the transition from democratic to republican control in texas govt 2306

The Transition from Democratic to Republican Control in Texas

GOVT 2306

The basic objective of this set of slides is to understand how Texas went from a one party state fully

controlled by Democrats, to a one party state dominated – if not controlled – by Republicans.

Along the way we’ll touch on the political history of the state, the

policy positions of the two parties, the relationship between the state and national parties, and various

other topics.

This is a trend that has impacted most of the other southern states as well – so its not unique

to Texas.

This has been one of the more consequential political shifts in recent decades and it helps

explain the current nature of the political climate – especially where tension between the

states, and between the national and state governments play out.

Frontline: How Texas became a “Red” State.

I want to make one key point about this shift before proceeding.

It should help put in context.

The shift – in many ways – was an ideological shift. Neither major party was fully liberal or conservative prior to this

shift in the 1960s. There were many reason a person might identify with a political

party that had nothing to do with ideology. Regional identity, or group identity helped explain party identification just as much.

These matter less and less.

What divides parties more today is the fact that the are more

ideologically distinct. People have sorted themselves into parties that fit their ideological points of view.

Conservatives have gravitated to the Republican Party

Liberals have gravitated to the Democratic Party.

And independents have tuned out.

Some commentators say that what ideologues have sorted themselves to parties based on the ideological

nature of each party.

Some argue that the dysfunction we see in politics today is a

function of the shift we will be investigating in this set of slides.

Let’s have an overview of the shift before digging into details.

Here’s a look at shifts in party identification in the state over the

past 60 years.

Trends in Party ID from Texas Politics

Note when the shifts in identification occurs.

This graph shows trends in turnout for each party’s primary. The blue line is for

the Democrats, the red line is for the Republicans.

You might be wondering why Republicans do so well in elections given the even split in party identification. We

hit this point elsewhere, but the answer is that the groups that identify with the Republican Party tend to vote at higher rates than those that identify with the

Democratic Party.

There are three periods of party politics in Texas that matter here:

1845 – 1960: One Party Democratic Rule.1960 – 1994: Two Party Competition

1994 – present: Republican Dominance.

In 1845 Texas became a state partly because the Democratic Party ran on a platform in the 1844 election pushing

for annexation.

In 1961 Texas elected its first Republican Senator – John Tower – to replace Lyndon Johnson when he was

elected vice president in 1960.

The Republican Party was largely a non-entity during this time.

Any competition came between the conservative and liberal/moderate factions

within the Democratic Party. Democratic primary elections were highly competitive,

but general elections were not since the winner would inevitably be the Democrat.

Beginning in 1964 the Republican Party grew in strength slowly.

Conservative Democrats began to switch parties, but only once it made sense for them to do so.

In 1994 Texas Republicans swept all statewide offices, and have

done so ever since.

We can quibble with the dates since the transition has been

gradual.

These dates matter as well:

1978: Texas elects Bill Clements, its first Republican Governor since

Reconstruction.

(Why does that matter? Because Ex-Confederates could not participate politically

until Reconstruction was over. Texas was under the control of United States troops who also

enforced voting rights for male ex-slaves. This made the Republican Party temporarily

powerful, but that would change.)

1996: Republicans become the majority party in the Texas Senate

2002: Republicans become the majority party in the Texas House

2004: Republicans become the majority of the Texas delegation in

the United States House of Representatives.

Click here for a good overview of when the shifts from Democrat to

Republican happened in Texas’ governing offices.

For detail on the change read: Misunderstanding the Southern

Realignment

Question: Did the conservatives leave the Democratic Party

voluntarily or where they driven out?

Here’s a look at the gradual shift in voting patterns for the presidency.

When and why did southern states begin to change their votes from

Democrats to Republicans?

Here are a few terms to get comfortable with first:

First: The Solid South.

Related: Politics of the Southern United States.

Second: Realigning Elections.

Related: Fifth Party System.

Third: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Related: The Southern Strategy

Here’s a bit more on each.

The term Solid South specifically refers to the fact that southern states – generally defined as

being the states of the old Confederacy, plus border states that were slave owning but did not attempt to secede – voted Democrat as a

block for over a century.

Now many of these states have switched over to voting Republican – which means that the term Solid South may best refer to the fact that the political culture within these states binds them

together and leads them to vote alike.

This – by the way – is a reflection of the unique political culture of

the south, as well as Texas.

Which was a subject of some of the early slides.

To be more specific, five states – Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina – are

argued to be the deep south. Southern values dominate more that in the

neighboring states.

The size of Texas means that it has areas where it is western, plains and

Latino in nature.

These are considered to be the Southern States:

And again, these states being considered to be the Deep South.

A realigning election is an election where a major shift has occurred in voting behavior

among key parts of the electorate. Generally its when one party’s dominance of the political

process changes, and the other’s begins.

We spent some time in 2305 discussing the concept. Researchers suggest that there have been six such elections in American history.

180018281860189619321968

We will note that the shift in 1968 – when Democratic dominance

ended and the two parties began splitting control of governing

institutions – was driven largely because of changes in the voting

behavior of Southern States.

This begins prominently in 1964.

The reason 1964 sticks out is because that was the election immediately following the signing – by a Texas Democrat in the White

House – of the Civil Rights Act.

The relationship between the South and the Democratic Party was already frayed,

but this marked a repositioning of the national party from supporting to opposing

racial segregation.

The Republican Party would adopt the Southern Strategy where they made subtle appeals to Southern voters. These began

with Richard Nixon in 1968 and continued with Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Here’s an article that argues that this was an attempt to turn the Republican Party

into the “White Man’s Party.”

