It takes two in North Carolina: in the evenly split North Carolina House, it helps that the Republican and Democratic co-speakers have a lasting friendship.

• Author: Gardner, Amy
• Position: Richard Morgan and Jim Black

Democrat Jim Black and Republican Richard Morgan began their historic tenure in February as co-speakers of the North Carolina House of Representatives by banging their twin gavels in unison-a display of the harmony they promised would prevail in the session to come.

Their colleagues had reason to doubt them. Deadlock and acrimony had marked Black's previous four years as solo speaker. Democrats narrowly held control and fought Republicans and even a handful of their own dissidents on virtually every major issue. With the state facing a billion dollar shortfall for the third straight year, there was no reason, the conventional wisdom went, for this year to be any different.

So far, at least, the wisdom has been wrong. Black and Morgan have strolled arm in-arm through their first few months in office, gushing to anyone who will listen about their mutual admiration and ability to come to agreement on issues large and small. They have amicably divided the perquisites of office, from staff salaries to office space, and have completed such politically delicate assignments as choosing committee chairs and even doling out corner offices virtually without a peep of discord.

Most remarkably, though, they did this: They met a self-imposed deadline of April 18 to pass a $15 billion state budget and sent it on to the Senate. Not only did they establish a new standard for efficiency in the aftermath of back-to-back sessions stretching well past Labor Day, they also debunked a theory that became popular in the immediate weeks after their election--that their cooperative glow was a function of a "honeymoon" effect, and it would disappear once the real work began.

BUT CAN IT LAST?

What remains to be seen is whether or how long the cooperation will last. Morgan came to the table with just five Republican votes, including his own. A majority of House Republicans--about a third of the chamber's 120 members--are opposed to the arrangement and are actively hunting for votes to dismantle and replace it. Members from both parties have lamented the speed at which the two speakers, intent on projecting a productive picture to the public, are zooming through big decisions. Some believe the pace is more a political necessity to keep the fissures from coming into focus than a sign of efficient leadership. It also, they say, has come at the expense of thoughtful deliberation.

"I don't think this situation is going to work past one session," says Joel A. Thompson, a professor of political science at Appalachian State University in western North Carolina. "There's too much partisanship. It's too fragile, especially among the Republicans. They are such a fractured group right now. I don't think Morgan can hold that group together on the major issues. But, at least in the short term, this may have been the only way we could have done it this year."

A PRODUCTIVE SCENARIO

In hindsight Black, Morgan and others say they couldn't have dreamed up a more productive scenario. Neither man would have picked a joint speakership if given the choice. And neither was assured of the job just moments before their election.

Black had been deemed a long shot since the November elections when the House tipped to the Republicans by a single seat, 61-59.

Such predictions didn't account for the divided Republican caucus. A number of GOP lawmakers were unhappy with the party's candidate for speaker, Representative Leo Daughtry, a wealthy lawyer and failed candidate for governor.

A majority of Republicans supported Daughtry, but not enough to win overall. Black understood this and went to work lobbying dissident Republicans for support. He found an unlikely one just five days before the 2003 session was scheduled to convene: Representative Michael Decker, a socially conservative substitute teacher who says he had grown tired of Daughtry's heavy-handed tactics to win the gavel. With Decker's switch to the Democratic party, the House was now 60-60.

Morgan understood the dynamic within the Republican caucus, too. He was partly responsible for it, having had a contentious relationship with Daughtry for years. He promised as early as November to do whatever it took to prevent Daughtry from winning the speakership. Morgan also had the goods: a small group of Republicans who were fiercely loyal to him and who could deliver enough votes to either caucus to elect a speaker.

Black and Morgan began talking that same month. Black was still pushing for the solo job. He had told the press as late as opening day that he thought a shared speakership was a bad idea. But his collaboration with Morgan rose to the surface after six long days and eight votes for speaker yielded nothing but deadlock.

"The times dictate where we are," Morgan says. "The House is at parity. The decisive majorities we have seen in decades past will not be here, probably during this next decade. Sixty-eight- or 70-vote margins on one side or the other, that's just not going to happen."

POWER SHARING THAT WORKS

By most accounts, the strength of the ensuing power-sharing agreement is in Morgan's and Black's relationship. Although loyal to opposing parties throughout their political careers, the two men have...