SOUTHERN CONGRESSIONAL CIVIL KIGHTS VOTING AND THE NEW SOUTHERN

PO LIT1 C A I, D E h.1 0 C R A P 1-1 Y

Mark Stern

Introduction

This is a study of southern Congressional sup- port for civil rights legislation. The united opposition to black rights by the eleven states of the Con- federate South in Congress has traditionally set it apart from the rest of the nation. In 1949 V.O. Key wrote "On the race question, and on that question alone, does a genuine Southern Congressional soli- darity exist."l Southern Congressional recalcitrance on black civil rights persisted into the 1950's and 1960's. Shannon found that in Congress, "The South had, for the most part, become a truly isolated sectional minority on civil rights" during these years2

Yet, breaks in southern Congressional unity had begun to occur in the 1960'~~ and analyses of the basis of these divisions were undertaken.3 By the 1970's internal southern dissent on the race issue became commonplace4 and reached the point where almost two-thirds of all southern Representatives, 62.5% of the white Representatives, cast their votes for final passage of the 1975 Voting Rights Act.5 This was the first time in t h e twentieth century that a majority of southern Representatives had supported a major substantive advancement in civil rights legislation. In 1978 one of the most sacrosanct symbols of the southern commitment to racial seg- regation and white supremacy fell as a majority of the southern Congressional delegation supported a proposed constitutional amendment to give the citi-

69

zens of the District of Columbia full voting re- presentation in Congress.

The study examines the extent and consistency of southern Congressional support for black civil rights from 1965 through 1978-from passage of the first Voting Rights Act to passage of the proposed District of Columbia representation resolution in 1978.6 Southern and non-southern Congressional voting on all major civil rights related issues, e.g., voting, housing, busing, are compared. Sources of southern congressional change are assessed in the light of hypotheses put forth as to the expected bases of defection from the traditional southern position on the race issue.

While emphasizing southern unity on the race issue, Key noted that the rim or peripheral south states of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Ten- nessee, Texas and Virginia were more likely to defect from the traditional southern race position than were

-the deep South states of Alabama, Georgia, Missis- sippi, South Carolina, "and to a lesser extent," Louisiana.7 Numerous scholars such as Mathews and Prothro,* Strong9 and Havard,l* note the persistence of a more moderate rim south and a more intense racism in the deep south. Havard saw a developing tripartite division of the South composed of an (1) "evolving" south of Florida, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia; a (2) I'waveringlt south of Arkansas, Georgia, and North Carolina; and a (3) llprotestl' south of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Havard's division groups t h e protest states as still resistant to change for black rights, the wavering states as moving towards acceptance of black rights, and the evolving states as accepting the fact of black rights.

Scholars have also emphasized the relationship between socio-economic variables and southern racial moderation. Key11 emphasized the importance of

70

an economically developing, urbanizing South as more likely to moderate its racial dogmatism. Other, subsequent studies, have emphasized the importance of general population economic prosperity and ur- banism as related to a lessening of anti-black white sentiment.12

Numerous studies have emphasized t h e role of the "black belts," i.e., areas with high proportions of blacks in their population, in analyzing southern resistance to change in the statusquo on racial re1ati0ns.l~ The proximity of a high proportion of blacks in a locale is likely to generate resistance to change in traditional southern racial patterns.14 The role of the black population as an ipdependent factor affecting southern Congressional behavior may well have been radically altered as a result of increasing southern black voter participation in the wake of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The impact of the Act was specifically directed at the states and areas most resistant to black voter participation: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Vir- ginia and many counties in North Carolina. Daniel, Feagin and Hahn, Rodgers and Bullock, Bartley and Graham, and Murray and Vedlitz, among others, document the changes in black voter registration and electoral participation following the 1965 Act. Cavanaugh points out that Southern blacks as a whole had higher rates of increase in voter turnout than any other major demographic group, and southern blacks over the age of forty, "are a t present the only demographic grou in the entire population whose