There is more to the story that civil rights, but essentially a

repositioning on issues occurred that more firmly cemented the Democratic Party as the liberal

party and created incentives for conservatives to gravitate towards

the Republican Party.

This has lead to what are now two parties that are polarized ideologically.

We will not discuss this concept here that much, but much of the “dysfunction” that is argued to exist in Congress and between the states is argued to be a consequence

of the forces unleashed in the transformation we cover here.

Here’s a graphical evidence of the process

Let’s apply these concepts to an overview of southern – and Texas’

- votes for the presidency in key elections in American history.

And here are examples of them voting as a bloc for presidents over

history.

Source of maps: 270towin.com.

Note that the red states are the Republicans and the blue states

are the Democrats.

1860

This was the election that led to the Civil War. Republicans developed as the abolition party.

Democrats split into northern and southern factions. Texas joined the Southern Democrats who were more

supportive of slavery as a right enshrined in the Constitution – as decided in the Dred Scott decision -

and promoted its expansion into the Territories. Animosity towards Republicans would bind the South

to the Democratic party for decades.

The Democrats were the party that sought to preserved southern racial policies, as well as agrarian

policies in general. This helps explain the party’s appeal.

But there was more than just that.

Democrats continued to promote the interests of the agrarian sector

while Republicans more fully promoted industry – which would have no real presence in the South

for almost a century.

1880

The 1880 election was the first presidential election after the end of Reconstruction,

meaning that ex confederates could participate in elections and hold office. The dominant issue was the tariff, which pit the

industrial, Republican north against the agrarian, Democratic south. Tariffs protected

American industry, but increased costs to consumers and led to the imposition of tariffs

on items agricultural items grown in the South and exported elsewhere.

1904

The tariff continued to be an issue, as did the gold standard. Industry backed

Republican candidates supported the gold standard, which Southern Democrats – among others – opposed. They wanted money backed by a combination of gold

and silver which they argued would increase the prices for their crops. This

helped fuel the idea that the Republican Party did not care about the South and

deliberately adopted policies that hurt it.

1928

– This was the last election of the fourth party system. Republicans had dominated elections since 1896. Herbert Hoover won a landslide. Democrats held their convention that year in

Houston – the first time it was held in the South. Republicans benefitted from a booming

economy that did not seem likely to end – but it did of course. Which lead to the fifth party

system and the inclusion of the South in the New Deal Coalition and a seat at the table in the

FDR administration.

This was the first time Texas voted for a Republican for president.

It would continue to vote Democrat for members of

Congress and for state office though – more on that soon

enough.

Note that Democratic leadership in southern states grew uncomfortable with

the FDR’s support for labor unions and policies like social security, which they

considered socialist.

This was enough for some southern conservatives to start agitating within the

party, but not enough to lead to an affiliation with the Republican Party. At

least not yet.

Things would change when Harry Truman became president upon FDR’s death and began pushing more liberal policies nationally.

This led to rebellion in some southern states.

1948

The states in yellow voted for Strom Thurmond – a South Carolinian who ran as

a Dixiecrat, also known as the State’s Rights Democratic Party.

This demonstrated that the Democratic Party organizations in southern states were displeased with the decisions of

national Democratic officeholders.

One of the principle reasons FDR was able to keep the New Deal Coalition together

was that he did not push civil rights policies. He knew that would push the South from the party. His successor –

Harry Truman – did not have the same reservations. His push not only for civil

rights, but for Medicare and Medicaid led to a rebellion in some southern states –

including Texas.

1952

Southern states (not including Texas however) were back in the fold in the next

election and voted for Stevenson over Eisenhower, who was very popular due to

his leadership role in WW2.

He was not especially liked by the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

They wanted to abolish most New Deal programs – which he declined to do.

Southern Democrats were actually more conservative than Eisenhower.

Note that Texas Republicans supported Eisenhower. They formed an alliance with

Eisenhower and Congressional Republicans. This was called the

conservative coalition. Despite the fact that Democrats continued to control

Congress, the conservative coalition was able to dominate policy making.

1964

This was the first election following LBJ’s signing of the Civil Rights Act. Doing so effectively

repositioned the Democratic Party on the issue. After over a century of supporting slavery and segregation – or at least not actively opposing them – the party supported policies outlawing

the practice.

For the first time, the Deep South voted Republican – Barry Goldwater – who would help

rally the increasingly strong conservative element in the party.

Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act. The southern states liked that.

Here’s a video on the subject.

1968

Texas goes back to voting Democrat (for LBJ’s VP Hubert Humphrey) but the South votes for American Independent candidate George

Wallace – who was then a strong supporter of segregation. Too strong. His appeals turned

many people off. But Richard Nixon would begin using the Southern Strategy, which was a way to

make appeals to people in the South that he thought could be persuaded to vote for him. Direct appeals based on race were not used,

instead coded language would be used to make the same arguments.

Coded language is used to replace deliberately racist language that had been successful previously.

Instead of race, conservatives talked in terms of states rights, law

and order, culture wars, entitlements, and welfare.

This helps explain a lot of the political language that is used right

now.

For a hint at how this strategy still influences contemporary politics read: Reagan’s Southern strategy

gave rise to the Tea Party.

And here’s a quick video: Ask Steve: Southern Strategy.

1972

A landslide for Nixon. Only Massachusetts and the Washington DC vote for his

opponent. Internal fighting within the Democratic Party allowed the far left to

dominate the party and created an opportunity for Republicans to further

appeal to conservative Democrats. As we will see in a few slides, this shift did not

happen in Congress at this time. It would take another 20 years for that to happen.

