nconcerted national effort to maximize the Republican\n1974 Congression races. Other elements would\nselection. Sinancial assistance, professional\nDETERMINED TO BE AN\nADMINISTRATIVE MARKING\nE.O. 12065, Section 6-102\nCONFIDENTIAL\nBy NARS, Date\n- 3 -\nThe first step must be to select the target Congressional\nDistricts. The discussion which follows does offer a selection\ncriterion, primarily to illustrate the methods applied to develop\ncost estimates for use of the Data Base in the 1974 campaigns.\nIt is anticipated that the final selection will be somewhat\ndifferent, taking into account survey results, field evaluation\nof the races, retirement of incumbents, availability of attractive\nchallengers, etc.\nManyon Millican has prepared an analysis of the Congressional and\nGubernatorial races for 1974 (Tab D). He identifies 116 \"marginal\"\nseats. Of those seats, the winner in 1972 received 56% or less\nof the vote in 68 cases (39 Republican and 29 Democrat). Those\nhave been taken as the target districts in this analysis. It\nwill be important to strengthen the marginal Republican incumbents,\nbecause they are particularly vulnerable in the mid-term election\nduring a Republican Administration. Twenty-six of the 39 are\nfreshmen. Of the 29 Democrats, 11 were elected for the first time\nin 1972.\nIn Tab E, the status of Gubernatorial and Senatorial races in 1974\nis summarized by state, along with the marginal house races, as\ndefined above. Some marginal Senate races are indicated, where\navailability of the Data Base might make a significant difference\nfor the Republican candidate.\nIn Tab F, the data processing cost to update the existing Data Base,\nor expand it to cover new target districts or states, is given\nin detail. The financial analysis extends into 1976, covering the\nfinal updating of the original Data Base for the Presidential\ncampaign.\nOperation of the Data Base for the Next Four Years\nSeveral decisions must be made on how the Data Base will be handled\nin the future. The organizational structure must be determined\nin the light of potential legal restrictions, public relations,\npolitical considerations and finances. Several alternatives\nhave been raised, including:\nEstablish an independent trust or corporation, accountable\nto the interests of the President, which would make the\nData Base available to selected candidates, possibly through\nthe RNC, or directly.\nTransfer the Data Base to the RNC, with the assurance that\nit will remain under the control of a competent general man 'ger.\nDETERMINED TO BE AN\nADMINISTRATIVE MARKING\nE.O. 12065, Section 6-102\nBy\nCONFIDENTIAL\nNARS, Date\n- 4 -\nIt is beyond the scope of this memo to recommend which form is most\nappropriate. It is important, however, to understand that the\ncomputer programs and voter lists are only useful when managed\nby someone who is thoroughly familiar with the system. There\nshould be continuity and a high degree of professional competence\nin the position of General Manager.\nThree people now have the experience to perform that job. L. Robert\nMorgan was the manager of the direct mail operation during the\ncampaign. Bob has returned to the Reuben H. Donnelley Corporation\nin Chicago, but can be available for occasional consulting\non the Data Base. Dr. Thomas Slivinski helped to design the Data\nBase, and assisted and managed all phases of its application and\ndevelopment. Tom is experienced in computer systems, but he is\nseeking more diversified experience within the Administration.\nHe is expected to be in the Washington area, and available for\nconsultation, subject to any limitations by Civil Service\nregulations. James White was a project manager on the political\ndirect mail staff, and as such was the trouble-shooter in the\nsystems area. His background includes both marketing and systems\nexperience. Jim is recommended for the position of General Manager.\nTab G shows projected operating costs for the project over the next\nfour years, including staff and administrative overhead. No operating\nrevenue is included. The assumptions are as follows:\nAny lists or mailing labels provided for candidates are billed\nat net cost (no margin to cover G & A or development costs).\nThis policy would encourage candidates to use the system\nand improve their own campaigns. On the other hand, a somewhat\nhigher price would obviously reduce the operating deficit.\nNo revenue from commercial sales is shown. Jim White believes\nthat up to $40,000 in revenue could be realized in 1973 from\nsales of mailing labels to charitable fund drives and similar\norganizations. The volume of such sales would be expected to\nincrease in subsequent years. The margin on commercial sales\nis estimated to be 50% of the selling price. It should be the\nobjective of the General Manager to develop a significant\nvolume of commercial sales; however, until the concept is\nproven, no reduction in the operating deficit is projected.\nThe major functions of the General Manager, beyond providing\nlabels to candidates and commercial accounts, will be to\nupgrade the system, the lists to include additional\nstates\nDETERMINED TO BE AN\nADMINISTRATIVE MARKING\nE.O. 12065, Section 6-102\nCONFIDENTIAL\nBy\nNARS, Date\n- 5 -\nand find ways of sharply reducing the cost of processing\nthe data and producing mailing labels or lists. New\ncomputer hardware will become available in the next few\nyears, allowing some data processing operations to be done\nfar less expensively than is now the case. The research\nand computer programming costs shown in Tab G are partly\nintended to achieve cost reductions in the final product.\n.All of the marginal Congressional Districts, as well as\nseveral marginal Senate races, have been covered by\nthe activity reflected in Tab F. If it were desired\nto keep the net deficit to a smaller amount, certain\ndistricts could be added to the Data Base only after\nadequate revenue were generated from commercial accounts\nto cover the list expansion costs.\nIt can be seen in Tab G that the \"severest projected cost\",\nassuming no off-setting revenue, to maintain and update the\nexisting Data Base for four years is $806,000. The additional\ncost to expand the Data Base for target races in 1974 is\n$270,000. The $211,000 shown for list maintenance in 1976 can\nonly be a rough estimate. Computer technology and electoral\nprocedures may by then render obsolete the methods of 1972.\nThere is some speculation that more states will follow the\nexample of California and make current voter lists on computer\ntape available to campaign organizations at a moderate cost.\nThe pressures in Congress to liberalize registration procedures\nmay take the voter lists out of the hands of the township clerks\nand county courthouses, to a higher level of government. Such\ncentralization could facilitate list-gathering at lower cost and\nwith shorter lead times. For all of those reasons, it is\nrecommended that list updating be postponed until 1976, in\nevery area where the system will not be used in 1974. Whatever\nthe situation in 1976, the computer software in the Data Base will\nassure that the data on registered voters can be used to the\ngreatest possible benefit of the 1976 Republican Presidential\ncandidate.\nRECOMMENDATIONS\nThat you approve the concept of preserving and updating the Data\nBase for use in 1974 and 1976. (The particular structure in which\nit will be housed is yet to be decided.)\nDISAPPROVE\nCOMMENTS\nDETERMINED TO\nADMINISTRATIVE\nE.O. 12065, Section 6-102\nBy\nRH. NARS, Date\nCONFIDENTIAL\n- 6 -\nThat you approve the appointment of Jim White as General Manager\nof the Data Base.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nCOMMENT\nThat you approve the general operating plan described in this memo,\nwith the understanding that the specific states and Congressional\nDistricts to be used in 1974 can be decided at a later date\n(but preferably not later than November, 1973).\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nCOMMENT\nAttachments:\nTAB A\nTAB B\nTAB C\nTAB D\nTAB E\nTAB F\nTAB G\ncc: The Honorable John N. Mitchell\nJeb S. Magruder\nTAB A\nCONTENTS OF THE DATA BASE\nSTATE\nNUMBER OF VOTING\nNUMBER OF\nHOUSEHOLDS\nREGISTERED VOTERS\nCalifornia\n6,020,000\n8,626,400\nConnecticut\n906,000\n1,373,500\nIllinois\n1,787,000\n1,682,300\nMaryland\n775,000\n1,349,100\nMichigan\n1,798,000\n1,688,600\nNew Jersey\n2,131,200\n3,196,200\nOhio\n2,352,600\n3,381,500\nPennsylvania\n3,609,400\n5,157,100\nTexas\n2,605,500\n3,970,300\nTotal\n21,984,700\n30,425,000\nTAB B\nADDITIONAL ELEMENTS IN THE DATA BASE\nOR AVAILABLE FROM THE CAMPAIGN\nPartial lists of registered Republican voters:\nFlorida - 350,000 voters from ten counties\nMassachusetts - 13,000 key Republicans\nNew Hampshire - 80,000 households (total state)\nNew York - 350,000 voters from 5 counties\nLists potentially available from the 1972 campaign:\nTelephone program key leaders lists (2,400 names)\nTelephone centers' volunteer lists (55,000 names)\nState Chairmen's volunteer lists (130,000 names)\nFinance Committee contributor lists (800,000 names)\nDemocrats for Nixon volunteer lists (2,000 names)\nLIST DEVELOPMENT\nDATA BASE DEVELOPMENT\nThe Voter Registration Data Base was established in two phases. During the\nfirst phase individual vendors were contracted to collect the voter regis-\ntration lists of specific states and to computerize this information into a\nstandard format specified by the Committee. Standard edit programs were\nsupplied to each vendor to validate the data. In the second phase, at\nUniversity Computing Company in Dallas, the base voter registration data was\nexpanded with specific demographic information added. This section dis-\ncusses the establishment of the Voter Registration Data Base.\nDATA BASE ORGANIZATION\nThe Voter Registration Data Base was organized as sequential data sets on\nmagnetic tape.\nThe basic processing entity was a county within a state. With several minor\nexceptions, the entire county was processed at one time. Counties were\nplaced on separate reels of tape and were never combined. If two parts of\nthe same county were processed separately, different county codes were\nassigned.\nThe concept of stand alone county processing was sound. The only problem\narose when zip codes crossed county boundaries. In these cases, the match\ncodes used for adding phone numbers and other data were not valid.\nWithin the county, each voter was supplied a unique sequence number. This\nnumber, together with the state and county codes uniquely identified the voter\nin the entire data base.\nMembers of the same family (with the same surname) who live at the same\naddress and who belong to the same party, were combined into households. Up\nto four members of a household were planned for. Each member of a household\nwas given a unique sequence member number.\nIn any future design, households should be defined independent of political\nparty registration. The party affiliation should be included for each member,\nbut all members of the household with the same surname should be combined.\nWithin a household, the male head of household was shown first, followed\nby wife and any other members. If a residence contained individuals with\ndifferent surnames, these individuals were listed as separate households\n(the address most likely being an apartment).\nThe sequence numbers were assigned to voters in address sequence for mailing\n(i.e., by zip code and street address within zip code). Labels or other\nmailings could be generated for a county without a major sort of the data.\n24\nHouseholding in non-city delivery service areas should be limited to those\nIndividuals who can be positively identified as belonging to the same\nhousehold. Very often in small towns or rural areas, several families with\nthe same surname will live on the same rural route or receive their mail\nthrough the same general delivery post office. These individuals cannot be\narbitrarily combined into households.\nIf supplements were required for a county, the sequence numbers for these\nadditions began at 5,000,000. This eliminated the possibility that voters\nwould be multiply updated.\nThe Voter Registration Data Base and other name lists were combined through\nthe use of match codes. These codes are extracted from key parts of the\nname and address.\nThe match code for City Delivery Service Areas (Type 1 addresses) was:\nstate, county, zip, last four characters of house number, first character\nof street name and first, third and fourth characters of surname. John\nSmith who lived at 1121 Elm Street, Chicago, Illinois 61610 was coded:\n1L031616101121ESIT.\nThe match code for other type addresses was state, county, zip and first,\nthird and fourth characters of last name. This did not always produce a\nvalid match. Names such as DAVIS, DAVIDSON, DEVITT in the same zip code\nwere considered equivalent.\nA new match code for non-street type addresses needs to be defined. One\npotential code would be state, county, zip, first character of owner name\nand the first seven characters of the last name.\nAVAILABILITY OF VOTER LISTS\nIn general, lists of registered voters are available from county or local\nregistrars across the country. These lists are normally available to any\ncandidate. Two exceptions should be noted: (a) some states or counties do\nnot require registration; and (b) citizens vote on their personal cognizance.\nAlso, the voter lists may be available only through political sub-divisions\nwithin the county, e.g., Michigan, where each township maintains the voting\nlist.\nThe voting lists normally include name, address and party affiliation (if\nvoters register by party). In some states (such as New Jersey and Ohio)\nonly those voters who participate in the primary elections have party\ndesignation. In other states, there is not attempt at the county level to\nrecord party; Republican and Democratic voter lists are kept separate by the\ncounty organizations.\nIn determining the availability of voter lists, a primary consideration is\n25\naccess to computerized voter lists. Because the cost of keypunching or\noptically scanning hardcopy lists is approximately 4-6 times as much as\nreformatting a computer tape, it is cost-efficient to obtain voter regis-\ntration on magnetic tape.\nThe Table at TAB 14 lists all counties by state which were included in\nthe Voter Registration Data Base. If a computerized source tape was available,\nthe table lists the office or individual which supplied the tape.\nThe availability of computerized voter lists does not preclude massive\nconversions or data additions. Many tapes do not include zip codes for\nexample. Others contain only one name for each household. It is not\nsufficient that the voter lists be computerized, but must be standardized\nand most often enriched.\nAnother critical factor in the availability of voter registration data\nis the date that the lists were prepared. This is critical for two reasons.\nFirst, on a national average, 20% of the population moves each year. Data\nwhich is not current decreases in value accordingly. Second, redistricting\ncan occur between the time that the list is produced and the present election.