that black voter turnout varies strongly in relation to the particular issues and candidate choices available in a given election. However, the potential impact of black voters in areas where they never had any chance of affecting election outcomes in a manner favorable to their needs has increased dramatically in a relatively brief period of time.17

turnout is rising." f 6 Campbell and Feagin emphasize

71

Black presents evidence that recent increases in black voter registration are related to increases in southern Congressional support for black voting rights. Following on Keech's curvilinear hypothesis, that the least resistance and political change in favor of black civil rights would occur in areas where there are either few blacks or very high proportions of blacks in a given population able to register and vote, Black found that the old pattern of the most white resistance occurring in areas with the highest pro- portions of blacks in the population has changed. Black suggests that there now exists a biracial coal'ition in many southern areas and '?many Demo- cratic representatives now have tangible interest in defending legislation that provides symbolic, if not other, rewards to blacks."18 The extent to which this curvilinear hypothesis holds for areas of civil rights legislation beyond voting is addressed in this study.

In sum, this study examines congressional voting on roll-call votes which deal with black related civil rights bills, by the congressmen from the eleven states of the old Confederate South, and to a much more limited extent non-southern and partisan pat- terns of congressional voting. W e examine the roll- call votes on final passage of al l major substantive legislation, including several amendments to bills, related to black civil rights in the 1965-1978 period. We first explore the extent of Southern deviation from the "traditional" anti-civil rights position and relate it to non-southern shifts in civil rights voting and partisan shifts from the South. We next explore the extent of subregional and state changes in voting. We then examine the association between recent changes in black voter participation and other socio- economic variables that have been related to southern Congressional civil rights voting. Finally, the specific southern districts which have changed the most in their support of black rights are examined in the context of our analysis of southern Congressional civil rights voting.

72

National, Partisan and Intra-Regional Patterns of Voting

Figure 1 presents the percentage support given for each of the bills and amendments by all southern Congressmen, northern Democrats, and Republicans. The pattern of voting varies widely for these groups, although least so for the northern Democrats. The votes on the 1965 Voting Rights Acts, and the two 1966 civil rights related acts left the South as a relatively isolated minority. The Anti-Riot bill of 1967 found the southerners joined by almost all Republicans and a majority of northern Democrats. This was to occur again on the vote for the 1969 bill limiting the use of public property in the District of Columbia. A majority of northern and southern Congressional roll-call votes were cast for civil rights legislation aimed at limiting public agitation and intrusions on the Capitol. Aside from these two marked departures from the more usual northern Democratic support for civil rights, two 1974 votes related to busing and de facto school segregation also found less than 75% of the northern Democrats supporting the liberal position. Republicans, except for the latter two votes and the vote on the 1968 Federal Jury Selection bill consistently provide lower levels of support for civil rights legislation than do non-southern Democrats. Asher and Weisberg found that northern Republicans are shifting noticeably into an anti civil-rights position on many recent votes in the House.lg Less than a majority of the congres- sional Republicans supported the probusing position in 1974, the 1975 Banking Regulation bill, the 1977 Legal Services Corporation passage and the proposed District of Columbia representation amendment in 1978. It is not only on the 1967 riot bill and the, 1969 public land use bill that t h e Republican pattern of voting is closer to the southern Democrats than to the non-southern Democrats. On several other votes in the 1970's, most notably the Voting RigWs Act

73

m In

m m m m w

m U D

m U 0

m 7 m m m

m m U m W

m W 0

U

B U 0 U

U 0 n

2 U N

U N 0

i: m U 0 0

U P n

U In

U vI U

U m U U m

J U m

Percent Support

74

Amendments of 1975, the Banking Regulation bill of 1975 and the measures examined after 1976, Repub- lican congressmen voted more l i k e southerners than like northern Democrats. In fact, Republicans were less likely to support the 1978 D.C. representation bill (61-79) than were southerners (55-27). Con-

essional Quarterly reports that substantial House rnd Senate Republican support for civil rights played a key role in the passage of such legislation during the 1960'~.~O The party of Lincoln has undergone a crucial change in the 1970's.