The Southern Strategy was bearing fruit.

1976

The Nixon Administration made the decision to bug the headquarters of the

Democratic National Party during the 1972 campaign in what became known as the

Watergate Scandal. Nixon’s resignation set the effort to convert the South back an

election cycle. Jimmy Carter – an ex governor of Georgia – won the 1976 race

and southern states voted for him., including Texas.

But an internal battle was developing within the Republican Party. Moderate to Liberal Republicans were being challenged

by conservatives in the party. They first rallied around Barry Goldwater. They now rallied around Ronald Reagan. Reagan lost

the race for the 1976 Republican nomination, but won it in 1980 along with

the general election.

1980

Texas has never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate

since.

Though – once again – it would take a while for the Republican

Party to become the majority party in the Texas Congressional

delegation. 24 years.

While Texas made the shift in 1980, other southern states took a little more time

because Democrats nominated an appealing southern candidate – Bill Clinton

– in 1992 and 1996.

Clinton took conservative positions on issues like federalism and law and order which helped him with southern voters.

1992

1996

Barack Obama was the first non – southern Democrat to win the

presidency since Kennedy in 1960.

His election – as well as that of George W. Bush of Texas before him – helped

bind southern states together and make them a more permanent part of

the Republican coalition.

2012

This is obviously a very different map than what we saw from election in the 19th Century.

The 2012 map is almost exactly opposite form the one in 1896.

1896 2012

Keep in mind that the people in the states did not necessarily

change their positions on issues – though those can be modified

when people move into the state.

Parties changed their positions on issues over time for political gain.

Some useful reading if you’d like more on this.

Before and After: The 2008 Election and the Second “Solid

South

The End of the Solid South

For full detail on presidential election results in Texas click here:

Historical Presidential Election Results

A quick look at partisan shifts in the U.S. Congress

The following graph charts the change in partisan composition of the Texas Delegation to the United States House of Representatives.

Political party strength in Texas

United States congressional delegations from Texas

Trend in partisan control of Texas’ congressional delegation.

The purple line reflects the fact that the number of seats from 2 to

36 over the course of history.

Until the mid 1960s (let’s say the 59th Congress) the Democratic Party dominated. Years would

sometimes go by with no Republicans representing the

state.

1962 was the first year more than one Republican was a member of the

delegation.

In 1984, the year Ronald Reagan was re-elected to office, 10 Republicans were

elected.

In 2004, the year George W. Bush was re-elected, Republicans became the majority

party.

Note that Republican members of Congress do well when a

Republican presidential candidate does well.

This is called the coattail effect.

Click here for the Texas Delegation in the 113th Congress. Click here for the history of Texas delegations to

Congress.

It currently has 24 Republican and 12 Democrats.

Though Texas voters began voting Republican for president in 1980,

Democrats continued to dominate the Texas congressional delegation, and would

until 2004.

The Democratic Party remained strong in the state not only in the U.S. Congress, but

in the Texas Legislature as well.

Why?

One: A congressional or legislative candidate is able to make a greater

personal connection with their constituency. While conservative

Texas voters might start voting for Republican presidential

candidates, their personal connection to local representatives

kept them voting Democrat for some time.

This also illustrates the fact that – as a party – Texas Democrats could define themselves in a way that was different

than how the national Democratic Party defined itself.

This created the tension that would eventually result in the shift towards the

Republican Party.

Two: The Democratic Party continued to be the majority Party

in Congress until 1994 when Republicans – lead by Newt

Gingrich and his Contract with America – nationalized the election and controlled both the House and

Senate.

Before that happened, there was little incentive for conservative Democrats to

change parties.

By being part of the majority party, they could have a far greater impact on

legislation and provide benefits for their constituents. This cannot be dome as a

member of the minority party.

When Republicans became the majority party after the 1994

election, conservative Democrats were invited to make the shift.

Many Texans did so.

Examples of Texas Democrats who switched parties.

Phil GrammGreg Laughlin

Ralph HallAllan Ritter

Three: Texas legislators are unabashed, enthusiastic and skillful gerrymanderers.

They can draw districts for political effect very well. As long as Democrats were the

majority party in the legislature, they could prevent an increasingly competitive Republican Party from taking over

Congress and the Texas Legislature.

Democrats could draw districts minimizing Republican representation by packing as many as they could in a few districts as

possible.

This worked until Republicans took over both the Texas House and Senate following

the election of 2002, and then redrew electoral maps to maximize Republican

representation.

It’s a brutal process, but that’s Texas politics.

These two maps give you an idea of the change that happened in Congress as a

result of the redistricting.

After the 2004 Republicans were the majority party in the Texas delegation to

Congress.

In 2002 the Texas delegation to the House of Representative has 17 Democrats and

15 Republicans.

In 2004 it has 11 Democrats and 21 Republicans.

As of 2014 – Texas Democrats are still recovering.

More on this below: Can Democrats stage a comeback.

Some argue that they can.

Texas became a much redder state, but it did not necessarily become more

conservative. Conservatives simply continued their shift from the Democratic

to Republican Parties.

This was able to happen in Congress because the shift had already happened in the Texas Legislature. Remember that the

legislature draws and redraws districts

Let’s look then at partisan shifts in the Texas legislature.

Here’s a graph showing the shift in partisan control since 1870.

Partisan Trends in the Texas Legislature

For sources of data:

Party Affiliation in the Texas LegislatureList of Governors of Texas Historical Texas Elections

You can see from the slides that there was some Republican representation early on

during and following Reconstruction.