\nThis was an especially critical problem in the 1972 Election since many\nareas were under court order to reapportion the population based on the\n1970 census. Therefore, it is very important to know the date of the voter\nregistration data used.\nREGISTERED VOTER LISTS VERSUS OTHER LISTS\nMany direct mail corporations maintain separate lists which may be used for\nmailings. The Reuben H. Donnelley list is probably the most complete in\ncoverage. This was the list used by the Committee in Michigan and Wisconsin.\nExperience in Michigan indicates that there are three major problems with\nuse of such lists.\n1. They do not include any political information (such as precinct).\nAs a result, such data must be coded into the file by the canvassers.\n2. They do not include county designation. Because zip codes\ncross county boundaries, many individual voters were placed in the wrong\ncounty.\n3. One name is normally shown in each household, the male in whose\nname both the phone and auto are registered. Younger people and wives are\nnot usually shown.\nSpecialized lists can and should be used both for individual mailings, as\nwell as part of the overall data base.\n26\nSpecific lists used in this Campaign were:\n1. Farmers list owned by National Farm Journal\n2. Youth list assembled by Committee's Youth Group\nPotential lists which should have application:\n1. Subscription lists to conservative publications such as\nNational Review\n2. Contributor lists compiled from GAO and state reports filed by\nRepublican candidates\n3. Past Nixon-Agnew volunteer lists\nVOTER LIST CONVERSION\nThe most unique feature of the effort has been the standardization of the\ndata base format and contents. In California, for example, where we compu-\nterized thirty-one counties all maintained their lists in different formats.\nThus, unique programs were written for each county to produce walking lists,\nlabels or other output. By standardizing the data format and contracting\nwith individual vendors to convert the data into this single format, maximum\nflexibility was achieved in the use of these lists while minimizing the\noverall costs.\nEach vendor was required to collect the voter registration lists for certain\nstates or parts of states. Where the lists were not readily available (parti-\ncularly where there was a reluctance to release computerized lists) outside\nCommittee pressure was brought to bear.\nHaving obtained the data, each vendor was required to convert it to the\nstandard format as shown in TAB 2. If the data was already on magnetic tape,\nthis involved an analysis of the source tape codes and formats, then the\nwriting of unique programs to convert the tape. Where the source data was in\nhard copy for written lists it was either keypunched or optically scanned.\nEach vendor wrote his own conversion software.\nOne of the most severe problems was the very poor quality of the source tapes\navailable from the individual counties. In particular, these tapes often\nfollowed no real rules at all in their coding of address, name and political\nprecinct.\nSome county tapes contained no zip codes and required manual zip coding.\npurbled and streets misspelled and inconsistently coded.\n27\nApartment numbers were inconsistent, e.g., 111 Elm St. A -- Alll Elmst,\nand Apt A 111 Elm St, all on the same file.\nThe same name appeared three, four or more times on the county voter lists.\nPrecinct codes were non-uniform. This was a great problem in California.\nBecause voters must be grouped together by precinct for walking or phoning,\nit is imperative that the unique code for each precinct be determined. In\nCalifornia, numerous code combinations were used, most incorrect. This cost\nmuch time and extra expense in the generation of the lists.\nSex and title codes were incorrect. In Harris County, Texas, all titles were\neither blank or Mr. (including females).\nThe quality of the hard copy lists varied. Most were typed and could be\neasily converted. The major problems arose when they were handwritten as\nshown in TAB 15. Problems normally arose in zip coding the lists (many\nincluded no zip code) and in assigning meaningful codes to the political\nsub-divisions (precincts, wards, townships, etc.).\nVENDOR APPRAISAL\nSeven different vendors were used to collect and convert the data. These\nwere as follows:\nRATING\n1. CompuGraphics, Cleveland, Ohio (Ohio)\nUnacceptable\n2. C. Howard Wilson Company\nVery Poor\nVan Nuys, California\n(California, part of Maryland, part of Texas)\n3. Premier Printing and Mailing\nUnacceptable\nHouston, Texas\n(Harris County, Texas)\n4. Ed Nichols Associates\nGood\nKensington, Maryland\n(Pennsylvania, part of Maryland, part of Texas)\n5. A.R.A.P.\nSatisfactory\nPrinceton, New Jersey\n(New Jersey)\n6. Cambridge Opinion Studies, Inc.\nSatisfactory\nNew York, New York (Connecticut)\n7. Cohasse: Associates\nSatisfacto.\nChicago, Illinois\n28\nThe performance of each vendor is appraised:\nCompuGraphics is headed by Terry McCarthy and has close ties with the\nCuyahoga County Republican organization through William Bennett. This firm\nmaintains the Cuyahoga County Voter Lists. This firm performed very poorly\nand should not be considered for any future business. They underestimated\nthe jobs and did not have the technical management talent to accomplish\nthe tasks. One of the Committee's staff was sent to Cleveland to direct\nthe project.\nC.. Howard Wilson Company is headed by C. Howard Wilson. This company also\ndid a very poor job. Data was in many cases 30 or more days late. Failure\nto check outputs for correct precinct structure in California caused numerous\nre-runs, cost the Committee more than $10,000 and delayed delivery of a usable\nproduct more than four weeks in some areas. Technical management was poor.\nMr. Wilson left the project to attend to other business. Numerous counties\nhad to be removed from Wilson and given to other vendors because of his\npoor performance. One of the Committee's staff was sent to California to\ndirect the project.\nAlthough Premier Printing and Mailing had responsibility for only one county,\nHarris County, they were unable to perform the job and the county was sent to\nanother vendor for conversion. This firm is operating in the dark ages of\nautomation and should not be considered for any work of this type.\nEd Nichols Associates is headed by Edward Nichols and performed creditably\nfor the Committee. Most of the work which was taken from other vendors was\nsent to Nichols. As the volume of work increased, the quality of the out-\nput went down. Nichols was not sufficiently staffed to handle the greater\nvolumes. Second, Nichols made certain promises to Pennsylvania Republicans\nto allow them access to the data in exchange for their cooperation in ob-\ntaining the source data. This was done without Committee approval and against\nhis specific instructions.\nA.R.A.P. converted the data for New Jersey and wrote the Committee's edit\nprograms. They subcontracted all programming and computer work to Automated\nData Research (ADR), also of Princeton. The A.R.A.P. group was headed by\nEvan Gray and the ADR programmer was Robert Wickendon. Because A.R.A.P.\nsubcontracted all programming, it is difficult to assess that aspect. However,\nthe technical management at A.R.A.P. was not good. Wickendon was the only\nperson who understood their software. After the last shipment, Wickendon\nleft for a prolonged vacation and no one was available for more than\ntwo weeks to correct several problems that developed in their last shipment.\n29\nCambridge Opinion Studies converted voter data for Connecticut. The project\nwas headed by Richard Hochhauser. All the work was from hard copy source\ndata. A major error was made in the position of the telephone number, which\ncaused only the first six digits to be shown on manuscripts. Cambridge\nregenerated these lists for each one affected.\nCohasset Associates is headed by Bob Williams. All work was done on a\nsubcontract basis. Work was delivered on time. The only complaint is that\nWilliams does not stand behind his work. When errors were detected in pre-\ncincting the data, causing a re-run, Williams originally agreed to cover\nthe cost of correcting the error and Vegenerating the manuscript. He later\nreneged on this agreement.\nOne other vendor was used during the primary -- Compass Systems of San Diego,\nCalifornia. Compass was contracted to convert California data for the\nprimary election. Tom Hoefeller was Project Manager. The firm did a very\npoor job -- delivering data for only 20 of the 31 counties required.\nIn summary, no firm which converted voter registration data did an out-\nstanding job. Some, such as CompuGraphics, Wilson and Premier, did extremely\npoor jobs and should not be used in the future. Others, such as Nichols,\nCohasset, A.R.A.P. and Cambridge did average jobs. In choosing any firm,\nthree criteria must be weighed: technical experience, sufficient manpower\nand political backing. The greatest single fault with all of the firms\nwith which we dealt was lack of technical management and lack of sufficient\nresources to do the job. It appears that the companies with political ex-\nperience in data processing are so small that they lack the means to do\nthe job properly. Similarly, the larger firms, such as UCC, do not have the\npolitical experience to handle the jobs.\nDATA EDIT AND STANDARDIZATION\nA standard computer edit program was developed and supplied to each in the\nstate vendors and to UCC. The purpose of this program was to validate the\ndata in the original county files prior to submission to UCC. The edit was\ndesigned to be run as a final processing step by the state vendors after\nall data had been converted into the standard format. It was also to be\nrun by UCC to validate that the correct data has been submitted by the state\nvendor. The edit program was designed to validate input data, not correct\nerrors. Thus, it was designed to display real or potential problems for\nmanual checking rather than attempting to correct them.\nThe edit routine consisted of the following:\n1. A set of error-checking sub-routines\n30\n2. Two error listings\n3. A fatal error listing of records containing errors which\nprecluded further processing\n4. A warning error listing of potential errors (such as an\nalphabetic character in the house number field)\n5. Two audit reports: Zip City Audit (TAB 16) showing the number\nof households and voters for Republicans, Democrats, Indepen-\ndents and others by zip code and the Political Unit Audit (TAB 17)\nshowing the number of households and voters for each precinct, ward\nand township or city -- summarized by county. Initially, a third\naudit report containing a statistical dump of the file was envisioned.\nThis idea was dropped as impractical because of the large size of\nsome counties.\nThe key to the edit routines was the geopolitical table. This set of cards\nwas designed to show the permissable relationships between the Zip Code,\nPost Office name and the political sub-divisions (city/township, ward, district,\nprecinct, state lower and upper house district and congressional district).\nThis table was used to standardize Post Office name spelling and to insure\nthat each voter was assigned to the correct precinct. If the information\nfor a voter was not consistent, this record was rejected as a fatal error.\nIn general, the edit routine provided a very effective audit of the data.\nEach field was checked to ascertain correct placement of the data and the\nvalidity of characters with the field. Extensive checking was done on\nthe \"name\" fields (given name, surname, and street name) in an effort to\nguard against misspellings. Character sequences were checked so that\nsuch things as four contiguous consonants, three contiguous vowels, or\nthree contiguous identical letters produced warning messages. The A.R.A.P.\nspecifications for the edit routine are included in TAB 18.\nThere were three basic problems with the edit programs:\n1. First, and most important, while the programs displayed errors,\neach vendor was left to his own resources to develop programs and pro-\ncedures to correct the errors. To the maximum extent possible, the edit\nprogram should automatically correct known errors. Standard software should\nbe developed as part of the edit package to allow either single records or\ngroups of records to be corrected and should operate on standard file format.\n2. The geo-political table should be re-designed. Defined as it was,\nthe political table was difficult to code. Since it was necessary to specify\neach precinct separately in order to use the precinct name field, the table\noften grew unmanageably large. Because the edit routine would not run with-\nout the table, the majority of vendors generated the table from the county\nfile itself which, of course, defeated the purpose of the validation table.\nMinimally, if such a table is used, the toles of precincts and zip codes\nshould show the zip codes within a precinct and not vice versa.\n3. More time must be given to develop the edit programs. The final\nedit specifications were developed in mid-June and the programs delivered\nto vendors in mid-July. This was not sufficient time to totally de-bug the\nprograms or to test the applicability of the various complex routines.\nNumerous minor problems were found in the edits after they had been\ndelivered to vendors. This delayed the acceptance of data. Minimally, two\nand one half months must be allowed to write the programs after the specifi-\ncations are firm. Further, vendors should be given several weeks of\nexperience with the edit routines prior to data submission.\nIn determining the specifications for future editing, special attention\nmust be given to the street name field. The correct spelling and categoriza-\ntion of each street name is essential if effective door-to-door canvass\nlists are to be produced.\nThe street type (street, drive, road, etc.) should be separated from the\nrest of the street name in a separate field.\nThe key to developing good reliable addresses under the tight time con-\nstraints imposed by a political Campaign must be to use other address sources\nwhich have been compiled, checked and validated at a more leisurely pace.\nA common directory of street names within each zip code for each metropolitan\narea could be used to automatically correct spellings and to flag variances.\nTwo good sources for this are the Address Coding Guide developed by Reuben H.\nDonnelley and the Universal Occupant Lists also developed by the direct mail\ncompanies.\nName redundancy should be eliminated. This can easily be done by sorting\nthe files prior to editing and then checking for consecutive repeating names.\nSpecific field edit recommendations are shown at TAB 19.\nALGORITHMS FOR EXTENDING DATA\nEthnic origin of names was determined by comparing the surname with a\nprecompiled list of names and by matching the last set of characters in the\nname against a prescribed set of endings. Procedures were developed for\nSpanish, Polish, Jewish, Irish and Italian groupings. The exact lists and\nendings used for each ethnic group are shown in TAB 20.