In recent years Republicans have become a substantial numerical minority in the Southern con- gressional delegation: Republicans held 16 seats in 1965 (15%), 34 seats in 1973 (31%) and 28 seats in 1977 (26%). Bass and DeVries, examining broad Congressional voting data into the early 1970's, and Black, examining Voting Rights roll-call votes, con- clude that recently elected southern Republicans are replacing southern Democrats as the new hard core civil rights congressional conservatives.21 This data indicates that as compared to the southern Democrats the southern Republicans are, more often than not, less supportive of legislation related to black civil rights. The vote on the 1968 Federal Jury Selection bill represents an anomaly in t h e pattern. Twenty- one of the 'twenty-two southern Republicans sup- ported this bill, while only thirty-one of the seventy- five southern Democrats supported the bill. During these years the southern Republicans were never again more supportive of a civil rights bill than the northern Democrats. Every non-southern Republican and Democrat supported the bill. Perhaps the reason for the southern Republican defection on this bill is that it reformed procedures in the selection of federal juries. In the process of prohibiting discrirn- ination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin or economic status, this bill also effectively banned, as a by-product, southern Democratic elec-

75

tion and court house officials from tampering with the voter lists to keep Republicans from jury duty.

In June 1975 fifty-six southern Democrats voted for the 1975 Voting Rights A c t Amendments. Only twenty-five southern Democrats opposed the bill. Only four of twenty-seven voting southern Republi- cans supported the bill. A majority (55%) of the southern congressional delegation had supported a major piece of civil r ights legislation for the first rime since Reconstruction. I t is somewhat ironic tha t only a minority of the southern Republicans joined in this - support. This departure from tradition was followed by widespread southern support for the 1976 Consumer Credit Discrimination Act and, as noted previously, the 1978 proposed D.C. amendment. While only four of the twenty-seven southern Republi- cans voted for the 1978 Amendment proposal, 61% (50 of 81) of the southern Democrats supported the bill. In the early years examined in this study, prior to the reapportionment of 1972, southern Democrats and southern Republicans cast a similar percentage of their votes for black civil r ights legislation, respec- tively, 34% and 29%. In t he later years, a f t e r 1972, the southern Republicans in Congress cast only 18% of their votes for civil rights, while the southern Democrats in Congress cast 46% of their votes for civil rights.

Votes related to busing, black civil r ights dem- onstrations in the District of Columbia, and consumer credit protection bring southerners into alliance with many non-southerners in Congress. Civil rights issues related to old pat terns of southern racism have changed as the Democratic South in Congress sup- ports the 1975 Voting Rights Amendments and con- gressional represent a tion privileges for the black majority in the District o f Columbia. N e w intra- regional partisan divisions occur in the South, as southern House Republicans have become a new core of resistance to black civil rights.

76

To what extent has this pattern of change in southern congressional voting extended broadly across the states of the South? Figure 2 shows the percentage of each state’s congressional delegation supporting civil rights legislation in two periods: 1965-72 and 1973-1978. It is after the 1972 reap- portionment that southern congressmen started to end their century of isolation on issues related to black civil rights. The pre and post reapportionment periods are compared on the assumption that it is after reapportionment that southern congressmen and mass

Figure 2

Congressional Delegatlons Graphed by Subregion, 1965-1972 and 1973-1979 Percent Support f o r C i v i l Rlghts by Southern State

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

4 * 25

20

15

10

5

0

c)

Y

a a

AL LA nS SC AR G4 NC FL l” TX YA

Protest States Uavering States Evolving States

1965-1972 1973-1 978 I 77

voting for southern Representatives, reflect the re- alities of the demography o f . the 1970's and the settling in of the impact of the expanded black electorate. Figure 2 groups the states by Havard's categories: protest, wavering, and evolving.