By 1910, the party was effectively a non-entity. From 1934 to 1948 no Republican served in the Texas House. From 1928 to 1964 no Republican served in the Texas

Senate.

This explains why there is little party organization in the Texas

Legislature.

There was never a real need. This might be changing, but more on

that in a separate section.

As with the U.S. Congress, Republican representation

increases in the early 1960s, specifically in the 58th Session

following the election of 1962.

Republican strength grew steadily until they became the majority

party in the Texas Senate following the 1996 election – in the 75th

legislative session, and in the Texas House following the 2002 election

– in the 78th legislative session.

Republicans had an opportunity following the 2002 election to

expand their lead over Democrats by redrawing legislative districts in the U.S. House, and Texas House

and Senate.

For a look at this read: 2003 Texas Redistricting.

Here’s a look at the partisan breakdown in the Texas House

following the 2010 election.

Notice that areas of Democratic strength are in the large cities and

the Mexican border, while Republican strength is in the

suburban and rural areas.

The fact that these areas are heavily Hispanic, along with the fact that the Hispanic population

is the fastest growing segment of the Texas population has led some to suggest that

Democrats have an opportunity to become more competitive in the near future.

This assumes that Republicans will not be able to make inroads into this group. It also depends upon whether the political participation among

Hispanics increases.

The important take-away here is to note that the shift from Democratic to

Republican identification and voting does begin in the 1960s following not only the Civil Rights but a large number of other pieces of legislation designed to expand

voting rights and deal with poverty.

This supports the argument that partisan repositioning in racial matters was a

driving force in this shift.

In the following slides lets look at a few key events a dates that help us walk through the change in party

Identification over time.

Click on these for historical detail from the TSHA about the Texas

Democratic and Republican Parties.

Pre-Texas

Remember that political parties had evolved for several decades

prior to when Anglos were invited to populate the Mexican state of

Texas.

Prior to the 1828 US election, politics in the US was restricted to

elites. Property rights requirements made mass

participation difficult.

Remember that this was one of the factors leading to the

establishment of Texas.

The Democratic Party was first competitive in the election of 1828. It splinted off from the Democrat-Republican Party and was developed to support the candidacy of

Andrew Jackson.

It represented the interests of the agrarian states of the South and in many ways

picked up the positions supported by the Anti-Federalists years before that.

Texas was populated with people that already identified with the

Democratic Party.

In addition to that, early Texas political leaders like Sam Houston

had personal friendships with Andrew Jackson, who was the first

Democrat in the White House.

Democrats opposed all of that.

The Whigs would eventually split over slavery. The northern part would become the Republican

Party.

The chief opponent of the Democratic Party was the Whig Party until the

Republican Party developed in the 1850s.

It supported the interests of the commercial sector – including protective tariffs, infrastructure development, and a

central banking system.

Mexican Texas:

Immigrants were Jacksonian Democrats.

Prior to becoming a state, parties – unofficially – developed in the Republic of

Texas. To a lesser extent, this also occurred when Texas was a Mexican state, but the legality of these groups was questionable.

The right to assemble was not guaranteed by the Mexican government.

Republic of Texas

Personality, not party, dominated politics in the Republic of Texas. Sam Houston was the dominant personality, and political groups

were usually foes or supporters of the hero of San Jacinto. - link

During the Texas Republic, groups tended to cluster around support for Sam Houston and his desire to

join the union, and Mirabeau Lamar and his goal of maintaining

Texas independence, and expanding the republic westward

to California.

Houston’s faction would win out.

As discussed previously, the annexation of Texas was

controversial and was a subject in the 1844 US election.

The Democrats favored the annexation while the Whigs opposed it. The dispute

hinged largely on slavery and what Texas’ annexation would mean for the balance of power between the slave and free states.

Since Democrats supported Texas’ annexation, there’s little wonder the Democratic Party dominated

the state from the start.

It also helped that most of the emigrants to Texas were from southern US states

that already identified with the Democratic Party.

From the TSHA section on the Democratic Party:

“Before 1848, elections in Texas were conducted without organized political parties. Personality was the dominant political force in the state. Contests between

factions evolved into a more defined stage of competition with the development of the Democratic

party in Texas as a formal organ of the electoral process during the 1848 presidential campaign. Even so, it was some time before Democrats adopted any

sort of a statewide network or arranged for scheduled conventions.”

The planter classes in East Texas held most of the power at that

time in the state.

1850s

Politics becomes affected by battle over slavery.

Parties become more organized. Democrats begin holding state

conventions – most counties begin attending them.

Late 1850s: Radical Democrats are dubbed the Fire-Eaters. They urge

a re-establishment of the slave trade and start pushing for

secession.

1859: The Constitutional Union Party attracts Democrats worried

about radicalism within the Democratic Party.

Battle over secession divides unionists – under the leadership of

Sam Houston - over states rights Democrats. States rights

Democrats win.

1860: The Democratic Party splits in two. Texas joins the Southern

Democrats.

Lincoln is not on the ballot. That’s how disliked Republicans were.

Partisan activity came to a halt during the Civil War.

There was little party activity during reconstruction as well. Ex-

Confederates could not participate unless they took a loyalty oath to the union. Republicans were able

to become competitive briefly as a result.

For much of this time Texas was ruled by the United States military. It was placed in the Fifth Military

District, under the control of a series of generals.

There was little room for party politics.

1867: The Republican Party of Texas is established. They held their first

convention that year in Houston July 4th.

It was a result of the transformation of the political system in Texas brought about by the Congressional Reconstruction Act of 1867. The

former Confederate states had to establish new governments and extend the franchise to freed adult male African Americans. This did not go

over well.