\nThe greatest potential problem in determining ethnic grouping from the surname\nis insuring that the ethnic groupings are exclusive, i.e., insuring that if\na surname is assigned to a specific ethnic group, that the individual\ndoes indeed belong to the group. This problem is most acute in determining\nJewish surnames and in separating Irish from other Angle-Saxon names.\n(For example, the name Schwartz can be both Jewish and German and it is\na mistake to arbitrarily assign this name to a Jewish group.)\nThe second potential problem with the use of surnames is the standardization\nof prefixes. Prefixes such as '0', 'Di', or 'D' must be in standard posi-\ntions in order that these names be properly assigned.\nTelephone number, census tract, age groupings and income grouping were\nall appended to each voter record by combining the Voter Registration Data\nBase with selected data elements from the Reuben H. Donnelley Universal\nList.\nA match code was extracted for each registered voter household. For Type\n1 addresses this code consisted of Zip Code, county, state, last four\ncharacters of house number, first character of street name and first, third\nand fourth character of last name. For Type 2 and 3 addresses, this code\nwas Zip Code, state, county, and first, third and fourth characters of\nlast name. A similar match code was extracted from the R.H. Donnelley\nUniversal List. See TAB 21.\nThese two sets of match codes were sorted into the same sequence and compared.\nEach time a match was found, the telephone number, census tract, dwelling\nsize and FIND (Family Income Detector) code were extracted from the R.H.\nDonnelley Universal List and appended to the Voter Registration Data Base.\nThe match code technique is the only feasible means of combining two\nseparately developed name lists. However, the actual match code used is\nvariable and can be adjusted depending upon the accuracy required.\nThe match code for Type 1 addresses was valid.\nThe match code for Type 2 and 3 addresses was not valid. The code in these\ninstances should be changed to include more characters in the surname.\nThe Reuben H. Donnelley Universal lists contained 1960 census tract codes.\n1970 census tract data was added to each file using the Address Coding\nGuide supplied by R.H. Donnelley and comparing addresses between the two\nfiles. See TAB 22.\nPeripheral Urban Ethnics (PUE) and black ghettos were determined by 1970\ncensus tract data.\nAll individual voters who resided in ghettos census tracts and whose sur-\nnames indicated that the voter was not one of the specified ethnic groupings\n(Irish, Jewish, Spanish, Italian or Polish) was designated black.\nAll individual voters who resided in census tracts designated as PUE were\nso coded.\nBecause some voters had not matched the R.H. Donnelley Universal list and\nhence contained no census tract codes, it was necessary to extend black\nand PUE designations through entire precincts. This was accomplished on\nthe following basis:\n1. Counts were generated for each precinct showing the total number of\nhouseholds in the precinct, the number of households with census tract, and\nthe number of households designated as black or PUE based upon a match of\ncensus tracts.\n2. If more than 15% of the households in a precinct contained census\ntract matches and if more than 50% of all census tract households were\ndesignated black or PUE, then all households in the precinct were designated\nblack or PUE. The exception were names which had previously been identified\nas one of the special ethnic groupings.\n24\n1972\nCOMPOSITE ELECTION\nSTATISTICS\nand\nBRIEF ANALYSIS\nfor\n1974\nPrepared by:\nManyon M. Millican\nJanuary 1973\nREPUBLICAN GAINS\nDue to redistricting the 24 states of the East and Midwest lost\na total of 9 districts and yet showed a net gain of 6 seats.\nThe 13 states of the South had an increase of only 2 districts,\nyet gained a total of 5 new seats.\nThe 13 Western states, with an increase of 7 new districts, only\ngained 2. ne seats, truly disappointing in view of the fact that\ngains the 50's and 60's came where the population increased.\n(13)\nRedistricting\nGain\nTotal\ngained\n+7 new seats\n+2R\n42D - 34R\n(13)\ngained\n+2 new seats\n+6R\n84D - 37R\nIdwe\n(12)\nlost\n-4 seats\n+3R\n51D - 70R\nEast (12)\nlost\n-5 seats\n+3R\n65D - 52R\n+13R\n242D - 193R\nVoting statistics substantiate that our gains to become a majority\nparty uld come from the South and the sunbelt of Texas, Arizona,\nNew Mexico and California in addition to our base in the Midwest.\nIn other words, we must continue our gains in the Last and Midwest and\nour giant gains in the South and the West (?). However, the\nWest failed to make the significant gains that statistics would indicate\nit should.\nthe South were not what they should have been in this\nwriter's opinion. At least an additional 12 seats should have been\nwon from this area (there are 19 marginal Democrat districts alone\nthis area) excluding our gain of 6 new seats. (See Table v)\nOf the 121 districts in the South, there are 84D to 37R seats with 29\nof the Demorrcat seats uncontested. Nine of these were in Texas, 6\nin Louisiana, 5 in Georgia and 2 in Florida.\n: significant statistic is that in 1960 the South had only 8\nmemblican congressmen and in 12 years they are at 37. Yet the total\nshould be close to 60 had proper priorities been emphasized. A\ntic that would suggest this to be a valid argument is that in\n2\nthe same period the South went from 2 Republican Senators to 10\nof 26, a gain of 500%. However, while we were making good Senate\ngains in the South we were losing such Republican seats as Iowa (2),\nMaine (2), Montana (1), New Hampshire (1), North Dakota (1), South\nDakota (1), Wyoming (1), Colorado (1) and Indiana (2) - a total\nloss of 12 seats.\nWHY NO COATTAILS? NO ORGANIZATION\nIt is incredible with a 60% victory by the President that we lost 4\nSenate seats plus failing to keep 2 seats that were previously\nRepublican, not to mention the meager 12 seat gain in the House.\nThese losses in the Senate and poor gains in the House are primarily\ndue to lack of organization at the precinct and county level in\naddition to poor candidate recruitment. The third ingredient, money,\nwas adequate in a boon Republican year for fund-raising.\nWe will not gain control of the Congress until we muster a national,\nmonolithic organizational approach at the congressional district\nlevel consisting of precinct organization plans of find 'em, register\n'em, vote 'en, and count 'cn, plus a well-coordinated national\ncandidate recruitment drive (plus money, of course)\nIt is the major responsibility of a party (nationally) to cause the\naforementioned to happen. If it is not done, then we as a party\ncannot exploit the President's \"New Majority\", thus not becoming the\nmajority party nor winning the White House in 1976.\nHOUSE AND SENATE RACES IN 1974\nWe need 26 new seats in the House and 8 new seats in the Senate to\ncontrol both. The odds are stiff to accomplish either in the next 2\nyears due to incumbencies and/or retirements, and just numbers in the\nHouse. However, control of either is possible in 1976 if we do our\nhomework in 1974.\n18 Democrats and 15 Republicans are up in the Senate in 1974, with 4\npossible Republican retirees and only 2 possible Democrat retirees\nand 5 of the 18 Democrats from the Deep South (and tought to beat).\nHowever, 5 to 8 Democrats could be beaten in 1974 and, if we maintained\nour strength, substantial guins could made,\nCONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY\n* Up in 1974\n** Up in 1973\nTP Third Party\nSTATES\nElectoral Votes: 141 / -4 over 1970)\n1970\n1972\n1974\n122\nse Districts\n69D - 53R\n117 House Districts\n65D - 52R\n12 Governors 6D - 6R\n24\nate Seats\n9D - 15R\n24 Senate Seats\nI1D - 13R\n12\nernors\n4D 8R\n12 Governors\n6D 6R\n* 3D - 5R\nSt\n#\nHouse\nSenate\n+ -\n#\nHouse\nSenate\n1974\nGov.\nPlurality\n%\n1974\nConn\n6\n4D 2R\nID 1R\n6\n3D 3R\n1D* 1R\nRibicoff\n-\nR*\n+81,599\n53.8\nMeskill\nDel\nre\n.1\n- 1R\n- 2R\n1\n- 1R\nID 1R\nD -\nMaine\n2\n2D -\n1D 1R\n2\nID 1R\n2D -\nD* -\n-890\n49.9\nCurtis\nMaryland\n8\n5D 3R\n- 2R\nS\n4D 4R\n- 2R*\nMathias\nD* -\n-325,243\n32.3\nMandel\nMass.\n12\nSD 4R\nID 1R\n12\n8D 4R\nID 1R\n-\nR*\n+259,354\n51.8\nSargent\nN. R.\n2\n- 2R\nID 1R\n2\n- 2R\nID\n11:20\nCotton\n-\nR*\nTP+4,200\n46.0\nPeterson\nN. J.\n15\nSD 7R\n1D 1R\n15\n8D 7R\nID 1R\n- R*\n**\nCahill (')\nN. Y.\n41\n23D 18R\n- 2R\n-2\n39\n22D 17R\n- 2R*\nJavits\n- R*\n+730.006\n51.2\nRockefelle\nPa.\n27\n12D 15R\n- 2R\n-2\n25\n13D 12R\n- 2R*\nSchweiker\nD* -\n-500,175\n41.7\nShapp\nR. I.\n2\n2D -\n2D -\n2\n2D -\n2D\nD -\nVerment\n1\n1R\n- 2R\n1\n- IR\n- 2R*\nAiken\nD -\nW. Va.\n5\n5D -\n2D -\n-1\n4\n4D -\n2D\n-\nR\nTOTAL\n*\n*\n*\n122\n69D 53R\n9D 15R\n-5\n117\n65D 52R\n11D 13R\n1D 5R\n3D 5R\n3D 5R\nTABLE II\nCONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY\n* Up in 1974\nMIDWEST STATES\n(Electoral Votes: 145 / -4 over 1970)\n1970\n1972\n1974\n125 House Districts\n56D - 69R\n121 House Districts\n51D - 70R\n12 Governor\n8D - 4R\n24 Senate Seats\n14D - 10R\n24 Senate Seats\n15D - 9R\n* 6D - 2R\n12 Governors\n9D - 3R\n12 Governors\n8D - 4R\n* 5D - 3R\nStates\n#\nHouse\nSenate\n+-\n#\nHouse\nSenate\n1974\nGovernor\nPluralitv\n%\n1974\nIllinois\n24\n12D 12R\n1D 1R\n24\n10D 14R\nID 1R\n----\nD\n-----\n--\nIndiana\n11\n5D 6R\n2D ---\n11\n4D 7R\n2D\" -\nBayh\n- R\n----\n--\nIowa\n7\n3D 4R\n1D 1R\n-1\n6\n3D 3R\n2D* -\nHughes\n- R*\n+34,483\n51\nRay\nCansco\n5\n1D 4R\n-- 2R\n5\nID 4R\n-- 2R*\nDole\nD* -\n-71,384\n54\nDocking\nEchigen\n19\n7D 12R\n1D 1R\n19\n7D 12R\nID 1R\n- R*\n+44,111\n50.4\nMilliken\nlinn.\n8\n4D 4R\n2D ---\n8\n4D 4R\n2D -\n---\nD\" -\n-116,141\n45.5\nAnderson\nNebraska\n3\n-- 3R\n-- 2R\n3\n---\n3R\n-- 2R\nD* -\n-46,558\n43.8\nExon\nissouvi\n10\n9D 1R\n2D\n10\n9D 1R\n2D* - -\nEagleton\n- R\n----\n--\nD.\n2\n1D 1R\nID 1R\n-1\n1\n--\n1R\n1D 1R*\nYoung\nD -\nOhio\n24\n7D 17R\n-- 2R\n-1\n23\n7D 16R\n--- 2R*\nSaxbe\nD:: -\n-342,811\n43.4\nGilligan\nD.\n2\n2D --\n2D\n2\nID 1R\n2D* -\nMcGovern\nD* -\n-23,269\n45.2\nKneip\nWisc.\n10\n5D 5R\n2D\n-1\n9\nSD 4R\n2D* -\nNelson\nD* -\n-125,786\n44.9\nLucey\nTOTAL\n*\n125\n56D 69R\n14D 10R\n-4\n121\n51D 70R\n15D.9R\n5D 3R\n8D 4R\n6D 2R\nABLE\nI\nCONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY\n* Up in 1974\nTP Third Party\nSTATES\n(Electoral Votes: 102 / +7 over 1970)\n970\n1972\n1974\n9 1.\nDistricts\n39D - 30R\n76 House Districts\n42D - 34R\n13 Governors 7D - 6R\n26 Se:\n:e Seats\n15D - 11R\n26 Senate Seats\n15D - 11R\n13 G:\nnors\n6D - 7R\n13 Governors\n7D 6R\n10 up in '74 (5D - 5R)\ncat\n#\nHouse\nSenate\n+\n-\n# House\nSenate\n1974\nGovernor Plurality % 1974\n#\nMaska\n1\n1D -\n1D IR\n1\nID -\n1D* 1R\nGravel\n: Dis -\n-5,045\n46.9\nEgan\nArizon:\n3\n1D 2R\n- 2R\n+1\n4\nID 3R\n- 2R*\nGoldwater\n- R*\n+7,303\n50.9\nWilliams\nCalif.\n38\n20D 18R\n2D -\n+5\n43\n23D 20R\n2D* -\nCranston\n-\nR*\n+501,057\n52.8\nReagan\nColo.\n4\n2D 2R\n- 2R\n+1\n5\n2D 3R\nID 1R*\nDeminick\n-\nR*\n+48,567\n52.5\nLove\nHawaii\n2\n2D -\nID 1R\n2\n2D -\nID* IR\nInouye\nD* -\n-36,563\n42.6\nBurns\nIdaho\n2\n- 2R\n1D IR\n2\n- 2R\nID* 1R\nChurch\nD* -\n-10,896\n47.8\nAndrus\nMontana\n2\nID 1R\n2D -\n2\n1D 1R\n2D -\nD -\nNevada\n1\n1D -\n2D -\n1\n- 1R\n2D* -\nBible\nD* T.P\n-6,297\n43.8\nO'Callaghan\nN. Mex.\n2\n1D 1R\n2D -\n2\nID 1R\nID 1R\n----\nDrs -\n-14,195\n46.4\nKing\nOregon\n4\n2D 2R\n- 2R\n4\n2D 2R\n- 2R*\nPackwood\n- R*\n+76,072\n55.5\nMcCall\nUtah\n2\n1D 1R\nID 1R\n2\n2D -\nID 1R*\nBennett\nD\nWash.\n7\n6D 1R\n2D -\n7\n6D 1R\n2D* -\nMagnuson\n- R\nWyoming\n1\nID -\nID 1R\nI\nID -\nID 1R\n----\n- R*\n+30,241\n62.8\nHathaway\nTOTAL\n69\n39D 30R\n15D 11R\n+7\n76\n42D 34R\n15D 11R\n6D 4R\n7D 6R\n5D 5R\nTABLE IV\nCONGRESSIONAL, SENATORIAL AND GOVERNOR TALLY\nit Up in 1974\n** Up in 1975\n*** Up in 1973\nSOUTHERN STATES\n(Electoral Votes: 147 / +2 over 1970)\n1970\n1972\n1974\n119 House Districts\nS8D - 31R\n121 House Districts\n84D - 37R\n13 Governors 10D - 3R\n26 Schate Seats\n18D - SR\n26 Senate Seats\n16D - 10R\nUp in 1974 (7D - 1R)\n13 Governors\n11D - 2R\n13 Governors\n10D - 3R\nUp in 1973 (--- 1R)\nStates\n#\nHouse\nSenate\n+ -\n#\nHouse\nSenate\n1974\nGovernor Plurality\n%\n1974\nMabana\n8\n5D 3R\n2D -\n-1\n7\n4D\n3R\n2D* -\nAllen\nD*\n-\n100\nVallace\nArkansas\n4\n3D IR\n2D -\n4\n3D 1R\n2D* -\nFulbright\nDr\n-\nBumpers\nFlorida\n12\n9D 3R\nID IR\n+3\n15\n11D 4R\nID IR\"\nGurney\nDrs\n-\nAskew\ncorp\n10\nSD 2R\n2D -\n10\n9D\n1R\n2D* -\nTalmadge\nD*\n-\nCarter\nKentucky\n7\n5D 2R\n- 2R\n7\n5D\n2R\n1D 1R*\nCook\nD\n/\nLouislana\n8\nSD -\n2D -\n8\n7D\n1R\n2D* -\nLong\nD\n-\n**\n1975\nMissionippi\n5\n5D -\n2D -\n5\n3D\n2R\n2D -\nD\n-\n:\nN. Car lina 11\n7D 4R\n2D -\n11\n7D\n4R\n1D* IR\nErvin\nI\nR\nOklah\n6\n4D 2R\n1D IR\n6\n5D\n1R\n- 2R*\nBellmon\nD*\n-\n-2,181\n48.1\nHall\nCarolina\n6\n5D 1R\nID 1R\n6\n4D\n2R\n1D* 1R\nHollings\nD*\n-\n-29,318\n45.6\nWest\nTenne\n9\n5D 4R\n- 2R\n-1\n8\n3D\n5R\n- 2R\n-\nR*\n+66,256\n52.0\nDunn\nTexas\n23\n20D 3R\n1D IR\n+1\n24\n20D\n4R\n1D 1R\nD*\n-\n-101,369\n45.0\nBriscoe\nirginis\n10\n4D 6R\n2D -\n10\n3D\n7R\nID 1R\nI\nR*\n***\nHolton\nTOTAL\n*\n*\n119\n8SD 31R\n18D 8R\n+2\n121\n84D 37R\n16D 10R\n6D 3R\n10D\n3R\n7D 1R\nNATE INVENTORY BY REGION\n1 Democrat and 5 Republicans\n5 Democrats and 3 Republicans\n6 Democrats and 3 Republicans\n6 Democrats and 4 Republicans\n18 Democrats\n15 Republicans\nCUSE INVENTORY (Table V)\ncalled \"safe\" seats (178D and 141R) of the 435\n:\nmarginal seats (67D and 49R) to fight over for\n: control. Democrats are most vulnerable in the\nth 40 of their 67 marginal seats. We are most\nMidwest with 17 seats that are marginal.\nthe House we would have to win 67% of. the total\nwhile not losing any of our 141 so-called \"safe\"\n=y difficult task! That should be our objective\n7% of the 116 marginal seats. Should we only\nmarginal seats we will then be only 7 seats away\n1976.\nbe implemented at the county and precinct\ntional districts by our national party if we are\nparty.\nhave:\nididates\n4\nTABLE V\nHOUSE INVENTORY\nTotal of Marginal and Safe Districts\nEASTERN (117 Districts)\nM - D\nM - R\nTotal\nS D\nS R\nTotal\n21\n10\n31\n45\n41\n86\n:\nSOUTHERN\n(121 Districts)\nM - D\nM - R\nTotal\nS ID\nS R\nTotal\n19\n14\n33\n65\n23\n88\nMIDWESTERN (121 Districts)\nM D\nM - R\nTotal\nS D\nS R\nTotal\n13\n17\n30\n38\n53\n91\nWESTERN (76 Districts)\nM D\nM - R\nTotal\nS - D\nS - R\nTotal\n14\n8\n22\n30\n24\n54\n67 (58%) 49 (42%)\n178 (56%) 141 (44%)\n116\n:\n319\nTotal Marginal\nTotal Safe\n27%\n73%\n5.5. to Makeup\nDemocrat 243\nRepublican 192\n51\n26 seats for majority\nTABLE VI\nMARGINAL CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS\nTP--Third Party\nEASTERN STATES\nSOUTHERN STATES (con.)\nHouse\n%\nPlurality\nHouse\n%\nPlurality\nConn.\n#5-R\n51.1\n+5,256\nLa.\n#3-R\n51.8\n+4,213\n#3-D\n46.8\n-14,947\nMiss.\n#4-R\n47.1\n+3,257\nDel.\nNONE\n#5-R\n55.2\n+11,628\nMaine\n#2-R\n54.4\n+13,240\nN. C.\n#4-D\n49.7\n-971\n#1-D\n41.7\n-26,049\n7-D\n40.3\n-16,623\nMd.\n#4-R\n59.2\n+25,881\n#3-D('70) 40.0\n-13,841\nMass.\n#4-D/TP\n45.0\n-9,433\n#6-D\n35.0\n-26,954\n#5-R/TP\n53.4\n+18,026\n#11-D\n40.5\n-29,544\n#12-D\n49.7\n-1,207\nOkla.\n1-D\n43.9\n-19,426\nN. H.\nNONE\n#5-D\n41.9\n-16,367\nN. J.