Change has occurred across all three groups of states. In the early period, only 8.92% of the Congressional votes cast in the protest states were supportive of civil rights. This compares with almost a third of their votes (31.73%) being supportive in the later period. In the wavering states we see an even more marked change: from 10.41% to 37.40% sup- portive votes cast. The least change occurred in the evolving states: from 32.47% to 39.37%. There is now relatively little difference in the support for black civil rights across the South. The largest increases in civil rights supports, when the two periods are compared, occur in Alabama, with a net change of 32%, followed by Arkansas and North Carolina with 30% shifts. The lowest increases in support are found in the evolving states of Tennessee (l%), Texas (2%), Florida (12%) and Virginia (15%).

In the 1965-1972 period seventeen southern congressional districts had congressmen who s u p ported black civil rights legislation with a majority of their votes. Sixteen of these seventeen districts were located in the states of Florida, Tennessee and Texas. Outside of these three states only Bogg's New Orleans centered district reached these levels of support. In the 1973-1978 period, the Congressmen from twenty-eight southern districts cast a majority of their votes for final passage of black civil rights related legislation. This not only included four Florida, three Tennessee, and ten Texas districts, but also one Alabama district (the 5th), one Georgia district (the 5th), two Louisiana districts (the 2nd and 8th), three North Carolina districts (the Sth, 7th, and 9th), and two Virginia districts (the 8th and 10th). More than a fourth (26%) of the southern Con-

78

gressional districts now have Congressmen who cast a majority of their votes on a final roll-call, for a position supportive of black civil rights. Only Mississippi and South Carolina still lack at least one congressiorial district that meets this level of con- sistency in support for civil rights legislation.

CHANGES IN SOCIO-ECONOMIC CORRELATES OF CIVIL RIGHTS SUPPORT

The greatest changes in civil rights support occurred in the protest and wavering states. These states are generally less urban, poorer and have a higher proportion of black in their populations than do the evolving states. Have t h e usual socio-economic correlates of southern civil rights support changed as the interstate patterns of support for civil rights changed? I t is to this question that we now turn. To assess the relationship of selected socio-economic characteristics with civil rights voting, this study utilized data from t h e appropriate Congressional District Data Book for each Congressional District in the South and the given census definition.22 The following were employed as independent predictor variables of Southern civil rights voting: percent of population urban, percent of population norrwhite,23 median years of population education, median income of population, median income of the non-white popu- lation, percent of population unemployed, and percent of population in white collar occupations. - SPSS correlation, scattergram, and multi le regression pro- grams were used in this analysis.28 The independent variables were employed in regression runs against four different indicators of civil rights support in each district: (1) the overall percentage support for civil rights in the entire period, 1965-1978; (2) the percentage of civil rights support in the early years of this period, 1965-1972; (3) the percentage of civil rights support in the later years of this period, 1973- 1978; and (4) the difference in overall percent support

79

from the early years, 1965-1972, to the later years, 1973-1978. Table 1 shows the variance explained (r2), the simple correlation coefficient (r), and the stan- dardized slope (beta) for the best seven (7) predictor variables, the variables which account for at least 1% of the variance explained in one or more of the multiple regression equations utilized.

The percent foreign stock is the only variable that accounts €or a significant amount Of the vari- ance in civil rights voting in the early and later years. Stern pointed out the importance of this variable in southern congressional civil rights support in the 1960's and early 19701s,25 and in the 1973-1977 period this remains a significant, although a some- what diminished predic or of southern congressional black civil rights voting. Urbanism, while a relatively important predictor in the 1965-1972 years, is of considerably diminished import in the later years. Aside from the dimunit on of the importance of the past socio-economic as predictors of southern civil rights voting, in comparing the early and later years, one of the most significant changes is in the correlation coefficient and the direction of the slope for percent non-white. The correlation coefficient indicates a change from a significantly negative (-.27) relationship between non-white and civil rights vo- ting, to an insignificant, but positive (+.01) relation- ship. The slope of the line also shifts, from a beta of -.22 to +.08. When the percent change between the early and later years is used as the dependent variable, only two of the socio-economic variables contribute more than one percent in explanation of the variance: urbanism and non-white. The cor- relation coefficient and the slope for urbanism are both negative. In essence, therefore, it is in the less urbanized areas that positive change in civil rights voting is most likely to have occurred in the 1973- 1978 period. It is also in the areas with more blacks that change is most likely to have occurred.