1867: The Union League used as a way to organize and mobilize black voters. They

tended to vote for Republican candidates.

This helps explain the strong relationship that existed for many years between the

party and the African-American community, as well as the animosity

towards the party from the ex-Confederates.

1868: The 14th Amendment is ratified. Southern states had to

ratify it in order to be re-admitted to the union. The amendment

includes two clauses which expanded national power over the

states.

The Due Process Clause which made the liberties established in the First

Amendment of the United States Constitution applicable to the states.

The Equal Protection Clause which required each state to provide equal

protection of the laws to persons within their jurisdiction.

The problem with each was enforcement.

Southern states, like Texas, were generally uninterested in enforcing them, and created barriers for the

national government to enforce them.

Republicans had a brief period of power – 1869 to 1873 where they controlled the legislature and governor’s office. They were also installed in state and county offices by reconstruction officials, who were also able to prevent ex-

confederates from being able to hold office.

They pushed for equity in political power, state provision of education and law enforcement and

civil rights for freed male slaves.

1869:

“The 1869 election returns showed the sources of the new [Republican] party's electoral strength. The strongest backing came from counties with large black

populations. White support came mainly from the German counties of Central Texas, frontier counties south and west of San Antonio, and some counties in Northeast

Texas. The sources of white Republican votes were primarily areas that had shown Unionist strength before the war.

Between 1869 and 1874 the Radicals pushed ambitious economic and social programs. They sponsored and secured railroad development financed by state

support of railroad bonds, established a system of free schools, instituted a bureau of immigration, and formed the State Police to combat lawlessness. Despite the party's

achievements, higher taxes and Republican racial policies produced strong opposition to the administration from Democrats (supported by Conservative Republicans who

had reorganized as Liberal Republicans). The Democrats also charged the Republicans with dictatorial practices and corruption.” – TSHA.

The only period of strength the Republican Party had (until recently)

was during Reconstruction when union interests, immigrants from

other states and African-Americans formed its core.

Ex-Confederates had yet to be allowed to become politically involved again.

Previously we discussed how the 1869 Constitution was written by

these groups and that the document reflected a desire to

make Texas comply with national directives and to give the state

power over local areas.

1869: Republican Edmund Davis elected governor of Texas.

1873: The Panic of 1873.

1876: Reconstruction effectively ends as the result of a deal following the disputed

presidential election of 1876. The Democratic candidate won the majority vote, but the

electoral college winner was unclear. Eventually a compromise was struck where the Democratic

candidate would drop his challenge if the Republican candidate would pull federal troops

from the south.

This not only ended Reconstruction, it ended the brief period of Republican rule in the state.

Democrats returned to power.

Antagonism to the Republican Party increased.

Identification with the Democratic Party became so strong that the

term Yellow Dog Democrat became popular.

This referred to a Democrat who would "vote for a yellow dog before they would

vote for any Republican". There were many in Texas.

For detail read: Death of the ‘Yellow Dog’ Democrat.

Since African-Americans were a key part of the Republican coalition – along with poor whites – laws restricting their participation

was central to the re-emergence of the Democratic Party.

Electoral laws would gradually change in order to solidify Democratic dominance of Texas politics. Examples include the white

primary and the poll tax.

1876: The Greenback Party is established and eclipses the

Republican Party in the election of 1878.

1878: The Citizen’s Party of Harrison County.

1883: Norris Wright Cuney – an African-American politician – becomes chair of the Texas

Republican Party.

1884-1896 is the “Cuney Era” of the Republican Party.

1888: The Lily-White Movement.

An attempts was made in the Republican Party to expel African-

American delegates, called the “black and tan” faction. This

reflects internal divisions within the party between white and black

factions.

1890: The People’s Party is founded. This was a populist party that reflected the

concerns of small farmers, laborers and others further down the social food chain.

They promoted regulation of railroads and corporations, looser monetary policy and protection from large scale landowners –

notably the planter class that had traditionally dominated Texas politics.

1905: The Terrell Election Law is passed which for the first time attempted to regulate the

nominations process of each party.

Previously parties developed their own rules, including rules associated with primaries. Now

that state took this over. Since Democrats controlled the state, they were now in a position

to dominate how all state parties operated – including the opposition.

Over this time, the Democratic Party solidified itself as the only party that

mattered in the state.

General elections did not matter, only the Democratic primary. If you wanted to hold

office in the state, you had to run as a Democrat. To a large degree, this was true

in other southern states as well.

This allowed them to amass a great deal of power in the US Congress due to strict

seniority rules. The committee members who was also a member of the majority party and had the longest service on the

committee automatically became the committee chair.

Many Texans became committee chairs as a result could direct federal dollars to the

state and their local districts.

Texas – businesses especially – benefited heavily from the

situation.

It helps explain the reluctance of the Texans to leave the Democratic Party as long as it continued to be

the majority party in Congress.

This had an interesting benefit for Texas, and the rest of the South.

It made the state more influential in Congress.

Why?

Because congressional elections became very uncompetitive and members of

Congress from Texas began to acquire seniority. Primary elections were more

easy to control – so incumbents could be re-nominated – and since there was no Republican competition of note, they

would be re-elected easily.

The rule of thumb was to elect people to Congress while young

and keep them in office.

Seniority had major advantages at that time. The ability to automatically chair

committees for example, which they could then control almost dictatorially.

This meant these officeholders could ensure that benefits would flow to their districts, and some laws – like civil rights

legislation – could be prevented from being voted on, much less passed.

Example:

Sam Rayburn served in Congress from 1913 – 1961. He would serve

as Speaker three separate times for a total of 17 years.