\n#1-R\n52.8\n+9,615\nS. C.\n1-D\n44.9\n-11,635\n#3-D\n46.7\n-12,176\n#6-R\n52.5\n+5,425\n#4-D\n42.1\n-25,878\nTenn.\n#3-R\n55.3\n+19,913\n#9-D\n44.2\n-24,756\n#5-D\n37.1\n-37,051\n#13-R\n56.3\n+22,951\n#6-R\n55.1\n+16,441\n15-D\n47.9\n-17,749\n#8-R\n55.5\n+18,529\nN. Y.\n#3-R/TP\n53.8\n452,069\nTexas\n#5-R\n55.7\n+15,236\n#6-D\n47.6\n-9,449\n#13-R\n54.8\n+15,061\n#15-D/TP\n43.5\n-11,899\n221-D\n41.9\n-23,580\n(17-D\n41.1\n-19,224\nVa.\n#4-R\n49.9\n+11,998\n23-R\n53.4\n+10,089\n#6-R\n54.3\n+20,544\n#26-R/TP\n48.7\n+18,262\n#8-R\n44.9\n+8,897\n#31-R/TP\n54.3\n+22,824\n#10-R\n56.6\n+23,310\n32-D\n43.7\n-20,849\nPa.\n#4-D\n44.1\n-26,965\nMIDWESTERN STATES\n#22-D\n40.4\n-22,602\n23-R\n57.4\n+20,536\nHouse\n%\nPlurality\n#25-D\n44.4\n-16,050\nR. I.\nNONE\nIll.\n#10-R\n51.6\n+7,173\nVermont NONE\n#11-D\n46.8\n-13,268\nW. Va.\n#4-D\n40.0\n-30,443\n#21-R\n54.8\n+17,443\n22-D\n43.2\n-26,228\nSOUTHEIN STATES\nInd.\n#1-1)\n49.3\n-1,811\n2-R\n54.1\n+14,615\nllouse\n%\nPlurality\n#3-D\n43.8\n-22,456\n#4-D\n48.4\n-5,833\nAla.\n2-R\n55.3\n-19,952\n#11-R\n51.1\n+4,241\nFla.\n4-D\n44.0\n-18,692\nIowa\n#1-D\n44.8\n-16,788\n#5-D\n44.5\n-18,611\n#2-D\n41.3\n-19,219\n#8-D\n42.4\n-22,315\n#6-R\n51.4\n+4,350\n#11-D\n39.8\n-37,502\nKansas\n#2-D\n36.8\n-29,364\n#15-D\n43.4\n-19,601\nMich.\n#6-R\n50.6\n+2,239\nGa.\n#5-D\n46.5\n-9,136\n#12-D\n49.1\n-2,944\n57-D\n(0.1\n-17,705\n#14-D\n42.7\n-25,518\n425,040\n#18-R\n54.9\n+22,851\n-7,237\nTABLE VI (con.)\n:\nMIDNESTERN STATES (con.)\nHouse\n%\nPlurality\nMinn.\n#6-R\n51.1\n+4,744\n#7-D\n41.0\n-39,977\nNeb.\nNONE\nMo.\n#4-D\n42.3\n-22,658\n#6-D\n45.3\n-19,045\n#8-D\n39.3\n-27,575\nN. D.\nNONE\nOhio\n#8-R\n51.7\n+1,592\n#16-R\n53.8\n+9,711\n#23-R/TP\n50.1\n+3,561\nS. D.\n#2-R\n55.0\n+12,750\nWisc.\n#3-R/TP\n54.7\n+19,886\n#8-R/TP\n50.5\n+3,504\nWESTERN STATES\nHouse\n%\nPlurality\nAlaska\nAL-D\n44.8\n-8,018\nAriz.\n#4-R\n53.5\n+9,686\nCalif.\n#2-D/TP\n22.5\n-86,427\n#7-D/TP\n38.0\n-40,500\n#8-D\n47.1\n-11,076\n#11-D/TP\n37.0\n-43,925\n#12-R\n54.0\n+21,287\n#31-D/TP\n42.5\n-16,078\n#36-R/TP\n52.7\n+5,468\n#38-D\n43.7\n-17,397\nColo.\n#1-D/TP\n47.4\n-9,639\n#4-R\n51.4\n+5,265\nHawaii\n#]-D\n45.4\n-12,424\n#2-D\n43.0\n-19,577\nIdaho\nN 0 N E\nMont.\n#1-R\n57.6\n+11,407\nNev.\nAL-R\n51.5\n+4,596\nN. Mex.\nNONE\nOrc.\nNONE\nUtah\n#2-D\n44.9\n-19,167\nWash.\n#1-D\n49.7\n-1,090\n#4-D\n47.3\n-7,697\nWyo.\nAL-D\n48.3\n-4,872\nTABLE VII\nMARGINAL AND SAFE DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN SEATS\nTotal\nM-D(#)\nM-R(#)\nS-D(#)\nS-R(#)\nMIDWEST STATES\nIllinois\n24\n1(22)\n3(10,11,21)\n8(1,2,5,7,\n12(3,4,6,12-20)\n9,23,24)\nIndiana\n11\n3(1,3,4)\n2(2,11)\n1(9)\n5(5-8,10)\nIowa\n6\n2(1,2)\n2(5,6)\n1(4)\n1(3)\nMichigan\n19\n2(12,14)\n3(2,6,18)\n6(1,13,15,\n8(3-5,7-11)\n16,17,19)\nKansas\n5\n1(2)\n4(1,3-5)\nMinnesota\n8\n1(7)\n1(6)\n3(4,5,8)\n3(1,2,3)\nNebraska\n3\n3(1,2,3)\nMissouri\n10\n3(4,6,8)\n6(1-3,9,10)\n1(7)\nN. Dakota\n1\n1(AL)\nOhio\n23\n3(8,16,23)\n7(9,14,18-22) 3(1-7,10-13,15,17)\nS. Dakota\n2\n1(2)\n1(1)\nWisconsin\n9\n2(3,8)\n5(1,2,4,5,7)\n2(6,9)\n121\n13\n17\n38\n53\nWESTERN STATES\nAlaska\n1\n1(AL)\nArizona\n4\n1(4)\n1(2)\n2(1,3)\nCalifornia\n43\n5(2,7,8\n3(6,12,36)\n19(1,3-5,11,\n16(10,13,17,18,20,23-\n31,38)\n14-16,19,\n25,27,28,32,33,39,\n21,22,26,\n40,42,43)\n29,30,34,\n35,37,41)\nColorado\n5\n1(1)\n1(4)\n1(3)\n2(2,5)\nHawaii\n2\n2(1,2)\nIdaho\n2\n2(1,2)\nMontana\n2\n1(1)\n1(2)\nNevada\n1\n1(AL)\nNew Mexico\n2\n1(1)\n1(2)\nOregon\n4\n2(2,3)\n2(1,4)\nUtah\n2\n2(1,2)\nWashington\n7\n2(1,4)\n5(2,3,5-7)\nWyoming\n1\n1(AL)\n76\n14,\n8\n30\n24\nEASTERN STATES\nConnecticut\n6\n2(1,3)\n1(5)\n1(6)\n2(2 4)\nDelaware\n1\n1(AL,\nMaine\n2\n1(1)\n1(2)\nMaryland\n8\n4(2,3,6,7)\n4(1,4,5,8)\nTABLE VII (con.)\nTotal\nM-D(#)\nM-R(#)\nS-D(#)\nS-R(#)\nMassachusetts\n12\n3(4,9,12)\n1(5)\n6(2,3,6,8,11)\n2(1,10)\nNew Hampshire\n2\n2(1,2)\nNew Jersey\n15\n5(3,4,9,11,\n2(1,13)\n3(8,10,14)\n5(2,5,6,7,12)\n15)\nNew York\n39\n4(6,15,17,\n5(1,3.\n17(7-14,16,\n13(2,4,5,25,27,29,\n32)\n23,26,\n18-22,24,\n30,33,34,35,36,\n31)\n28,37)\n38,39)\nPennsylvania\n25\n3(4,22,25)\n1(23)\n10(1-3,6,11,\n11(5,7-10,12,13,\n14,15,20,\n16-19)\n21,24)\nRhode Island\n2\n2(1,2)\nVermont\n1\n1(AL)\nWest Virginia\n4\n1(4)\n3(1,2,3)\n117\n19\n11\n46\n41\nSOUTHERN STATES\nAlabama\n7\n1(2)\n4(3,4,5,7)\n2(1,6)\nArkansas\n4\n3(1,2,4)\n1(3)\nFlorida\n15\n5(4,5,8,11,\n6(1-3,7,13,\n4(6,9,10,12)\n15)\n14)\nGeorgia\n10\n2(5,7)\n7(1-3,6,8,10)\n1(4)\nKentucky\n7\n2(2,6)\n3(3,1,7)\n2(4,5)\nLouisiana\n8\n1(3)\n7(1,2,4-8)\nMississippi\n5\n2(4,5)\n3(1,2,3)\nNorth Carolina\n11\n3(4,7,11)\n4(1,2,3,6)\n4(5,8-10)\nOklahoma\n6\n2(1,5)\n3(2-4)\n1(6)\nSouth Carolina\n6\n1(1)\n1(6)\n3(3-5)\n1(2)\nTennessee\n8\n1(5)\n3(3,6,8)\n2(4,7)\n2(1,2)\nTexas\n24\n3(8,21,24)\n2(5,13)\n17(1,2,4,6,9-\n2(3,7)\n12,14-20,22,\n23)\nVirginia\n10\n4(4,6,8,10)\n3(1,3,5)\n3(2,7,9)\nTotals\n121\n19\n14\n65\n23\nC\nElection\n1972\nSUMMARY OF ELECTION RESULTS FOR 50 STATES, D.C.\n(Complete list of unofficial returns, p. 2993-3001)\nHouse (2 R): Incumbent Orval Hansen (R) was\nelected to a third term, and Steven D. Symms (R) was\nWest\nelected to the seat vacated by McClure.\nNevada. President: Nixon won the state's three\nPresident Nixon defeated Sen: George McGovern in\nelectoral votes.\n13 western states and won 102 electoral votes.\nHouse (1 R): Republicans took over the at-large seat\nSeven Senate seats and three governorships were up.\nas David Towell (R), 35, defeated James H. Bilbray (D),\nyear. There were two party turnovers among the\n34. Bilbray defeated Rep. Walter S. Baring (D) in the\nraces: Colorado elected a Democratic senator and\nprimary.\nMexico a Republican senator. There was no party\nMontana. President: Nixon won the state's four\nnover among the governors.\nelectoral votes.\nOf the 76 House districts the West, the Democrats\nSenator: Incumbent Lee Metcalf (D), 61, was elected\n43 and the Republicans won 33. or the seven new\nto a third term.\nseats added by reapportionment, the Republicans\nGovernor: Lt. Gov. Thomas L. Judge (D), 38, was\nfour and the Democrats won three. Party control of\nelected. defeating State Sen. Ed Smith (R), 52. Gov.\nscats Was reversed, giving the Republicans a net\nForrest H. Anderson (D) is retiring.\nof one representative.\nHouse (1 D, I R): Both incumbents won re-election.\nAlaska. President: Vixon won the state's three elec-\nNew Mexico: President: Nixon took the state's four\nvotes.\nelectoral votes.\nSenator: Incumbent Ted Stevens (R), 4S, was elected\nSenator: Pete V. Domenici (R), 40, will replace retir-\nfirst full term.\ning Sen. Clinton P. Anderson (D) in the Senate. Domenici\nHouse (1 D): Nick Begich (D), 40, was elected to a\ndefeated former State Rep. Jack Daniels (D).\nond term as Alaska's at-large representative. Begich\nHouse (1 D, 1 R): Both incumbents were re-elected.\nappeared in a light plane while campaigning Oct. 15.\nOregon. President: Nixon won the state's six elec-\nhe survived, Gov. William A. Egan (D) must call a\ntoral votes.\nelection to replace him.\nSenator: Incumbent Mark O. Hatfield (R), 50, was\nArizona. President: Nixon won the state's six elec-\nelected to a second term. defeating former Sen. Wayne\nvotes.\nL. Morse (D), 71.\nHouse (1 D, 3 R): All three incumbents were re-\nHouse (2D, 2R): All four incumbents were re-elected.\nand ? Republican was elected to the new seat\nUtah. President: Nixon won the state's four electoral\nas a result of reapportionment.\nvotes.\nCalifornia. President: Nixon won the state's 45 elec-\nGovernor: Calvin L. Rampton (I), 58, won a third\nvotes.\nterm.\nHouse (23 D, 20 R): All 34 California incumbents\nHouse (2 D): Both House seats went Den atic as\nre-election were successful. Democrats gained\nincumbent K. Gunn McKay (D), 47, was re-elected and\nseats and Republicans two, reflecting the five new\nattorney Wayne Owens (D), 35, defeated incumbent\nseats in California because of reapportionment.\nSherman P. Lloyd (R), who has served five terms.\nColorado. President: Nixon won the state's seven\nWashington. President: Nixon won the state's nine\nvotes.\nelectoral votes.\nSenator: Former State Rep. Floyd K. Haskell (D),\nGovernor: Incumbent Daniel J. Evans (R), 46, was\ndefeated Sen. Gordon Allott (R), G5, denying him a\nelected to a third term.\nterm.\nHouse (7 D): All six Democratic incumbents were re-\nHouse (2 D, 3 R): Republicans had an over-all gain\nelected. and the Democrats picked up the seat of retiring\nseat. Incumbent James D. (Mike) McKevitt (R)\nRep. Thomas M. Pelly (R).\ndefeated by Patricia Schroeder (D): but Republicans\nWyeming. President: Nixon won the state's three\ntwo other seats-one in a new district created when\nelectoral votes.\nlorado gained one sent because of reapportionment, the\nSenator: Incumbent Clifford P. Hansen (R), 59, was\nin Rep. Wayne N. Aspinall's (D) district. He was\nelected to a second term.\neated in a primary.\nHouse (1 D): Teno Roncalio (D), JE, was elected to\nHawaii. President: Nixon won the state's four elec-\na third term as Wyoming's at-large representative.\nvotes.\nHouse (2D): Both incumbents won re-election.\nEast\nIcAho. President: Nixon WOD the state's four elec-\nNixon cerried 11 of 12 states in the East with 124\nelectoral votes. McGovern won in Massachusetts and\nis\nreplace\nretiring\nSen.\nthe District of Columbia, the two sources of his total of\n(R).\nonly 17 electoral votes.\nNov. 11, 1972-PAGE\nState Summaries 2\nIn the seven Seriate races in the East, incumbents\nSenator: Incumbent Republican Clifford P. Case,\nheld five and lost, two. Incumbents Margaret Chase\n68, was elected to a fourth term, defeating former Rep.\nSmith (R Maine) and J. Caleb Boggs (R Del.) both were\nPaul J. Krebs (D 1965-67), 60, and three minor-party\ndefeated by Democrats.\ncandidates.\nThere were two party turnovers in the five\nHouse (8 D; 7 R): Thirteen districts re-elected in-\ngovernors' races. In Delaware and Vermont, Democrats\ncumbents-five Republicans and eight Democrats. Repub-\nwill replace Republicans.\nlicans were elected to a seat being vacated by a Repub-\nor the 117 House seats at stake, Democrats_won-60\nlican and to a new seat created by redistricting.\nand Republicans won 51. Party control of five-seats\nNew York. President: Nixon won the state's\nswitched hands for a Republican net gain of three seats.\n41 electoral votes.\nConnecticut. President: Nixon won the state's eight\nHouse (22 D, 17 R): Thirty-three incumbents-20\nelectoral votes.\nDemocrats and 13 Republicans-were re-elected to the\nHouse (3 D; 3 R): Three Democratic and two\nHouse from New York, which lost two seats for a new\nRepublican incumbents were re-elected, but incumbent\ntotal of 39. Four new Republicans and two new Demo-\nDemocrat John S. Monagan, 60, lost his 5th Dis-\ncrats were elected.\ntrict seat to State Rep. Ronald A. Sarasin (R), 37.\nPennsylvania. President: Nixon won the state's\nDelaware. President: Nixon won the state's three\n27 electoral votes.\nelectoral votes.\nHouse (13 D, 12 R): Incumbents were re-elected in\nSenator: Democrat Joseph R. Biden Jr., 20, un-\n24 of 25 districts in Pennsylvania, which lost two\nseated two-term incumbent J. Caleb Boggs (R), 63, in a\nseats through reapportionment. In the only race without\nmajor upset. An American Party candidate was third.\nan incumbent candidate, a Republican was elected in\nGovernor: State house minority leader Sherman W.\nthe new 9th District.\nTribbitt (D), 49, defeated incumbent Republican Gov.\nRhode Island. President: Nixon won the state's\nRussell W. Peterson, 55, with an American Party candi-\nfour electoral votes.\ndate running third.\nSenator: Incumbent. Democrat Claiborne Pell, 53.\nHouse (1 R): Incumbent Republican Pierre S. (Pote)\nwon a third term by defeating Republican John H.\ndu Pont, 37, was elected to a second term.\nChafee, 49, former Rhode Island governor and former\nMaine. President: Nixon won the state's four elec-\nsecretary of the Navy.\ntoral votes.\nGovernor. Democrat Phillip W. Noel, 41, the\nSenator: Incumbent Republican Margaret Chase\nmayor of Warwick, defeated Republican Herbert F.\nSmith, 74, lost to Rep. William D. Hathaway (D), 48,\nDeSimone, 42, and an independent candidate.\nin an upset.\nHouse (2 1)): Both incumbents were re-elected.\nHouse (1 D, 1 R): Incumbent Democrat Peter N.\nVermont. President: Nixon won the state's three\nKyros, 46, won a fourth term, and Republican William\nelectoral votes.\nS. Cohen, 32, mayor of Bangor, captured the Democratic\nGovernor: Thomas P. Salmon, 40. the Democrat-\nseat vacated by Bathaway.\nIndependent Vermonters Party candidate, upset Repub-\nMaryland. President: Nixon won the state's\nlican Luther F. Hackett, 39, the chosen successor to re-\n10 electoral votes.\ntiring Gov. Deane C. Davis (R).\nHouse (4 1), 4 R): Seven incumbents-four Demo-\nHouse (1 R): Incumbent Republican Richard W.\ncrats and three Republicans-were re-elected. A Repub-\nMallary, 43, was elected to a full term.\nlican was elected to the new 4th District seat.\nWest Virginia. President: Nixon won the state's\nsix electoral votes.\nMassachusetts. President: McGovern won the\nSenator: Incumbent Democrat Jennings Randolph\nstate's 14 electoral votes.\n70, was elected to a third full term, defeating\nSenator: Republican Edward W. Brooke, 52, was\nRepublican State Sen. Louise Leonard, 53.\nelected to a second term.\nGovernor: Incumbent Republican Arch Moore, 49.\nHouse (9 D; 3 R): Nine incumbents-seven Demo-\ndefeated Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV, 35, the secre-\ncrats and two Republicans-were re-elected. But Demo-\ntary of state.\ncrat Louise Day Hicks, 52. lost her 9th District seat to\nHouse (4 D): Four incumbent Democrats were TO:\nBoston city councilman John Joseph Mockley, 45. a\nelected. A fifth Democratic seat was abolished through\nDemocrat who ran as an independent candidate. Repub-\nlicans and Democrats split two seats vacated by Repub-\nreapportionment.\nDistrict of Columbia. President: McGovern won\nlicans. A Republican won in the 5th District and a\nthe District's three electoral votes.\nDemocrat won in the 12th.\nNew Hampshire. President: Nixon won the state's\nSouth\nfour electoral votes.\nSenator: Incumbent Democrat Thomas J. McIntyre,\nNixon defeated McGovern in all 13 states of th:\n57, won a second full term by defeating former Gov.\nSouth and won the region's 147 electoral votes.\nWesley Powell (1959-63), 56, the Republican candidate.\nIn the 12 Senate races, party control switched in four\nGovernor: Republican Meldrim Thomson Jr., GO,\nstates. Republicans took over in North Carolina, Oklahom\ndefeated Democrat Roger J. Crowley Jr., 53, and in-\nand Virginia. A Democrat will I place a Republican i.\ndependent condulate Maler in Melane, 47.\nthe\nHouse (2R): Both incumbents were re-clected.\nOf the tizee races for povernor, oniv m No.\nNew Jersey. President: Nixon won the state's 17\nCarolina was there a party change from Democrat :\nelectoral votes.\nRepublican.\nPAGE 2054-Nov. 11, 1072\nState Summaries 3\nor the 121 House seats in the 13 states, 84 were won\nGovernor: James E. Holshouser (R), 37, was elected,\nby Democrats and 37 by Republicans. There were changes\ndefeating Hargrove (Skipper) Bowles Jr. (D), 52. and an\nin party control of nine seats for a net gain of five seals\nAmerican Party candidate. Gov. Robert W. Scott (D)\nfor the Republicans.