80

Tabl

e 1

Sup

port

for

civ

il R

ight

s by

Cat

egor

y R

elat

ed t

o

Sel

ecte

d S

ocio

-Eco

nom

ic

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of

Sou

ther

n C

ongr

essi

onal

Dis

tric

ts,

1965-1978

Sel

ecte

d C

hara

cter

istic

s o

f D

istr

icts

Per

cent

M

ed.

Yrs.

P

erce

nt

For

eign

P

erce

nt

of

Per

cent

W

hite

M

edia

n S

tock

U

rban

E

duca

tion

Non

whi

te

Co

lla

r In

com

e C

ateg

ory

Sta

tist

ic

-35

.10

.04

.01

.oo

. 00

Per

cent

age

of

r V

otes

fo

r C

ivil

r

.59**

.46**

.07

-.23**

.20*

.12

Rig

hts,

1965-1978

Bet

a ,442

.29

-. 32

-.14

- -. 1

2 .08

.31

* 12

.04

.03

. 00

.DO

Per

cent

age

of

r V

otes

fo

r C

ivil

r

.56**

.49**

.09

-. 27*+

.22*

-- R

ight

s, 1965-1972

Bet

a .3

4 .33

-. 31

-.22

-.06

-- .I6

.03

.02

.01

. 00

.01

Per

cent

age

of

r V

otes

fo

r C

tvil

r

,40**

.27**

-.05

.Ol

. 00

.02

Rig

hts,

1973-78

Bet

a .4

5 .16

-.23

. oa

-.34

.28

. 00

.10

. 00

.10

.01

. 00

Cha

nge

in P

er-

r ce

nta

e o

f V

oter

s r

-. 22*

-.31**

-. 15

.32*+

-.m

*

-.i3

1965-72

com

pare

d

2 2 2 2

for

C?v

il R

ight

s,

Bet

a -.08

-.22

.14

.33

-.23

.24

wit

h 1973-78

** P

< .01

* p

< .0

5

Are black voters or the threat of potential black voters influencing southern congressional voting on black rights issues? The 1965 Voting Rights Act did permit federal registrars to register voters in the least urban and most heavily black areas. These are precisely the variables that are most strongly related to civil rights voting change as defined in this study. Unfortunately, except for the states of Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina and South Carolina, there is no current registration data by race available for the southern states. In the four states where 1976 black voter registration data was obtained from official stafe sources, there is a .82 simple correlation coefficient between black registration in each district and percent non-white in each district (r2=.6739). (The line of regression between these two variables is Yc=8.79+,82X.) Percent non-white in the population is assumed to be a good, although surely not the best, indicator of the percentage of the black population registered to vote in the congressional districts across the South. The variance explained in southern civil rights voting in Congress by percent non-white in the district, may, therefore, be imputed to changes caused by increases' in black registration and black voting or the threat of black voting. This data lends only weak support to a curvilinear hypothesis con- cerning the relationship between percent non-white in a district and percent support for civil rights during the period from 1965 to 1978. There are .four districts with both a majority of votes cast in support of civil rights and high (ie., more than 40%) non-white populations. Only seven districts with ten percent or fewer blacks cast a majority of their floor votes for these civil rights bills. Five districts with between 10.1% and 39.9% blacks in their population cast a majority of their votes for these bills.

When the percent change in support for civil rights in the Southern districts is broken into cate- gories of high (26% to 71% increase in support),

82

medium (2% to 25% increase in support) and low (from 0% to -.34%), the percent black in the districts in each of these three categories is, respectively, 23.2%, 21.9% and 13.5%. The districts with positive changes in their support for civil rights, when comparing the pre and post reapportionment periods are more likely to be the districts with higher proportions of blacks. The districts of the south with 30% or more non-white in their population (n=31) have a mean increase of 26.1% in their support levels for black related civil rights bills when these two periods are compared. For the South, as a whole, there is only a fifteen percent increase in support when these two periods are compared.