This created additional incentives to continue to vote Democrat.

It also bolsters the argument made above about why it took longer for Republicans to dominate the Texas

delegation to Congress than to dominate the vote for the

presidency.

In the early 20th Century the Texas Republican Party positioned itself as the

party of business.

Which would take a long time to reap benefits since Texas remained an agrarian

state for a while longer, but emerging business leaders in the state began to

gravitate towards the party.

Two men chaired the Republican Party from 1901-1950.

Cecil A. Lyon: 1901-1916Rentfro B. Creager: 1920-1950

While the Republican Party was not competitive in the state, these figures – and a few others – became active in

national Republican politics.

The party’s positions on national policies – especially its stand against

regulations - became increasingly attractive to conservative Democrats.

“From 1901 to 1950 . . . the party sought to enlarge its membership by appealing for support

from Texans who were sympathetic with the national party's programs. The domestic agenda changed at times, but generally platforms were

pro-business. This position was sustained by policies limiting government regulations and

expenditures and reducing taxes, while providing aid to businessmen and farmers

through extensions of credits and imposition of tariffs.” - TSHA

Business interests in the state were growing – and they were

drawn to the national Republican Party’s opposition to regulations and labor unions – but they were

still a minority. Texas was still mostly agrarian, and the party could not overcome continued

revulsion to it due to its history by Anglos.

1896 – 1932

The Fourth Party System

While the Democratic Party was consolidating its strength in the state of Texas, the Republican

Party dominated politics nationally.

It controlled the presidency except for when it split its votes in 1912

and Woodrow Wilson was elected President.

During this time the parties solidified themselves as being agrarian (Democrats) or commercial (Republicans). Regional divisions

evolved in voting behavior based on the dominant industry in the state. Ongoing

resentment to the Republican Party in the South also played into this.

This map shows the strength of the relationship between the south and the Democratic Party

during this period. The blue states are the Democrats.

During this time a split developed in the Republican party between the progressives and

the business sector.

Republican presidents like Theodore Roosevelt embraced progressive reforms and increased

regulations over industry, but others – like William Howard Taft, and especially Coolidge

and Harding – opposed them.

In the presidential election of 1912 Theodore Roosevelt ran as a candidate of the Progressive Party, and drew enough votes away from the Republican candidate to throw the election to

the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.

This loss would eventually weaken Republicans because it created an incentive for the

Progressive wing of the party to slowly pull away from it and realign to the Democratic Party.

But Wilson’s election was advantageous to Texas and the

Houston area because of the connections area politicians and

business leaders had to the administration.

Two key figures: Edward M. House and Jesse Jones.

1928: Jesse Jones is able to convince the Democratic Party to

hold its national convention in Houston.

It nominated Al Smith, whose name was introduced by Franklin

Roosevelt.

Ironically Texas voted for Herbert Hoover in that election, the first

time Texas voted for a Republican president.

Texas opposed Smith because he was opposed to the Ku Klux Klan, wanted to repeal prohibition, and

was Catholic.

1932 – 1968

The Fifth Party System

The Great Depression ended the Republican Party’s string of success. In 1932 Texas and most

of the rest of the nation voted for Franklin Roosevelt, the Democratic nominee.

Roosevelt used the opportunity to assemble what became known as the New Deal Coalition,

a large somewhat disorganized collection of groups in the nation. This included the South,

which had been a part of the Democratic coalition already for a century.

What is the New Deal?

It is the name given to a series of programs enacted when FDR came into office in 1933 to aggressively address the problems associated

with the Great Depression. Many of these programs were promoted at one point by the progressive movement. The economic crash

created an opportunity to enact these programs due to the overwhelming victory Democrats had

in the 1932 election.

While the Hoover Administration directly addressed certain aspects of the crisis, they largely left it to

the economy to pick itself up.

Many states – including southern states – felt deserted by Hoover,

which further alienated it from the Republican Party.

The creation of the New Deal Coalition was essential to passing these programs into

law.

Members of the coalition included: “ Banking and oil industries, the Democratic state party

organizations, city machines, labor unions, blue collar workers, minorities (racial, ethnic and

religious), farmers, white Southerners, people on relief, and intellectuals [progressives].”

One of the ways that FDR ensured Texas’ support for his administration was to ask Texas – and Speaker of the House – John

Nance Garner to run as his vice-president. Aside from helping him win the South –

Garner helped ensure the passage of New Deal legislation through Congress.

Other Texans – most notable Jesse Jones – were also involved in the FDR

Administration.

This would pay dividends when the decision was made to make Houston the center of petro-

chemical production prior to and during WW2.

This explains why Texas business interests continued their affiliation with Democrats – they

received tangible benefits for doing so. Texas also became more attractive to business

interests, which would eventually help the Republican Party establish itself in the state.

But this coalition included elements that did not always agree on all issues.

The economic crisis allowed for the creation of temporary alliances among groups that otherwise did not see eye

to eye. The coalition contained elements that would eventually

splinter.

Oil interests and labor unions would come into conflict over

whether forming a labor union was a right the national government

could enforce.

Business interests would also come into conflict over various regulations

that were intended to provide relief to the unemployed and to retired

workers (social security).

Texas business likes the contracts they received, but did not want to deal with

labor unions.

Most importantly, white southerners existed uneasily in a

party that also included racial minorities, as well as the

progressive voices that started to agitate for meaningful civil rights

legislation.

FDR was clever however.

He did not push for civil rights legislation, and made compromises in other areas

restricting benefits from African-Americans and the poor in order to keep southern politicians happy. See this description of

The Segregated Origins of Social Security.