\nwas ineligible for another term.\nAlabama. President: Nixon won the state's nine\nHouse: (7 D, 4 R): There was no change in the\nelectoral votes.\nparty breakdown. A Democrat won the 4th District seat\nSenator: Incumbent John J. Sparkman (D), 72, was\nvacated by Galitianakis.\nelected to a sixth term, defeating Winton M. Blount Jr.\nOklahoma. President: Nixon won the state's eight\n(R), 51, and three minor-party candidates.\nelectoral votes.\nHouse: (4 D, 3 R): All seven incumbents were re-\nSenate: Former Gov. Dewey F. Bartlett (R 1967-\nelected. Alabama lost one seat because of redistricting.\n71), 53, defeated Rep. Ed Edmondson (D), 53, and three\nArkansas. President: Nixon won the state's six\nminor-party candidates. Sen. Fred R. Harris (D) did not\nelectoral votes.\nseek re-election.\nSenator: Incumbent John L. McClellan (D), 76, was\nHouse (5 D, 1 R): Democrats picked up the 1st Dis-\nelected to a sixth term, defeating Wayne 11. Babbitt\ntrict seat (Tulsa) retiring Rep. Page Belcher-(R).\n(R), 44.\nEdmondson's seat remains Democratic.\nGovernor: Dale L. Bumpers (D), 47, was elected to\nSouth Carolina. President: Nixon won the state's\nsecond term, defeating Len E. Blaylock (R), 53.\neight electoral votes.\nHouse: (3 D, 1 R): The party breakdown for the\nSenate. Incumbent Strom Thurmond (R), 69, was\ndelegation remains the same, as before, although Rep.\nelected to a fifth term, defeating Eugene N. Zeigler (D), 51,\nDavid H. Pryor, 3S, resigned his 4th District seat to chal-\nand a minor-party candidate.\nlenge McClellan in the Democratic Senate primary.\nHouse (4 D, 2 R): Republicans gained one seat, in\nFlorida. President: Nixon won the state's 17\nthe 1st District\nelectoral electoral votes.\nTennessee. President: Nixon won the state's 10\nHouse: (11 D, 4 R): Florida gained three seats\nelectoral votes.\nthrough redistricting. All 12 incumbents were re-elected.\nSenate: Incumbent Howard H. Baker Jr. (R), 46, was\nDemocrats captured two of the new seats, and a Repub-\nelected to a second term, defeating Rep. Ray Blanton\nlican won the third.\n(D), 42.\nGeorgia. President: Nixon won the state's 12\nHouse: (3 D, 5 R): Democrats suffered a net loss of\nelectoral votes.\ntwo seats, one because of the defeat of a Democratic\nSenate: Sam Nunn (D), 34, was elected, defeating\nmeumbent, William R. Anderson, in the 6th District,\nRep. Fletcher Thompson (R), 47. Sen. David H. Gam-\nand the other because of redistricting which cost\nbrell (D) was defeated in the primary by Nunn.\nTennessee one seat.\nHouse: (9 D, 1 R): The Democrats picked up the\nTexas. President: Nixon won the state's 26\n5th District sent vacated by Thompson.\nelectoral votes.\nKentucky. President: Nixon won the state's nine\nSenate: Incumbent John G. Tower (R), 47, was\nelectoral votes.\nelected to a third term. defeating Barefoot Sanders (D),\nSenate: Walter (Dee) Huddleston (D), 46, was\n47, and two other candidates.\nelected, defeating former Gov. Louie B. Nunn (R 1968-\nGovernor: Dolph Briscoe (D), 49, was elected, de-\n72), 48, and American Party and People's Party candi-\nfeating Henry C. Grover (R), 45, and two other candi-\ndates.\ndates. Incumbent Preston Smith (D) was defeated for\nHouse (5 D, 2 R): The party breakdown remains the\nrenomination by Briscoe.\nsame, with a Democrat replacing a retiring Democrat in\nHouse (20 D. 4 R : The Republicans had a net gain\nthe 6th District.\nof one seat. A Republican defeated incumbent Earle\nLouisiana. President: Nixon won the state's 10\nCabell (D), in the 5th District. Incumbent Robert Price\nelectoral votes.\n(R), defeated another incumbent, Graham Purcell (D),\nSenate: J. Bennett Johnston Jr. (D). 40. defented\nafter redistricting forced the two into opposition in the\nBen C. Toledano (R). 40. and John J. McKeithen (In-\n13th District. Democrats were elected in the two new\ndependent), 54, a former Democratic governor (1964-\nseats created by redistricting.\n72).\nVirginia. President: Nixon won the state's 12\nHouse (7 D, 1 R): Veters sent a Republican to Con-\nelectoral votes.\ngress from the state for the first time this century. elect-\nSenate: Rep. (1966-72) William Lloyd Scott (R),\ning him in the 3rd District to replace a retiring Democrat.\n57, defeated incumbent William B. Spong Jr. (D), 52.\nMississippi. President: Nixon won the state's seven\nHouse (3 D, 7 R): Republicans gained a sent being\nelectoral votes.\nvacated by a retiring Democrat in the 4th District.\nSenate: Incumbent James O. Eastland (D), 67,\nwas elected to a sixth term, defeating Gil Carmichael\n(R), 45, and two independent candidates.\nMidwest\nHouse: (3 D, 2 R): Republicans picked up two seats\nformerly held by Denactors\nRichard Nixon carried all 12 states in the Midwest\ntricts. Incural\nNorth\nCarolina.\nPresident:\nINON\nwon\nthe\nseven\nSenate\nin\n13 electoral votes.\ntwo changed party control. lowa and South Dakota both\nSenate: Jesse Helms (R). SO, defeated Rey. Nick'\nPeinecrats to seats held previously by Repub-\nCalifianakis (D), 41\nState Summaries 4\nIn the seven contests for governorships, five remained\nHouse (9 D; 1 R): All incumbents were re-elected.\nin the saine party column, a Democrat defeated the\nNorth Dakota. President: Nixon won the state's\nRepublican governor 'of Illinois and a Missouri Republi-\nthree electoral votes.\ncan will replace a retiring Democratic governor.\nGovernor: Rep. Arthur A. Link (D), 58, was\nThe Midwest in 121 House races chose 70 Republicans\nelected, defenting Lt. Gov. Richard F. Larsen (R), 36.\nand 51 Democrats. Party control of five sents switched\nHouse (1 R): Because of reapportionment. North\nfor a net gain of three for the Republicans.\nDakota lost one seat held by the Democrats. Incumbent\nIllinois. President: Nixon won the state's 26 elec-\nMark Andrews (R), 46, was elected to a fifth term, de-\ntoral votes.\nfeating Richard Ista (D), 43.\nSenator: Incumbent Charles H. Percy (R), 53, was\nOhio. President: Nixon won the state's 25 elec-\nelected to a second term, defeating Rep. Roman C.\ntoral votes.\nPucinski (D), 53.\nHouse (7 D, 16 R): Ohio lost one Republican seat\nGovernor: Daniel Walker (D), 49, defeated incum-\nas a result of redistricting.\nbent Richard B. Ogilvie (R), 49.\nSouth Dakota. President: Nixon won the state's\nHouse: (10 D, 14 R): Republicans gained two seats\nfour electoral votes.\nin Illinois. One incumbent, Abner J. Mikva, was\nSenator: Rep. James Abourezk (D), 41, was elected,\ndefeated in a new district.\ndefeating Robert Hirsch (R), 46.\nIndiana. President: Nixon won the state's 13\nGovernor: Incumbent Richard F. Kneip (D), 39, was\nelectoral votes.\nelected to a second term, defeating Carveth Thompson.\nGovernor: Otis R. Bowen (R), 54, defeated former\n(R), 39.\nGov. Matthew E. Welsh (1961-65), 60.\nHouse (1 D, 1 R): Abourezk's seat was filled by a\nHouse (4 D, 7 R): All incumbents but one-Andrew\nRepublican. The other Democratic incumbent was re-\nJacobs Jr. (1)), 40-were re-elected.\nelected.\nIowa. President: Nixon won the state's eight\nWisconsin. President: Nixon won the state's 11\nelectoral votes.\nelectoral votes.\nSenator: Dick Clark (D), 43, defeated incumbent\nHouse (5 D, 4 R): Wisconsin lost one Republican\nJack Miller (R), 56.\nsent as a result of redistricting. (incumbent David R.\nGovernor: Incumbent Robert Ray (R), 42, was elected\nObey (D), 33, defeated another incumbent, Alvin E.\nto a third term, defeating Paul Frazenburg (D), 55.\nO'Konski (R), 55, to represent their combined consti-\nHouse (3 D, 3 R): Because of redistricting, Iowa lost\ntuencies in the new 7th District.\none Republican seat. John H. Kyl (R) was defeated\nin his race. against another incumbent Neal Smith (D).\nIncumbent Fred Schwengel, 65, accounted for another\n(Continued from p. 2960)\nRepublican los to Edward Mezyinsky_(D).\nKansas. President: Nixon won the state's seven\nHOUSE RACES\nelectoral votes.\nSenator: Incutabent James B. Pearson (R), 52, was\ntrouble defeating Republican John H. Kyl in Iowa's\nelected to a second term. defeating Arch O. Tetzlaff (D),\n4th District, while David Obey trounced 30-year-veteran\n46, and a Conservative Party candidate.\nAlvin E. O'Konski (R) in Wisconsin's 7th.\nGovernor: Incumbent Robert Docking (D), 46, was\nelected to a fourth term, defenting Morris Kay (R), 40.\nWest\nHouse (1D. 4R): All five incumbents were re-elected.\nMichigan. President: Nixon won the state's 21\nReturns from the West were dominated by\nelectoral votes.\nCalifornia, with its rich prize of five new House seats.\nSenator: Incumbent Robert P. Griffin (R), 48,\nNeither party had the votes to pass a partisan redistrict-\nwas elected to a second term, defeating Frank J. Kelley\ning bill, so they settled on a compromise that divided\n(D), 47.\nthe five new seats this way: two Democratic, two Repub-\nHouse: (7 D, 12 R). No seats changed parties.\nlican, one tossap. That was the way it worked out. Rep.\nMinnesota. President: Nixon won the state's 10\nPaul N. McCloskey Jr. (R), who led an anti-war crusade\nelectoral votes.\nagainst President Nixon in the 1972 presidential prim-\nSenator: Incumbent Walter F. Mondale (D), 44,\naries, moved into one of the Republican districts and won\nwas elected in a second term, defeating Philip Hansen\nit. The other Republican district went to a popular state\n(R), 44. and a Socialist Labor candidate.\nsenator, Republican Clair M. Burgener. The two Demo-\nHouse (4 D, 1 R): All eight incumbents were re-\ncratic districts went to Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. a black\nelected.\nstate representative, and to former U.S. Rep. George E.\nNebraska. President: Nixon won the state's five\nBrown Jr. (1) 1963-71). The tossup district went narrowly\nelectoral votes.\nto State Rep. William M. Ketchum (R).\nSenator: Incumbent Carl T. Curtis (R). 67, was\nColorado's new suburban district went Republican,\nelected to a fourth term, defeating Terry M. Carpenter\nas expected, for State Sen. William L. Armstrong. But\n(D), 72\ntwo Colorado sents switched parties. In Denver, Democrat\nre-elected.\nPatricia Schroeder won an upset victory over freshman\n12\nRep. James D. (Mike) McRevitt (11). And Republics\nJames T. Johnson won the sent held by veteran Hep.\nGoverner Christopher (Kit) Bond (R), 33. was\nWayne N. Aspinall (D), who was defeated in \" primary\nterm. feating Edward L. Dowd (D).\nby law professor Alan Merson.\nHouse 4\nHOUSE MEMBERSHIP IN THE 93RD CONGRESS\nALABAMA\n2. Hole Boggs (D)\n1. Jock Edwords (R)\nHOUSE LINE-UP\n3. David C. Treen (R)*\n2. William 1. Dickinson (R)\n4. Joe D. Waggonner (D)\n3. Bill Nichols (D)\nDemocrats 244\nRepublicans 191\n5. Otto E. Passmon (D)\n4. Tom Bevill (D)\n6. John R. Rorick (D)\n5. Robert E. Jones (D)\n7. John B. Breoux (D)\nFreshinan Democrats 27\nFreshman Republicans 42\n6. John Buchonan (R)\n8. Gillis W. long (D)*#\nFreshman Representative\n#Former Representative\n7. Walter Flowers (D)\nMAINE\nALASKA\nCOLORADO\n5. John C. Kiuczynski (D)\n1. Peter N. Kyros (D)\n1. Potricio Schroeder (D)*\n6. Harold R. Collier (R)\n2. William S. Cohen (R)*\nAL Nick Begich (D)\n2. Donald G. Brotzmon (R)\n7. George W. Collins (D)\n3. Fronk C. Evons (D)\n8. Don Rostenkowski (D)\nMARYLAND\nARIZONA\n4. James T. Johnson (R)*\n9. Sidney R. Yotes (D)\n1. Williom O. Mills (R)\n1. John J. Rhodes (R)\n5. William L. Armstrong (R)*\n10. Samuel H. Young (R)*\n2. Clarence D. Long (D)\n2. Morris K. Udall (D)\n11. Fronk Annunzio (D)\n3. Paul S. Sorbanes (D)\n3. Sam Steiger (R)\nCONNECTICUT\n12. Philip M. Crone (R)\n4. Marjorie S. Holt (R)*\n4. John B. Conlon (R)*\n1. William R. Coller (D)\n13. Robert McClory (R)\n5. Lowrence 1. Hogan (R)\n2. Robert H. Steele (R)\n14. John N. Erlenborn (R)\n6. Goodloe E. Byron (D)\nARKANSAS\n3. Robert N. Giaimo (D)\n15. Leslie C. Arends (R)\n7. Perren J. Mitchell (D)\n1. Bill Alexander (D)\n4. Stewart B. McKinney (R)\n16. John B. Anderson (R)\n8. Gilbert Gude (R)\n2. Wilbur D. Mills (D)\n5. Ronold A. Sarasin (R)*\n17. George M. O'Brien (R)*\n3. John Poul Hommerschmidt (R)\n6. Ello T. Grosso (D)\n18. Robert H. Michel (R)\nMASSACHUSETTS\n4. Roy Thornton (D)*\n19. Tom Railsback (R)\n1. Silvio O. Conte (R)\nDELAWARE\n20. Pcul Findley (R)\n2. Edword P. Bolond (D)\nCALIFORNIA\nAL Pierre S. (Pete) du Pont (R)\n21. Edward R. Modigon (R)*\n3. Horold D. Donohue (D)\n1. Don H. Clausen (R)\n22. George E. Shipley (D)\n4. Robert F. Drinon (D)\n2. Horold T. Johnson (D)\nFLORIDA\n23. Melvin Price (D)\n5. Poul W. Cronin (R)*\n3. John E. Moss (D)\n1. Robert L. F. Sikes (D)\n24. Kenneth J. Groy (D)\n6. Michael J. Horrington 10,\n4. Robert 1. leggett (D)\n2. Don Fuquo (D)\n7. Torbert H. Mocdonald 0,\n5. Phillip Burton (D)\n3. Charles F. Bennett (D)\nINDIANA\n8. Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D)\n6. Williom S. Moilliard (R)\n4. Bill Chappell Jr. (D)\n1. Roy J. Modden (D)\n9. John Joseph Mockley (D;*\n7. Ronold V. Deliums (D)\n5. William D. Gunter Jr. (D)*\n2. Eorl F. Londgrabe (R)\n10. Margaret M. Heckler (R)\n8. Fortney H. (Pete) Stork (D)*\n6. C. W. Bill Young (R)\n3. John Brodemos (D)\n11. James A. Burke (D)\n9. Don Edwards (D)\n7. Som Gibbons (D)\n4. J. Edword Roush (D)\n12. Gerry E. Studds (D)*\n10. Charles S. Gubser (R)\n8. James A. Holey (D)\n5. Elwood H. Hillis (R)\n11. leo J. Ryon (D)*\n9. Louis Frey (R)\n6. William G. Bray (R)\nMICHIGAN\n12. Burt 1. Tokott (2)\n10. L. A. (Skip) Sofolis (R)*\n7. John T. Myers (R)\n1. John Conyers Jr. (D)\n13. Charles M. Teague (R)\n11. Poul G. Rogers (D)\n8. Roger H. Zion (R)\n2. Morvin L. Esch (R)\n14. Jerome R. Woldie (D)\n12. J. Herbert Durke (2)\n9. Ice H. Homilton (D)\n3. Garry Brown (R)\n15. John J. Mcf oil (D)\n13. William Lehmon (D)*\n10. David W. Dennis (R)\n4. Edword Hutchinson (R)\n16. B. F. Sisk (D)\n14. Cloude Pepper (D)\n11. Williom H. Hudnut III (8)*\n5. Gerold R. Ford (R)\n17. Poul N. McCloskey Jr. (R)\n15. Donte B. Fosceli (D)\n6. Charles E. Chamberfain (F\n18. Robert B. (Sob) Mathias (R)\nIOWA\n7. Donold W. Riegle Jr. ($)\n19. Chet Holifield (D)\nGEORGIA\n1. Edword Mezvinsky (D)*\n8. Jomes Harvey (R)\n20. Carlos J. Moorhood (R)*\n1. Ronold B. (Bo) Ginn (D)*\n2. John.C. Culver (D)\n9. Guy Vonder Jogt (R)\n21. Augustus F. Howkins (D)\n2. Dawson Mothis (D)\n3. H. R. Gross (R)\n10. Elford A. Cederberg (R;\n22. James C. Cormon (D)\n3. Jock Brinkley (D)\n4. Neal Smith (D)\n11. Philip E. Ruppe (R)\n23. Del Clawson (R)\n4. Ben B. Elockburn (R)\n5. William J. Scherle (R)\n12. James G. O'Hara (0)\n24. John H. Rousselot (R)\n5. Andrew Young 10,*\n6. Witey Mayne (R)\n13. Charles C. Diggs Jr. (D:\n25. Charles E. Wiggins (R)\n6. John J. Flynt Jr. (D)\n14. Lucien N. Nedzi (0).