As we will see, his successor – Harry Truman - would not hold

back.

He desegregated the armed forces and held civil rights conferences in

the White House.

Slowly elements within the South – and elsewhere – started to break

with FDR over the New Deal. Groups developed in the South to

organize this opposition.

Here’s a look at some of the reactions to it:

1936: The Jeffersonian Democrats were formed by business groups

that were increasingly disaffected by the policies of Franklin

Roosevelt and the New Deal in general.

“The Texas membership of this anti-Roosevelt group was composed largely of lawyers, followed by businessmen, farmers, and

ranchers. Their theme was that the New Deal was un-American and a threat to the institutions

that Texans cherished and respected. . . . The Jeffersonian Democrats attempted to identify

the Roosevelt administration with communism and made extreme charges against the

president and his family. They also used religion, white supremacy, and prohibitionism in their

appeals.” – TSHA.

The Texas Regulars

1937: The Conservative Manifesto is written by conservatives in both parties. It featured 10 points that sounds very similar to the points conservatives continue to make

today.

- lowering taxes on capital gains and undistributed profits- reducing government spending and balancing budgets- restoring peace to the relationship between labor and

industry- resisting government competition with private enterprise- recognizing the importance of profit in private enterprise

- protecting collateral as a prerequisite for credit- reducing taxes

- maintaining states' rights- aiding the unemployed in an economical and locally

responsible manner- relying on American free enterprise.

Southern Conservative Democrats agree with many of these positions and begin to pull away from the national party. Conflict builds between the national party and the state parties across

the south, especially Texas.

The state Democratic Party continues to adhere to strong conservative line, though a moderate faction begins to build slowly. State and local

Democratic Party leaders and incumbents continue to receive support event though support for national figures begins to slip.

FDR’s decision to seek 3rd and 4th terms of office further alienated

him from Texas Democrats.

1940: John Nance Garner chooses to not run again as FDR’s VP.

Click here for a description of Garner’s increasingly contentious

relationship with FDR.

An extended quote:

In late 1936, Roosevelt's approach to labor strikes led to a heated exchange between the President and Garner, and from then on the

vice president became more a figure of opposition than cooperation. Garner opposed Roosevelt's "court-packing" plan and was noticeably

absent during the congressional debates regarding the proposal. Roosevelt also went against Garner's advice and aggressively tried to unseat conservative Democrats in the 1938 midterm elections. The

President's intervention earned him substantial enmity from conservative members of his own party, many of them close friends of

Garner, and helped stall his legislative agenda.

When Roosevelt began to hint at the possibility of a third term, Garner was aghast and declared his own candidacy in December 1939.

Although he attracted some support, Garner knew that Roosevelt would take the nomination if he sought it. The increasing instability in Europe assured Roosevelt's nomination and eventual election. Garner

did not reconcile with Roosevelt, however, and did not even vote in the 1940 election.

Garner only received 6% of the vote in the 1940 Democratic National

Convention. He was replaced on the ticket with Henry Wallace, who had been FDR’s Secretary of Agriculture

and was far more liberal than Garner.

This pushed the center of gravity of the Democratic Party further to the

left.

This would continue in 1944 when FDR selected Harry Truman, who would quickly become president following FDR’s death in 1945.

1944: Smith v Allwright decided.

The white primary found unconstitutional by the United

States Supreme Court.

The Texas Democratic Party was still segregated at this time.

Until the Supreme Court case Smith v Allwright, only whites could vote in the Democratic Party

Primary. The party argued unsuccessfully before the court that they were a private organization and the federal government had no authority

over it. The court argues that since they provided a public function, they could be.

1945: FDR dies and is replaced by his vice-president Harry Truman.

Truman desegregated the armed forces and promoted the development

of a civil rights agenda.

This led to the development of the States’ Rights Party (the Dixiecrats) with Strom Thurmond as its candidate in 1948. It was an early indication

that southern state Democratic Parties were dissatisfied with the national party.

Thurmond received a fair amount of votes in that election:

Election, 1948

*Harry S Truman (Democrat)..........................750,700Thomas E. Dewey (Republican).....................282,240J. Strom Thurmond (States Rights)................106,909Henry A. Wallace (Progressive)..........................3,764Claude A. Watson (Prohibitionist).......................2,758Norman M. Thomas (Socialist)..............................874 Total Vote............................1,147,245**

The Republican Party was beginning to make inroads in the

state.

But would have initial success only in national elections.

1950: A majority of Texans live in urban areas, both cities and

suburbs.

Demographic shifts fuel the transition.

1952: Texas Governor Allan Shivers clashes with the Truman

Administration over many things. His followers were called the Shivercrats.

Shivers supported Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson. He helped use the

Texas Democratic Party machinery for the Republican presidential candidate.

He was able to alter the law to allow Eisenhower to appear on the

primary ballots of both the Democratic and Republican

Parties.

This lead to a backlash within the Democratic Party.

A liberal wing began to form.

Early 1950s: Moderates and liberals in the Democratic Party

organize against Shivers. Internal competition between the

conservative and liberal wings of the party intensifies.

Competition started over control of the state Democratic Party.

1957: Ralph Yarborough – a member of the liberal wing of the

party – is elected to the U.S. Senate. He would serve until 1971

when he was defeated in the Democratic primary by a more

conservative Lloyd Bentsen.

1960: Lyndon Johnson is elected vice president on a ticket with John F. Kennedy.

He becomes president in 1963 when Kennedy is assassinated. His knowledge of the workings of Congress, along with the

national mood, allows him to push into law a number of bills focused on poverty and

civil rights. These would become the events that would transform the parties.

LBJ’s election vacated his Senate seat which was won by a

Republican.

1961: The first Republican elected to high office was John Tower in 1961 who

replaced Lyndon Johnson in the Senate after he became elected Vice-President. He was the first Republican Senator from the

South since reconstruction.

FYI: There were rumors Johnson supported Nixon over Humphrey in the 1968 election.

Click here for Slideshow: John Tower's Historic 1961 Senate

Campaign.

1962: The Republican Party holds its first primary.

1964: The major shift occurred with Civil Rights Act of 1964. When LBJ signed the bill it repositioned the national Democratic Party.

Predictions were made that this would lead to a realignment of the South from the Democratic to Republican Parties. While it took time, it did come true.

Here is a more subtle development in 1964.

George H.W. Bush – son of Senator Prescott Bush of Connecticut – had already moved to Texas. In 1964 he becomes Chairman of the Harris County Republican Party. The county

organization becomes a force in developing not only the state Republican Party, but the national

party as well.

Bush helps continue building the infrastructure that would make it

possible for conservative Democrats to see a reason to shift

to the Republican Party.

Without a solid organization that guaranteed success, there was little reason to change parties.

1966: Bush is elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from the 7th Congressional District – mostly

in Houston.

1970: Is defeated by Democrat Lloyd Bentsen for U.S. Senator.

Bentsen campaigns on the idea the Bush is too liberal for Texas.

1971: The Sharpstown stock-fraud scandal breaks. Top Texas office

holders – all Democrats – are implicated in it, which decimates

the party. This creates opportunities for challengers –

notable Republican challengers.

1978: Bill Clemens is elected as the first Republican Texas governor

since Reconstruction. He had served in the Nixon

Administration.

He would be defeated by Democrat Mark White in 1982, but

reelected in 1986.

Clemens would hire Karl Rove as an advisor. Rove would be

instrumental in developing tactics that would drive the switch from

Democratic to Republican dominance.

One of Karl Rove’s early successes in flipping seats from Democrats to Republicans happened in the local

area when he recruited Buster Brown to run (successfully) against

long time Democratic State Senator Babe Schwartz in 1980.

1983 – U.S. House Representative Phil Gramm switches from the

Democratic to Republican parties.

He would serve in the U.S. Senate from 1984 to 2002.

1984: Rick Perry elected to the Texas House of Representatives as

a Democrat.

1989: Perry switches to the Republican Party, wins race for

Agriculture Commissioner in 1990.

1994: Republicans win control of the US House of Representatives for the first time

in 40 years. Many Conservative Texas Democrats take the opportunity to switch

parties.

It made sense now because they could continue to chair committees and use their

seniority to benefit their constituents.

Some of the leaders of the Republican majority were from

Texas and the local area. Examples:

Tom DelayDick Armey

1995: The Formation of the Blue Dog Coalition in Congress.

These were Yellow Dog Democrats who had been "choked blue" by

extreme Democrats from the Left.

Many Blue Dog Democrats would eventually switch over to the

Republican Party.

1997: The Republican Party becomes the majority party in the

Texas Senate for the first time since Reconstruction.

2002: The Republican Party becomes the majority party in the

Texas House for the first time since Reconstruction.

2003: Now that Republicans controlled the Texas Legislature, they held several special sessions to redraw congressional districts.

This was very controversial since districts are normally just redrawn once following each apportionment after the census is

taken every ten years.

2004: In the first election following redistricting, Republicans defeat 7 Democrats in the U.S. House and become the majority party in the

Texas Delegation.

The Republican Party has been dominant in the state ever since.

It does not completely control the state – as Democrats had done previously.

Republicans tend to win stateside offices by 15 – 20 percentage points. Republican

also tend to hold around 2/3rds of the seats in legislative assemblies.

2009: The Tea Party movement heats up across the nation, and becomes especially influential in Texas. The principle focus of the group was to rally conservative forces within the Republican Party and push for

policies that were further to the right than those already in place.

Tea Party candidates focused their energies on challenging Republican

officeholders they deemed insufficiently conservative.

RINOs

Republicans In Name Only

What might the future hold?

Will Republicans continue to control the state or can Democrats

stage a comeback?

There are two factors to look at here.

The first is demographic changes within the state that might be advantageous to Democrats.

Specifically the fact that the Hispanic population in the state is

the fastest growing segment of the population, and they tend to vote

Democrat.

Here are few items on whether Democrats can become

competitive again in the state:

- Am I Blue?

- Analysis: For Democrats, a Long Game and a Short One.

- How Democrats Are Aiming to Make Texas a Swing State.

- Texan Hispanics Tilt Democratic, but State Likely to Stay Red.

The second has to do with the internal dynamics within the

Republican Party that followed the rise of the Tea Party.

Their efforts to force their agenda may force moderate Republicans

out of the party, which can make it less competitive in the long run.

Tension has increased within the Republican Party between the Tea

Party and what is called the “establishment” over how

ideologically extreme the state’s agenda should be.

How much money should be spent on infrastructure development and education

for example.

The establishment Republicans tend to be business oriented and see a reason to

spend money in those areas and do not mind compromising with Democrats to

attain their objectives.

This appalls the Tea Party.

The only questions are which of these factions will control the

party, and whether the Tea Party’s agenda is extreme enough to drive

moderate Republicans to the Democratic Party.

Some readings:

- Texas Takes A Hard Right Turn.

- Fed up with tea party extremism, Texas GOP judge bolts for

Democrats.

But these are simply guesses at this time.

How these play out in the future is up in the air.