\n26. Thomos M. Rees (D),\n7. John W. Davis (D)\nKANSAS\n15. William D. Ford (D)\n27. Borry M. Goldwoter Jr. (R)\n8. W. S. (Bill) Stuckey (D)\n1. Keith G. Sebelius (R)\n16. John D. Dingell (D)\n28. Alphonzo Bell (R)\n9. Phil M. Londrum (D)\n2. William R. Roy (D)\n17. Martho W. Griffiths (3,\n29. George t: Danielson (D)\n10. Robert G. Stephens Jr. (D)\n3. terry Winn Jr. (R)\n18. Robert J. Huber (R)*\n30. Edward R. Roybol (D)\n4. Garner E. Shriver (R)\n19. William S. Broomfield (R)\n31. Chories H. Wilson (D)\nHAWAII\n5. Joe Skubitz (R)\n32. Craig Hosmer (R)\n1. Spark M. Motsunaga (D)\nMINNESOTA\n33. Jerry L. Pettis (R)\n2. Polsy T. Mink (D)\nKENTUCKY\n1. Albert H. Quie (R)\n34. Richard T. Honno (D)\n1. Fronk A. Stubblefield (D)\n2. Ancher Nelsen (R)\n35. Glenn M. Anderson (D)\nIDAHO\n2. William H. Notcher (D)\n3. Bill Frenzel (R)\n36. William M. Ketchum (R)*\n1. Steven D. Symms (R)*\n3. Romons 1. Mozzoli (D)\n4. Joseph E. Korth (D)\n37. Yvonne brothwoite Burke (D)*\n2. Orvol Honsen (R)\n4. M. G. (Gene) Snyder (R)\n5. Donald M. Fraser (D)\n38. George E. Brown Jr. (D)*/\n5. Tim Ice Corter (R)\n6. John M. Zwach (R)\n39. Andrew J. Hinshow (R)*\nILLINOIS\n6. John B. Breckinridge (D)*\n7. Bob Bergland (D)\n40. Bob Wilson (k)\n1. Helph 11. Metcolle (D)\n7. Corl D. Perkins (D)\n8. John A. Blatnik (D)\n41. Lianel Ven Deerlin (D)\n2. M 1969 Marply (ii)\n42. Cluir W. European (ii)*\n3. Rebut 2\nLOUISIANA\nMISSISSION\n43. Victor V. Veysey (R)\n4. Edword 1. Derwinski (R)\n1. F. Edword Hebert (D)\n1. Jamie 1. Whitten (D)\nPAGE 11, 1072\nHouse 5\n244 DEMOCRATS, 191 REPUBLICANS\nDavid R. Bowen (D)*\n15. Hugh L. Corey (D)\n2. Clem Rogers McSpadden (D)*\n4. Roy Roberts (D)\nG. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (D)\n16. Elizabeth Holtzmon (D)*\n3. Carl Albert (D)\n5. Alon Steelman (R)*\nThod Cochron (R)*\n17. John M. Murphy (D)\n4. Tom Steed (D)\n6. Olin E. Teogue (D)\nTrent Lott (R)*\n18. Edword I. Koch (D)\n5. John Jormon (D)\n7. Bill Archer (R)\n19. Charles B. Rongel (D)\n6. John N. Hoppy Comp (R)\n8. Bob Eckhordt (D)\nSOURI\n20. Bello S. Abzug (D)\n9. Jock Brooks (D)\nWilliom (Bill) Cloy (D)\n21. Hermon Bodillo (D)\nOREGON\n10. J. J. Pickle (D)\nJames W. Symington (D)\n22. Jonathen B. Bingham (D)\n1. Wendell Wyott (R)\n11. W. R. Pooge (D)\nLeonor K. Sullivon (D)\n23. Peter A. Feyser (R)\n2. AI Ullman (D)\n12. Jim Wright (D)\nWilliam J. Randoll (D)\n24. Ogden R. Reid (D)\n3. Edith Green (D)\n13. Robert Price (R)\nRichard Bolling (D)\n25. Homilton Fish Jr. (R)\n4. John Dellenback (R)\n14. John Young (D)\nJerry Litton (D)*\n26. Benjonin A. Gilmon (R)*\n15. Eligio de lo Garza (D)\nGene Taylor (R)*\n27. Howard W. Robison (R)\nPENNSYLVANIA\n16. Richard C. White (D)\nRichard H. Ichord (D)\n28. Somuel S. Strotton (D)\n1. William A. Borrett (D)\n17. Omor Burleson (D)\nWilliom 1. Hungote (D)\n29. Corleton ). King (R)\n2. Robert N. C. Nix (D)\n18. Borbaro C. Jordan (D)*\nBill D. Burlison (D)\n30. Robert C. McEwen (R)\n3. William J. Green (D)\n19. George Motion (D)\n31. Donald J. Mitchell (R)*\n4. Joshua Eilberg (D)\n20. Henry B. Gonzolez (D)\nNTANA\n32. James M. Hanley (D)\n5. John Ware (R)\n21. O. C. Fisher (D)\nRichard G. Shoup (R)\n33. William F. Walsh (R)*\n6. Gus Yotron (D)\n22. Bob Cosey (D)\nJohn Melcher (D)\n34. Fronk Horton (R)\n7. towrence G. Willioms (R)\n23. Abraham Kozen Jr. (D)\n35. Borber B. Conable Jr. (R)\n8. Edword G. Biester Jr. (R)\n24. Dole Milford (D)*\nRASKA\n36. Henry P. Smith III (R)\n9. E.G. Shuster (R)*\nCharles Thone (R)\n37. Thoddeus J. Dulski (D)\n10. Joseph M. McDade (R)\nUTAH\nJohn Y. McCollister (R.)\n38. Jack F. Kemp (R)\n11. Doniel J. flood (D)\n1. K. Gunn McKoy (D)\nDave Mortin (R)\n39. Jomes F. Hostings (R)\n12. John P. Saylor (R)\n2. Wayne Owens (D)*\n13. R. lowrence Coughlin (R)\nADA\nNORTH CAROLINA\n14. William S. Moorhead (D)\nVERMONT\nDovid Towell (R)*\n1. Walter B. Jones (D)\n15. Fred B. Rooney (D)\nAL Richard W. Mollary (R)\n2. 1. H. Fountain (D)\n16. Edwin D. Eshlemon (R)\nHAMPSHIRE\n3. David N. Honderson (D)\n17. Hermon T. Schneebeli (R)\nVIRGINIA\nLouis C. Wyman (R)\n4. like F. Andrews (D)*\n18. H. John Heinz III (R)\n1. Thomas N. Downing (D)\nJomes C. Cleveland (R)\n5. Wilmer Mizell (R)\n19. George A. Goodling (R)\n2. G. Williom Whitehurst (?)\n6. 1. Richardson Preyer (D)\n20. Joseph M. Goydos (D)\n3. David E. Satterfield III (D)\nJERSEY\n7. Chorles G. Rose III (D)*\n21. John H. Dant (R)\n4. Robert W. Doniel Jr. (R)*\nJohn E. Hunt (R)\n8. Eorl B. Ruth (R)\n22. Thomas E. Morgan (D)\n5. W.C. (Don) Doniel (D)\nCharles W. Sondmon Jr. (R)\n9. James G. Mortin (R)*\n23. Albert W. Johnson (R)\n6. M. Coldwell Dutler (R)*\nJames J. Howard (D)\n10. Jomes T. Broyhill (R)\n24. Joseph P. Vigorito (D)\n7. 3. Kenneth Robinson (P.)\nFronk Thompron Jr. (D)\n11. Roy A. Toylor (D)\n25. Fronk M. Clark (D)\n8. Stanford E. Parris (R)*\nPeter H. B. Frelinghuysen (R)\n9. William C. Wompler (R)\nEdwin B. Forsythe (R)\nNORTH DAKOTA\nRHODE ISLAND\n10. Joel T. Broyhill (R)\nWilliam B. Widnoll (R)\nAL Mark Andrews (R)\n1. Fernand J. St Germoin (D)\nRobert A. Roe (D)\n2. Robert O. Tiernon (D)\nWASHINGTON\nHenry Helstoski (D)\nOHIO\n1. John Hemplemonn (D)*\nPeter W. Rodino Jr. (D)\n1. Williom J. Keating (R)\nSOUTH CAROUNA\n2. Lloyd Meeds (D)\nJoseph G. Minish (0)\n2. Donold D. Cluncy (R)\n1. Mendel J. Davis (D)\n3. Julio Dutler Hansen (D)\nMatthew J. Binoldo (R)*\n3. Charles W. Wholen Jr. (R)\n2. Floyd Spence (R)\n4. Mike McCormock (D)\nJoseph J. Moroziti (R)*\n4. Tennyson Guyer (R)*\n3. William Jennings Bryan Dorn (D)\n5. Thomas S. Foley (D)\nDominick V. Daniels (D)\n5. Delbait L. Lotto (R)\n4. James R. Mann (D)\n6. Floyd V. Hicks (D)\nEdword J. Potten (D)\n6. Williom H. Harsha (R)\n5. Tom S. Gellys (D)\n7. Brock Adams (D).\n7. Clorence J. Prown (R)\n6. Edword 1. Young (R)*\nMEXICO\n8. Wolter E. Powell (R)\nWEST VIRGINIA\nManuel lujon Jr. (R)\n9. Thomas L. Ashley (D)\nSOUTH DAKOTA\n1. Robert H. Mellohon (D)\nHorold Runnels (D)\n10. Clarence E. Miller (2)\n1. Fronk E. Denhulm (D)\n2. Harley O. Staggers (D)\n11. J. William Stanton (R)\n2. James Abdnor (R)*\n3. John M. Slock (D)\nYORK\n12. Samuel 1. Devine (R)\nA. Ken Hechier (D)\nOtis G. Pike (D)\n13. Charles A. Mosher (R)\nTENNESSEE\nJames R. Grover Jr. (R)\n14. John F. Seiberling (D)\n1. James H. (Jiminy) Quillen (R)\nWISCONSIN\nAngelo D. Roneollo (R)*\n15. Cholmers P. Wylie (R)\n2. John J. Duncon (R)\n1. Les Aspin (D)\nNormon F. tent (R)\n16. Ralph S. Regula (R)*\n3. LaMor Boker (R)\n2. Robert W. Kostenmeier (D)\nJohn W. Wydler (2)\n17. John M. Ashbrook (R)\n4. Joe 1. Evins (D)\n3. Vernon W. Thomson (R)\nLester I Woll (D)\n18. Wayne L. Hays (D)\n5. Richard Fulton (D)\n4. Clement J. Zablocki (D)\nJoseph P. Addobbo 10)\n19. Charles J. Corney (D)\n5. Robin 1. Beard Jr. (R)*\n5. Henry S. Reuss (D)\nBenifimin S. Rose other (D)\n20. James V. Stanton (D)\n7. Ed Jones (D)\n6. Williom A. Steiger (R)\nC. Lon Kuykended (i)\n7. David R. Obey (i)\n8. Howard V. free Mich (i)*\n(-)\nTEXAS\n9. Glenn R. Davis (R)\n1. Wright Potmon (D)\n2. Charles Wilson (D)*\nWYOMING\n2. M. Colina (R)\nAt Tano Concolno (D)\nSUMMARY OF MARGINAL 1974 RACES BY STATE\nSTATE\nMARGINAL GOVERNOR 1\nMARGINAL SENATOR 2\nMARGINAL HOUSE 3\nNew England\nMaine\nCurtis (D) 50.1\n-\n#2R\nNew Hampshire\nThomson (R) 41.6\nX\n-\nVermont\nX\nX\n-\nMassachusetts\nX\n-\n#4D, #5R, #12D\nRhode Island\nNoel (D) 52.9\n-\n-\nConnecticut\nMeskill (R) 53.8\nRibicoff (D) 54.3\n#3D, #5R\nMiddle Atlantic\nNew York\nRockefeller (R) 52.4 Javits (R) 49.8\n#3R, #6D, #26R, #31R\nNew Jersey\nX (1973)\n-\n#1R, #3D, #9D, #13D\nPennsylvania\nX\nSchweiker (R) 51.9\n#4D, #25D\nDelaware\n-\n-\n-\nMaryland\nMathias (R) 47.8\n-\nWest Virginia\n-\n-\n-\nSouth\nVirginia\nHolton (R) 52.7 ('73)\n-\n#4R, #6R, #8R\nNorth Carolina\n-\nX\n#4D\nSouth Carolina West (D) 51.7\nX\n#1D, #6R\nGeorgia\nX\nX\n#5D\nAlabama\nX\nX\n#2R\nMississippi\n-\n-\n#4R, #5R\nLouisiana\n-\nX\n#3R\nArkansas\nX\nX\n-\nTennessee\nDunn (R) 52.0\n-\n#3R, #6R, #8R\nKentucky\n-\nCook (R) 51.4\n#6D\nTexas\nBriscoe (D) 48.1\n-\n#5R, #13R\nOklahoma\nHall (D) 48.4\nBellmon (R) 51.7\n:\nFlorida\nX\nX\n#4D, #5D\nMidwest\nOhio\nGilligan (D) 54.2\nSaxbe (R) 51.5\n#8R, #16R, #23R\nIndiana\n-\nBayh (D) 51.7\n#1D, #2R, #4D, #11R\nIllinois\n-\nX\n#10R, #11D, #21R\nMichigan\nMillikan (R) 50,4\n-\n#6R, #12D, #18R\nWisconsin\nLucey (D) 52.4\nX\n#3R, #8R\nMinnesota\nAnderson (D) 54.0\n-\n#6R\nIowa\nX\nHughes (D) 50.2\n#1D, #6R\nMissouri\n-\nEagleton (D) 51.1\n#6D\nKansas\nX\nX\n-\nNebraska\nExon (D) 53,8\n-\nSouth Dakota\nX\nMcGovern (u) 56.00\nNorth Dakota\n-\nX\nTAB E (CONT.)\nSTATE\nMARGINAL GOVERNOR 1\nMARGINAL SENATOR 2\nMARGINAL HOUSE 3\nWest\nMontana\n-\n-\n-\nWyoming\nX\n-\n(At-Large)D\nIdaho\nAndrus (D) 52.2\nX\n-\nColorado\nLove (R) 52.5\nX\n#1D, #4R\nUtah\n-\nBennett (R) 53.7\n#2D\nNevada\nO'Call'n (D) 48.1\nBible (D) 54.8\n(At-Large)R\nNew Mexico\nKing (D) 51.3\n-\n-\nArizona\nWilliams (R) 50.9\nX\n#4R\nCalifornia\nReagan (R) 52.8\nCranston (D) 51.8\n#8D, #12R, #36R\nOregon\nX\nPackwood (R) 50.2\n-\nWashington\n-\nX\n#1D, #4D\nAlaska\nEgan (D) 52.4\nGravel (D) 45.1\n(At-Large)D\nHawaii\nX\nX\n#1D\nNotes\n1 - Where names are listed, the incumbent received less than 55% of\nthe vote in the last election. The symbol (x) indicates other\nstates with gubernatorial election in 1973 or 1974. The symbol\n(-) means no gubernatoriel race in the state.\n2 - Same symbols as described in note #1.\n3 - House districts where the winner in 1970 received 56.0% or less\nof the total vote.\n* - Although Senator McGovern received more than 55% of the vote\nin South Dakota, he is considered potentially vulnerable after\nthe 1972 Presidential race, and therefore included on the list\nof marginal seats.\nTAB F\nPROJECTED OPERATING PLAN\nFOR UPDATING THE DATA BASE\n(All costs in thousands of dollars)\nMAINTENANCE OF EXISTING FILES\nCosts\nState and Activity\n1973\n1974\n1975\n1976\nTotal\nCalifornia\n1974 (3 Cong. Dists)\n-\n6.0\n1976 (purchase new lists)\n-\n60.0\n66.0\nConnecticut\n1974 (update entire state) * -\n7.5\n1976\n\"\n\"\n\"\n-\n7.5\n15.0\nIllinois\n1974 (update entire state) * -\n15.0\n1976\n\"\n11\n\"\n-\n15.0\n30.0\nMaryland\n1974 (update entire state)* -\n6.5\n1976\n11\n\"\n\"\n-\n6.5\n13.0\nMichigan\n1974 (get list from Donnelley) * -\n15.0\n1976\n\"\n\"\n\"\n\"\n15.0\n30.0\nNew Jersey\n1974 (update 4 CD's)\n-\n8.0\n1976 (update entire state)\n-\n25.0\n33.0\nOhio\n1974 (update entire state)* -\n20.0\n1976 (update entire state)\n-\n20.0\n40.0\nPennsylvania\n1974 (update entire state)* -\n30.0\n1976 (update entire state)\n-\n30.0\n60.0\nTexas\n1974 (update 2 CD's)\n-\n4.0\n1976 (update entire state)\n-\n32.0\n36.0\nTotals to maintain existing\nlists:\n0\n112.0\n0\n211.0\n323.0\nCosts if candidates in states\n65.0\n0\n211.0\n276.0\ndenoted by asterisk (*) pay one\nhalf the cost of updating lists.\nTAB F (CONT.)\nPROJECTED OPERATING PLAN\nFOR ADDING NEW STATES AND CONG. DISTS. IN 1974\nFull States (Races of Interest)\nCost ($ thousands)\nIndiana (Senate, 4 CD) *\n50.0\nSouth Dakota (Senate, 1CD): *\n15.0\nNevada (1 CD) (possibly Sen. or Gov.)\n7.5\nAlaska (Senate, House)\n5.0\nKentucky (Senate) * (1 CD)\n50.0\nOklahoma (Senate)*\n37.5\nIowa (Senate) * (2 CD)\n25.0\nWyoming (House)\n5.0\nOregon (Senate)* (data on tape from state)\n5.0\nVirginia (3 CD) (data on tape from state)\n1.0\nTotal\n201.0\nTotal if statewide candidates\n110.0\ndenoted by asterisk (*) pay one\nhalf the cost of updating the lists\nin those states\nMarginal Congressional Districts in states\n160.0\nnot having full data in the system.\n(It is estimated that each CD will cost\n$5 thousand to put into the system.\nThere are 32 such districts. The remaining\n36 of the 68 target districts discussed in\nthe text of the memo are accounted for in\nstates where the total state has been\nput in the Data Base)\nThe states, and number of districts in\neach are as follows:\nMaine (1) ; Massachusetts (3); New York (4) ;\nNorth Carolina (1); South Carolina (2);\nGeorgia (1); Alabama (1); Mississippi (2) ;\nTennessee (3) ; Louisiana (1); Florida (2)\nWisconsin (2) ; Minnesota (1); Missouri (1);\nColorado (2); Utah (1); Arizona (1);\nWashington (2); Hawaii (1).\nMAINTENANCE AND USE OF THE DATA BASE\nPROJECTED OPERATING STATEMENT\n(NO INCOME INCLUDED)\nExpense Items\n1973\n1974\n1975\n1976\nTotal\nData Base Maintenance\n1\n-\n65,000\n-\n211,000\n276.000\nProject Administration\n2\n60,000\n90,000\n60,000\n90,000\n300,000\nComputer Programming\n20,000\n40,000\n40,000\n40,000\n140,000\nResearch and Development\n20,000\n30,000\n30,000\n10,000\n90,000\nData Base Expansion- 1\n-\n270,000\n-\n-\n270,000\nTotals\n100,000\n495,000\n130,000\n351,000\n1,076,000\nNotes\n1 - - See detail of cost by states in Tab F.\n2 - Includes salary of General Manager, office space and supplies, secretary, programmers.\nTAB G\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nFebruary 9, 1973\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMR. HALDEMAN\nFROM:\nW. RICHARD HOWARD\nSUBJECT:\nAction Plan for the Data Base\nPurpose:\nThe purpose of this memorandum is to present a plan for the utili-\nzation of the CREP data base and the volunteer/contributor files\ndeveloped for \"Operation Thank You. 11 Since the election, the CREP\nstaff has scattered and no formal arrangements have been made\nwith respect to maintenance and utilization of the multi-million\ndollar voter data base. Several sets of labels have been printed\nand copies of data tapes have been disseminated without official\napproval.\nThis data base can be of immediate benefit in our efforts to commu-\nnicate with the New American Majority. At the direction of the\nPresident, it can be of use to support Republican candidates in 1973,\n1974, and 1976. If properly maintained, through periodic use and\nupdating, it will increase in value, and become a significant tool for\nselected congressional and local candidates, as well as offset the\ncost of several million dollars for developing another data base for\nthe 1976 Presidential elections.\nThis plan is presented as follows:\nDescription of the Data Base\nFunctional Use of the Data Base\nPotential Uses of the Data Base\nCoverage for the 1973-1974 Elections\nCoverage for the 1976 Elections\nPlan for the 1976 Presidential Election\nRecommendations:\n#1 - Disposition of the Data Base\n#2 - Data Base Operation\n#3 - Maintenance of the Data Basc\n#4 - Data Base Budget\n- 2 -\nFor each of the recommendations, objections to the methods are\noutlined and selected alternatives are discussed.\nDESCRIPTION OF THE DATA BASE\nThe CREP Voter Identification Data Base contains names, addresses,\nsocio-economic, geo-coding and political attitude data on approxi-\nmately 40 million voters in 12 states, including 8 million voters favor-\nable to President Nixon.\nStates with complete coverage are:\n- California\n- Connecticut\n- Illinois\n- Maryland\n- New Jersey\n- New York\n- Ohio\n- Pennsylvania\n- Texas\nStates with records of Republicans only are three additional states\nwhich conduct Presidential Primaries:\n- Florida\n- New Hampshire\n- Wisconsin\nFor each voter record the following data is recorded:\nName and address\nHousehold member names\nParty registration\nAttitude toward R. M. Nixon\nSocio-economic level\nAge group\nMilitary veteran status\nEthnic Name category\nPeriferal urban ethnic indicator\nNeighborhood type\nComplete geo-coding such as precinct, ward, district,\ncensus track, zip code\n- 3 -\nIn addition to the CREP Voter Identification, Data Base described\nabove, we have developed data files for \"Operation Thank You\"\nin a compatible format which contains names and address records\nof CREP and GOP staffers (3,000), Campaign volunteers (300, 000), and\ncontributors of over $100 (30,000). The RNC maintains a\nlisting of 450,000 ethnic, civic, and special group leaders and mem-\nbers. The RNFC maintains 600,000 records of contributors of less\nthan $100.\nFUNCTIONAL USE OF THE DATA BASE\nDuring the 1972 Presidential primaries and in the general election,\nthe Voter I.D. Data Base was used as an information systems tool\nto support the following campaign functions:\nPolitical Direct Mail:\nissue persuasion\nvolunteer recruitment\ncontribution solicitation\nVoter Identification:\nwalking canvass sheets\ntele center call sheets\nhostess-business call sheets\nVoter Information Feed Back:\nNixon attitude\nother candidates\nimportant issues\nvolunteer\nVoter Influence:\nundecided mailings\nget out the vote telegrams\npoll watching sheets\nvictory squad sheets\nPOTENTIAL USES OF THE DATA BASE\nIn addition to the previous uses made of the data base, there are\nsoveral potential uses which should be developed.\n4 --\n#1 Developing Prospect List for GOP Fund Raising :\nBy selecting Republicans in higher income groups favorable to\nPresident Nixon, an excellent prospect list could be developed\nand tested. Bob Odell of the RNC Finance Committee has re-\nquested Jim White (our consultant) to look into the cost and\nfeasability of this. In addition, we have a file of local CREP\ncontributors which RNC does not have.\n#2 Issue Polling and Voter Sampling :\nSelected samples of voter types can easily be retrieved for the\ntelephone or direct mail polling for reaction to national issues.\n#3 Support 1974 and 1976 Congressional Elections.\nFor approved candidates, we can provide direct mail labels, by\nvoter types within a congressional district, and for the total state.\nFor candidates running in key races, we can arrange to have can-\nvass sheets, telephone sheets, advertising, fund raising, direct\nmail, and poll-watching sheets provided through a source other\nthan the Republican Party, but using our Data Base and programs.\n#4 Substantive Election Results Analysis:\nUsing the voter I.D. 's data, we can select voter types for ques-\ntionnaire surveys at the precinct level.\n#5 Advance Men Support:\nThe data base can be used to recruit known volunteers and local\nleaders to promote rally, parade, etc., turnouts for candidates\nor the President. Advanced announcements and reminders can\nbe mailed by locality and by voter type.\n- 5 - -\nDATA BASE COVERAGE FOR THE 1973-1974 ELECTIONS\nAs presently constructed, the data base can be used to support the\n1973 Governor's race in New Jersey. With an adequate mainten-\nance program, we can support up to 290 candidates in the 1974\ncongressional and governors' races plus various other local races\nas desired by the President and the RNC.\nWe have good state voter records for the following 1974 races:\nCalifornia\nSenate - Cranston - D\nGovernor - Reagan - R\nHouse - 43\nConnecticut\nSenate - Ribicoff - D\nGovernor - Meskill - R\nHouse - 6\nIllinois\nHouse - 24\nMaryland\nSenate - Mathias - R\nGovernor - Mandel - D\nHouse - 8\nNew Jersey\nHouse - 15\nOhio\nSenate - Saxbe - R\nGovernor - Gilligan - D\nHouse - 23\nPennsylvania\nSenate - Sweiker - R\nGovernor - Shapp - D\nHouse - 25\n- 6 -\nTexas\nGovernor - Briscoe - D\nHouse - 24\nWe have incomplete voter files for the following state elections:\nFlorida (Republicans in large counties)\nSenate - Gurney - R\nGovernor - Askew - D\nHouse - 15\nMassachusetts (Republicans only)\nGovernor - Sargent - R\nHouse - 12\nNew Hampshire (Republicans only)\nSenate - Cotton - R\nGovernor - Peterson - R\nHouse - 2\nNew York (Selected Counties)\nSenate - Javits - R\nGovernor - Rockefeller - R\nHouse - 39\nWisconsin (Republicans only)\nSenate - Nelson - D\nGovernor - Lucey - D\nHouse - 9\nVirginia (Selected counties)\nGovernor - Holton - R\nHouse - 10\n- 7 -\nDATA BASE COVERAGE FOR THE 1976 ELECTIONS\nIf the Data Base is adequately maintained from 1973-1976, we can\nsupport at least 175 candidates in the 1976 congressional and state\nraces as well as a Presidential candidate in the primaries and\ngeneral election.\nBy 1976, we should be able to support Republican candidates in\nthese major congressional and state elections:\nCalifornia\nSenator - Tunney - D\nHouse - 43\nConnecticut\nSenate - Weicker - R\nHouse - 6\nIllinois\nSenate - Stevenson - D\nGovernor -\nD\nHouse - 24\nMaryland\nSenate - Beall - R\nHouse 8\nNew Jersey\nSenate - Williams - D\nHouse - 15\nOhio\nSenate - Taft - R\nHouse 23\nPennsylvania\nSenate - Scott - R\nHouse 23\n- 8 -\nTexas\nSenate - Bentsen - D\nHouse - 24\nWith the recommended expansion of the data base we could support\nanother 120 GOP candidates in congressional and state contests\nplus provide strengthened primary races.\nIn addition to the above states, we should consider expanding the\ndata base for 1976 to include the following states:\nFlorida\nexpand from Republicans in major counties to\nall voters due to consistent ticket-splitting\nand new support for GOP candidates locally\nby Democrats.\nIndiana\nAt minimum we should include Republicans\ndue to some key races and coming Republican\ncandidates.\nMassachusetts\nShould be expanded from just Republicans\nto all voters.\nMichigan\nWe have no list of Michigan - we had to lease\na mailing house list in 1972 and return it.\nNew Hampshire\nWe need to have the best possible data for\nthe '76 primary.\nNew York\nWe need to work closely with the GOP in\nNew York to develop a better list.\nTennessee\nWe have some coming candidates and growing\nareas for the GOP.\nWisconsin\nWe need to expand and improve our GOP\nvoters list for the '76 primary.\nVirginia\nThe state is paying to develop the list which\nwe can purchase and maintain in conjunction\nwith the state GOP.\n- 9\nPLAN FOR THE 1976 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION\nIf the data base is properly maintained during the 1973-1976 period,\nit will be a valuable tool in electing a Republican president in 1976.\nSince the key states will not be changed drastically, and the emerg-\ning political technology of direct mail, telephone and walk-\ning canvass, voter identification, and get out the vote will not be\nmuch different from the CREP operation in 1972, we will have an\nedge going into the '76 campaign with an adequate data base to sup-\nport these programs. The major difference between the 1972 and\n1976 campaigns is that the GOP candidate may not be certain until\nafter the convention. However, planning and development for utili-\nzation of the data base must begin at least one year before the gen-\neral election in order to properly integrate the direct mail, can-\nvass and telephone operations. Thus, while we are planning and\ndesigning our programs (as did CREP) in early 1976, the RNC\nmay have to supply mailing labels to any GOP candidate in the\nprimaries who can afford to pay RNC for them.\nOn the other hand, should a candidate warrant the unofficial support\nof the President, we would encourage this candidate to contract with\nthe RNC data base support company to provide direct mail support,\ncanvass sheets, polling, telephone sheets, volunteer recruitment,\nadvance event advertising, and the telegrams, etc.\nAfter the GOP convention, an agreement can be negotiated between\nthe successful candidate, the RNC, the White House and the com-\nputer support organization, concerning the future use of the data\nbase.\n- 10 -\nRECOMMENDATION #1\nData Base Disposition\nThat the Republican National Committee be given title to the data base\nwith the written understanding that it may only be utilized under the\nstipulations explained in the Operating Plan (see Recommendation #2),\ni.e., White House approval of use, Washington base operation and\nmaintenance, general mailing monitoring, break even cost to the\nGOP candidates, etc.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nAlternative #1 Corporate Form\nA general business or non-profit corporation could be formed to hold\ntitle and operate the data base.\nDisadvantages\n1. Would not necessarily strengthen the GOP candidates\nor the RNC.\n2. White House and RNC lose control unless the White\nHouse secretly controls the operation. This would pre-\nsent a real problem if and when the secret control was\ndiscovered.\n3. The major problem with corporate form is raised by\nthe Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Act\nprohibits any contribution to a political party by a cor-\nporation. It would be argued that the sales of data are\nbargain sales resulting in contributions to the Republican\nParty and therefore prohibited by the Act.\n4. Additional problems are raised if the corporation is\ndissolved. Any distribution of the data at that time to the\nRepublican Party would be a direct contribution of prop-\nerty under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.\nAccordingly, the corporation could not be dissolved by\ndistributing the property to the Republican National\nCommittee or an individual candidate.\n-\n5. In addition to the above problems under the Federal\nElection Campaign Act of 1971, there would be potential\n- 11\ntax liaiblity on dissolution. The normal rule is that a share-\nholder receives a capital gain when the property is distributed\non dissolution; equal to the difference between the fair market\nvalue of the property and the shareholder's basis in the cor-\nporation.\nAlternative #2 - Unincorporated Committee\n1. The data could be retained by CREP or transferred to a similar\nunincorporated committee. This form would avoid any problems un-\nder the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. This would not help\nstrengthen the GOP and we would not have direct control.\n2. The major disadvantage of this form is the lack of limited liability.\nThe members of the committee would be individually liable for con-\ntracts. From a tax standpoint, the committee would be structured\nin a form that would be taxable either as a trust or corporation in\norder for any tax to be on the committee. This would avoid individual\ntax liability on the members of the committee.\nAlternative #3 - Unincorporated Trust\nThe data base could be placed in trust for the RNC.\nDisadvantages\n1. The trust would be basically self-defeating since the\nRNC would be the benefactor, however, RNC and the\nWhite House would lose direct control to the trustees.\n2. While the trust is not subject to the Federal Election\nCampaign Act of 1971, such organizations may become\nsubject to future legislation.\n3. The profitable sales of labels, etc., by the trust\nwould be taxable.\n4. Accumulated income of the trust would be taxable.\n5. The trust could have limited life with all of the inherent\ndifficulties of the dissolutionment.\nSpecific Recommended Actions\n1. That a. letter be sent to U.C.C. indicating the designated represen-\n- 12 -\ntative of the President for all data base items. Since all of the\nPolitical Direct Mail and computer staff of the CREP have ter-\nminated with CREP, I recommend that our representative be\neither Kathleen Balsdon or Mr. Jim White (former CREP staff),\nwho is our computer consultant. Either way, Jim is our expert\nin residence and would be responsible for management of the data\nbase project.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\n2. That the remaining assets of the computer data base which\nconsist of extra tapes, tape racks, etc., be swapped with U. C. C.\nfor future services including shipping the data base and further\ndocumentation of the data base. A draft contract for the desired\nservices has been prepared.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\n3. That the RNC arrange a suitable area for storage of a duplicate\ncopy of the data tapes at RNC Headquarters under secure conditions.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nRECOMMENDATION #2\nThe proposed operating plan is dependent upon the approval of recom-\nmendation #1 concerning the disposition of the data base, and the\napproval of the budget as recommended.\nThe Republican National Committee will provide mailing labels or\ncomputer letter services at break even cost to any Republican can-\ndidate with the stipulation that all returned mail will be supplied for\ndata base maintenance and that a representative will be allowed to\n\"monitor\" the use of the mailing labels.\nDuring 1973 and early 1974, we can utilize our labels to generate\nsome direct mail of non-political materials under the franking pri-\nvilege for incumbent congressmen to help make their seats safe\nfor the 1974 elections. This will also allow more thorough main-\ntenance of the data for each state.\nAny other use of the data base must be approved by the President\n(or his designated representative) upon the written explanation of\nthe proposed use. Thus, no candidate may use the data base for\n- 13 -\ncanvass sheets, poll watching, etc., without written approval from\nthe White House.\nSince the RNC does not have a computer facility nor a professional\ncomputer systems staff and no one at RNC is familiar with the data\nbase, it must be maintained by persons who are thoroughly familiar\nwith its coding, structure, and use. Furthermore, we have found\nthat the White House or the RNC would have much better control of\nthe data base and attain much more responsive service if the data\nbase was operated here in Washington by persons who have demon-\nstrated an understanding of responsiveness to the RNC and the\nWhite House.\nAll revenue from the sales of mailing labels to candidates will be\napplied against the maintenance cost and hopefully in the long run period\nwill offset the total maintenance expense.\nAny changes, additions, and/or deletions to the data base will be\napproved in writing by the RNC and the White House representative.\nRecommendation\nThat the operation of the data base be managed as outlined above.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nRECOMMENDATION #3\nData Base Maintenance\nThat maintenance of the data base be accomplished by stipulating that\nall users of the list must agree to provide returned mail and that the\nRNC computer support organization will work with the RNC and local\nGOP county chairmen to obtain listings of additional voters. It is\nanticipated that within the four year period, the sales of labels to can-\ndidates will offset the cost of list maintenance.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nThe maintenance of the data base encompasses many operations. These\n- 14 -\ninclude adding new voter names, deleting obsolete voter names,\ncorrecting records, changing portions of records and editing all of the\nchanges. Data preparation and maintenance should be conducted for\nthe RNC by the computer support organization. It is important that\nspecific states be updated prior to key elections in those states.\nAccording to the operating plan one of the stipulations for use of the\ndata base mailing lists is that all undeliverable return mail be pro-\nvided for list purging. By making the mailing labels available to\nRepublican Senators, Congressmen, and Governors, and local\nofficials under our monitorship, we should obtain adequate mail re-\nturns for list maintenance.\nThe RNC will have to work with local GOP county chairmen to obtain\nlists of newly registered voters. This was done successfully in ob-\ntaining lists for the CREP project. California is an exception since\nthe Secretary of State provides updated lists.\nAdditional list updates can be purchased from organizations such as\nthe telephone companies and mailing firms at a nominal cost.\nAlternative #1\nIf the data base is not adequately maintained for the next four years,\na new data base will have to be developed for 1976. This is not\nfeasible since the cost would be excessive and since the RNC would\nhave great difficulty getting cooperation from local officers due to\nloyalties to several Presidential candidates. To try to develop a\ndata base after the convention is an impossible task.\nAlternative #2\nAnother alternative would be to scrap the data base and let the 1976\nPresidential candidate contract with mailing firms to do direct mail\nfrom an \"occupant\" list, and conduct canvassing with cold canvass\nforms. Needless to say, this is a step backward.\n15 -\nRECOMMENDATION #4\nOperating Budget\nThe operating budget is illustrated at three alternative funding levels,\nLevel 1 is a bare bones funding level for continuous data base main-\ntenance, but no data base expansion. Level 2, provides for expansion\nof the data base into five additional key states which we do not now\nhave an adequate data base. Also, a moderate research and develop-\nment effort is funded to seek methods of cost cutting without impairing\nresponsiveness. Level 3 provides funding for data base expansion\ninto eleven additional states and the R&D budget.\nAll of the cost figures are based upon break even cost levels for com-\nputer services, in order to provide labels to candidates at the lowest\npossible costs.\nRecommendation\nThat the proposed project be funded at Level 2, with an allocation of\n$200, 000 from remaining CREP funds. The cash flow, audit, and\nfinancial reporting arrangements should be administered through\nthe Republican National Finance Committee.\nAdditional funding needed for 1975 and 1976 would be funded through\nRNC after submittal of financial statements and revised budget pro-\njections.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nAlternative Level 1 - (See Table 1)\nThe lowest alternative budget provides for funding the maintenance\nof the present data base with no bata base expansion or improvement\nover the next four years. Income is based upon minimum sales of\nlabels and $30,000 of surplus property at U.C.C. remaining from\nthe campaign. Expense items are for data base updating, project\nadministration, label printing and computer programming.\nThis funding level is not recommended because we need to expand\nthe data base to cover the presidential primary in Michigan and\nall voters in Florida, New York, and Indiana. The State of Vir-\nginia is computerizing their voter lists and they will be available\nat minimum cost.\n- 16 -\nAlternative Level 2 - (See Table 2)\nThis alternative level of funding is similar to Level 1 except that\nit provides for expansion of the data base in Michigan, Florida,\nNew York, Indiana, and Virginia. It also provides for a $20, 000\nper year R&D budget to lower our cost.\nThis funding level is recommended with the approach that we\nneed more complete coverage in Michigan, New York and Florida.\nIndiana is needed for some key races in '74 and '76, and because\n5 of the 11 Congressional seats are marginal, 3 Democrat and 2\nRepublican. Virginia is naturally a no cost inclusion and does\nhave 4 marginal Congressional seats held by Republicans. The\nreturn on the investment of $146, 000 for this expansion will be\nseveral new seats and significant aid in holding some marginal\nseats.\nAlternative Level 3 - (See Table 3)\nThe highest of the projected budgets provides for significant ex-\npansion of the data base. In addition to the five states included\nin level 2, it provides for inclusion of Missouri, Minnesota,\nGeorgia, Tennessee, Washington and Oregon.\nThis funding level was not recommended for several reasons.\nAlthough the costs of including these six states might be signi-\nficantly offset by additional sales of labels, they are not consi-\ndered key states. After discussions with Jim White, I feel that\nif we desire to do so, he may be able to expand into the larger\ncounties of some of these states with money which has been\nsaved through cost reduction. The question is, would we want\nto apply cost savings to lowering the price of labels to candidates\nor to expansion into new states? We will conduct a study of the\ncost of including the larger counties in every state with nine or\nmore electoral votes.\nProjected Budget - Level 1\nIncome Items\n1973\n1974\n1975\n1976\nTotal\nLabel Sales\n$120,000\n$480,000\n$200,000\n$640,000\n$1,440,000\nSurplus Property\n30,000\n30,000\n150,000\n480,000\n200,000\n640,000\n1,470,000\nExpense Items\nData Base Maintenance\n50,000\n250,000\n200,000\n100,000\n600,000\nProject Administration\n60,000\n80,000\n80,000\n80,000\n300,000\nLabel Printing\n60,000\n240,000\n100,000\n320,000\n720,000\nComputer Programming\n20,000\n10,000\n10,000\n10,000\n50,000\n190,000\n580,000\n390,000\n510,000\n1,670,000\nDeficit\n($40,000)\n($100,000)\n($190,000)\n$130,000\n($200,000)\nTable 1 - Projected Budget : Alternative Level 1\nProjected Budget - Level 2\nIncome Items\n1973\n1974\n1975\n1976\nTOTAL\nLabel Sales - Old D.B.\n$120,000\n$480,000\n$200,000\n$640,000\n$1,440,000\nLabel Sales - Expanded D.B.\n80,000\n24,000\n180,000\n284,000\nSurplus Property\n30,000\n30,000\n150,000\n560,000\n224,000\n820,000\n1,754,000\nExpense Items\nData Base Maintenance\n50,000\n160,000\n180,000\n200,000\n590,000\nProject Administration\n60,000\n90,000\n90,000\n120,000\n360,000\nLabel Printing\n60,000\n240,000\n112,000\n400,000\n812,000\nComputer Programming\n20,000\n40,000\n20,000\n40,000\n120,000\nResearch & Development\n20,000\n20,000\n20,000\n15,000\n75,000\n210,000\n550,000\n422,000\n775,000\n1,957,000\nList Expansion\nMichigan\n15,000\n15,000\nFlorida\n30,000\n30,000\nNew York\n60,000\n60,000\nIndiana\n40,000\n40,000\nVirginia\n1,000\n1,000\n146,000\n146,000\nDeficit\n($60,000)\n($136,000)\n($198,000)\n+$45,000\n($349.000)\nTable 2 - Projected Budget: Alternative Level 2\n-\nProjected Budget - Level 3\nIncome Items\n1973\n1974\n1975\n1976\nTOTAL\nLabel Sales - Old D.B.\n$120,000\n$ 480,000\n$ 200,000\n$ 640,000\n$ 1,440,000\nLable Sales - Expanded D.B.\n80,000\n40,000\n310,000\n430,000\nSurplus\n30,000\n30,000\n150,000\n560,000\n240,000\n950,000\n1,900,000\nExpense Items\nData Base Maintenance\n50,000\n160,000\n210,000\n210,000\n630,000\nProject Administration\n60,000\n90,000\n90,000\n90,000\n330,000\nLabel Printing\n60,000\n240,000\n120,000\n425,000\n845,000\nComputer Programming\n20,000\n40,000\n40,000\n40,000\n140,000\nResearch & Development\n20,000\n30,000\n30,000\n10,000\n90,000\n210,000\n560,000\n490,000\n775,000\n2,035,000\nData Base Expansion\nMichigan\n15,000\n15,000\nFlorida\n30,000\n30,000\nNew York\n60,000\n60,000\nIndiana\n40,000\n40,000\nVirginia\n1,000\n1,000\nMissouri\n16,000\n16,000\nMinnesota\n14,000\n14,000\nGeorgia\n12,000\n12,000\nTennessee\n12,000\n12,000\nWashington\n10,000\n10,000\nOregon\n5,000\n5,000\n146,000\n69,000\n215,000\nDeficit\n($60,000)\n($146,000)\n($319,000)\n+$175,000\n($350,000)\nTable 3 - Projected Budget: Alternative Level 3\nDATA BASE INDEX\nTitle\nCount\nCategory A - Voters Lists\nA-1\nCalifornia Voters\nA-2\nConnecticut Voters\nA-3\nFlorida Republican Voters\nA-4\nIllinois Voters\nA-5\nMaryland Voters\nA-6\nNew Hampshire Republican Voters\nA-7\nNew Jersey Voters\nA-8\nNew York Voters\nA-9\nOhio Voters\nA-10\nPennsylvania Voters\nA-11\nTexas Voters\nA-12\nWisconsin Republican Voters\nCategory B - Contributors\nB-1\nContributors $100-999 FCREP\n16,253\nB-2\nContributors $100-999 Rep. Con. Comm.\n7,413\nB-3\nContributors $1,000 FCREP\n3,560\nB-4\nContributors above $1,000 FCREP\n3,200\nB-5\nDirect Mail Contributors - Rep.\nB-6\nDirect Mail Contributors - Demo.\nB-7\nContributors - Florida Primary\nB-8\nPrimary contributors - New Hampshire\n601\nB-9\nPrimary contributors - Michigan\n459\nB-10\nContributors to local CREP\nB-11\nPrimary contributors - Maryland\n77\nB-12\nPrimary contributors - Wisconsin\n850\nB-13\nSustaining contributors - spec. list\nCategory C - Volunteers\nC - 1\nLocal CREP volunteers\n90,237\nC-2\nCREP telephone center volunteers\n31,381\nC-3\nCREP telephone center supervisors\n2,682\nC-4\nState CREP volunteers\nC-5\nWashington CREP volunteers\n113\nC-6\nRNC Washington volunteers\n310\n2 -\nTitle\nCount\nC-7\nRep. primary volunteers\nC-8\nVolunteers - hostess-business\n2,228\nC-9\nHosts & Hostesses for Nixon\n190\nC-10\nRep. Direct Mail Volunteers\nC-11\nPrimary volunteers - Florida\n5,033\nC-12\nPrimary volunteers - New Hampshire\n257\nC-13\nPrimary volunteers - Michigan\n849\nC-14\nDirect Mail contributors - Demo.\nC-15\nPrimary volunteers - Maryland\n8,053\nC-16\nPrimary volunteers - Wisconsin\n1,485\nCategory D - Campaign Staff, Political Chairmen & Leaders\nD-1\nState CREP Committee members\n137\nD-2\nState CREP staff\n591\nD-3\nState CREP top 6 performers\n367\nD-4\nCREP - Wash. staff directors\nD-5\nCREP - Wash. staff\n375\nD-6\nRNC - Wash. staff directors\n184\nD-7\nRNC - Wash. staff\nD-8\nCounty/Reg. Rep. and CREP Chairmen\n3,907\nD-9\nHostess/Business Chairmen\n1,106\nD-10\nState Press staff\n90\nD-11\nCREP officers\nD-12\nCounty finance chairmen\nD-13\nCounty Republican chairmen\nD-14\nBallot Security\nD-15\nState Finance Committee\nD-16\nAsst. to Ballot Security Chairman\nD-17\nBallot security lawyers\nD-18\nWomen leaders for Nixon\nD-19\nGOP convention delegates 172\n1,189\nD-20\nGOP alternate delegates 172\n1,178\nD-21\nCal. campaign - Anne Graham\n215\nD-22\nCal. speakers - Anne Graham\n419\nD-23\nEuropean Committee Chairmen\nD-24\nCity Chairmen for Nixon\n533\nD-25\nSpecial Ballots directors\n1\nD-26\nState CREP staff\n165\nD-27\nCREP state chairmen\n28\nD-28\nCREP co-chairmen\n27\nD-29\nCREP vice chairmen\n3\nD-30\nCREP exec. directors\n23\nD-31\nHutar co-chairmen list\n28\n- 3 -\nTitle\nCount\nD 32\nHutar volunteer chairmen list\n36\nD-33\nHutar Advisory List\n148\nD 34\nCREP county chairmen\n385\nD-35\nCREP state & local surrogates\n560\nD 36\nNat'l Comm. members\n165\nD 37\nState Central Comm. Chairmen\n60\nD 38\nState Central Comm. Vice Chairmen\n111\nD 39\nCounty Chairmen\n3, 707\nD-40\nState Exec. Comm. members\n93\nD-41\nCounty vice chairmen\n2,146\nD-42\nCampaign surrogates\n31\nD 43\nEconomic spokesmen\n7\nD-44\nCREP state chairmen\n8\nD-45\nWomen spokesmen for Admin,\n36\nD-46\nCREP youth field staff\n7\nD 47\nNixonette Chairmen - general\n446\nD 48\nNixonette key list\n21\nCategory E - Nationalities/Ethnics\nE-1\nEthnics - undefined\n147\nE-2\nSpanish-speaking\nE-3\nJewish\nE -4\nCatholics\nE-5\nBlack voters\nE-6\nNationalities/Heritage\nE-7\nLatin Americans\n20\nE-8\nKorean Americans\n1\nE-9\nLatvian Americans\n39\nE 10\nLebanese Americans\n2\nE 11\nLithuanian Americans\n29\nE 12\nPolish Americans\n39\nE 13\nPuerto Rican Americans\n1\nE 14\nRumanian Americans\n15\nE 15\nRussian Americans\n15\nE 16\nScandinavian Americans\n14\nE 17\nSerbian Americans\n12\nE-18\nSilesian Americans\n2\nE 19\nSlovak Americans\n6\nE -20\nSlovenian Americans\n16\nE -21\nThai Americans\n3\nE-22\nUkranian Americans\n63\nE -23\nSpanish-speaking\n1,087\nE-24\nMexican American Comm\nE -25\nMexican Americans CREP\n114\n4 -\nTitle\nCount\nE 26\nEthnic/nationalities leaders\n4\nE 27\nAlbanian Americans\n4\nE 28\nArabic Americans\n2\nE -29\nArmenian Americans\n14\nE 30\nBohemian Americans\n1\nE 31\nByelorussian Americans\n34\nE 32\nBulgarian Ame ricans\n11\nE 33\nChinese Americans\n26\nE 34\nCossack Americans\n3\nE- 35\nCroatian Americans\n9\nE 36\nCuban Americans\n9\nE 37\nCzech Americans\n8\nE- 38\nEstonian Americans\n16\nE- 39\nFilipino Americans\n20\nE- 40\nFrench Americans\n1\nE- 41\nGerman Americans\n47\nE- 42\nGreek Americans\n13\nE 43\nHungarian Americans\n70\nE- 44\nIndian Americans\n1\nE- 45\nIrish Americans\n5\nE 46\nItalian Americans\n51\nE 47\nJapanese Americans\n152\nE- 48\nJewish field leaders\n67\nE- 49\nChinese Americans\n100\nE- 50\nEthnics/Nationalities\n13\nE- 51\nSpanish-speaking state chairmen\n18\nE 52\nBlack state chairmen\n27\nE 53\nBlack dinner participants\n40\nE- 54\nBlack dinner participants volunteering to speak\n535\nE 55\nBlack Steering Committee\n80\nE 56\nBlack surrogates\n16\nCategory F - New American Majority - Other Categories\nF-1\nVolunteers - local Democrats\nF-2\nYouth for Nixon\n4, 573\nF-3\nOlder Americans\n173\nF-4\nVeterans\n30\nF-5\nFarm families - ranchers\n73\nF-6\nlabor leaders\n301\nF-7\nVeteranse leaders\n98\nF-8\nState farm chairmen\n54\nF-9\nKey agricultural volunteers\n59\nF 10\nCounty farm chairmen\n661\n- 5\nTitle\nCount\nF 11\nAgri-business leaders\n26\nF 12\nState farm committees\n412\nF 13\nVeterans\nF 14\nVeterans speakers\n28\nF 15\nDemocrats for Nixon\n76\nF 16\nVeterans state chairmen\n57\nF 17\nVeterans - card list\n248\nF 18\nOlder volunteers - state\nF- 19\nDemocrat supporters\n1, 386\nF 20\nFarmers CREP\n71\nF 21\nLabor Task Force - CREP\n41\nF 22\nOlder American state chairmen\n52\nF 23\nVeterans for Re-election\n75\nF -24\nOlder American county chairmen\n15\nF -25\nSenior Voters for Action\n38\nF -26\nDemo. VIP's favorable\n22\nF 27\nDemo. contributors - Nixon\n1\nF 28\nDemo. volunteers - DFN\n2,319\nF 29\nDemo. vice chairmen - DFN\n15\nF 30\nFarmers for Nixon state chairmen\n136\nF 31\nStudent fieldmen\n104\nF 32\nYoung voters\n38\nF 33\nYouth spokesmen\n600\nF 34\nCollege organizations for Nixon\n138\nF 35\nState youth convention directors\n64\nF 36\nCollege directors for Nixon\n40\nCategory G - Citizens Groups\nG-1\nLawyers for Nixon\n108\nG-2\nPhysicians for Nixon\n1\nG-3\nCitizens\n211\nG-4\nLawyers\n38\nG-5\nBusiness & Industry leaders\n61\nG-6\nState Citizens Comm.\n73\nG- 7\nOptometrists\n11\nG-8\nBusiness women\nG-9\nPhysicians & health professors - favorable\nG 10\nPhysicians CREP\n70\nG 11\nDentists CREP\n72\nG 12\nFarmers CREP\n71\nG- 13\nRegional business and industrial leaders\n23\nG- 14\nState business and industrial leaders\n75\nLawyers for Re-election\n176\nG-15\n- 6\nTitle\nCount\nG-16\nCitizens state directors\n46\nG- 17\nArchitects & Engineers - favorable\n43\nG 18\nEnvironmentalists/Professionals\n7\nG-1 19\nVeterinarians\n67\nG-20\nPharmacists\n50\nG -21\nMotorcyclists\n57\nG-22\nCommunity leaders\n54\nG-23\nHigh performance Industry leaders\n55\nG-24\nOptometrists\n60\nG-25\nCPA's\n58\nG-26\nNew car dealers\n55\nG-27\nInsurance agents\n47\nG -28\nTravel agents\n58\nG -29\nReal estate brokers\n59\nG-30\nLife underwriters\n70\nG-31\nPetroleum marketers\n47\nG-32\nHair dressers\n57\nG-33\nSavings & Loan execs.\n47\nC 34\nSecurities industry execs.\n40\nG-35\nVolunteer firemen\n16\nG-36\nMutual savings bank execs.\n7\nG-37\nHot rodders\n56\nG-38\nBusiness & industry leaders\n4, 287\nG-39\nYoung Lawyers Adv. Comm.\n50\nG-40\nLawyers Nat'l. Adv. Comm.\n28\nG-41\nLawyers State Comm.\n368\nCategory H - VIP's, Local Politicians, Athletes, Celebrities\nH-1\nVIP list - Republicans\nH-2\nVIP list - Democrats\nH-3\nMisc. VIP list\n111\nH-4\nAthletes for the President\n496\nH-5\nCelebrities - Secretaries\n4\nH-6\nFavorable mayors\nH-7\nFavorable state legislators\nH-8\nFavorable athletes and sports execs.\n132\nII-9\nState legislators\n25\nII- 10\nFavorable mayors\n40\nH-11\nFavorable county officials\n19"
}