DISCUSSION

The 1970's witnessed the end of southern Dem- ocratic isolation on race issues in the U.S. House of Representatives. Southern Republicans have, how- ever, generally not participated in this change. Across the geographic South positive movement has taken place on this issue, especially in the states previously least supportive of black rights. While there is no overwhelmingly strong socio-economic predictors of civil rights voting found in this study, recent increases in civil rights support generally occurred where it would be least expected if one were to go solely by the hypotheses put forth in V.O. Key's Southern Politics: in the less urban, higher black population districts. The usual socio-economic variables associated with black civil-rights support in the South have become less efficacious predictors of such support in the 1970's. The presence of the black population is now positively, if slightly, associated with civil rights support. The black population is a major presence in many districts in which there have been recent vote changes in favor of civil rights legislation. These districts are not typical of dis- tricts which were supportive of civil rights in the

83

1960's. Blacks are registering and voting precisely where they had never registered or voted before in large numbers.

The black population has been disproportionately concentrated in the South from the first years of our national existence. But, within the South, the blacks were to be politically ignored or, except for a brief period in the nineteenth century, to be politically attacked wi th impunity. The new political demo- graphy of the South forces politicians to recognize the black population for purposes beyond race-baiting. The two-party contest is now a standard feature of most southern congressional elections. It is no longer commonplace for southern Congressional candidates to have electoral margins so large that they can deliberately give up ten, twenty, thirty percent or more of the vote. The black vote is now a valued part of a calculus of electoral coalitions across many areas of the South where it used to be regarded as totally valueless. To this extent, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has created a new political demography in the South.

l V . 0 . Key, Jr., Southern Politics (New York: Random House, Vintage Books, 19491, 359.

2W. Wayne Shannon, "Revolt in Washington," in The Changing Politics of the South, ed. William C. Havard (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972), 662.

3Joe R. Feagin, "Civil Rights Voting by Southern Congressmen," Journal of Politics 34 (May 1972: 484- 499; and Mark Stern, "The Pro-Civil Rights Congres- sional Districts of the South: 1946-1972." in Politics 74: Rends in Southern Politics, eds. Tins- Yarborough, et. al. (Greenville, N.C.: East Carolina

a4

University Pubiicationf, 38-50.

4Jack Bass and Walter DeVries, The Trans- formation of Southern Politics (New York: Basic Books, 1976).

5Earl Black, "Racial Composition of Congres- sional Districts and Support for Federal Voting Rights in the American South," Social Science Quarterly 59 (December 1978): 435-450.

6The specific bills analyzed for this study are shown in the Appendix. The roll-call vote on final passage of these selected bills are employed to determine a "pro" or %upportive" position versus an "anti" civil rights position of each Representative. A roll-call vote or a "pairing" in favor of the position supportive of black civil rights were given equal weighting in this analysis. William R. Keech in "Electoral Politics and the Meaning of Partisanship in Federal Minimum Wage Policy,p1 a paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in 1975; and Earl Black, "Racial Com- position of Congressional Districts and Support for Federal Voting Rights in the American South," Social Science Quarterly 59 (December 1978): 440; have, argued that the vote on final passage of a bill tends to be a decision on the desirability of such legisla- tion in general and ultimately is the important symbolic and substantive act of a Southern Repre- sentative's position on this issue. The D.C. amend- ment is included in this analysis as District issues have traditionally been tainted with racial tones by the Southern Congressional delegation. Elimination of this issue from the analysis does not substantially alter the results.

7V.0. Key, Jr., Southern Politics, 669.

*Donald R. Matthews and J.W. Prothro, Negroes and the New Southern Politics (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966).

85

gDonald S. Strong, "Further Reflections on Southern Politics," Journal of Politics 33 (May 1971): 239-256.

loWilliam C. Havard, ed., The Changing Politics of the South, 692-701.

l l V . 0 . Key, Jr., Southern Politics, 378-382.

12See William F. Ogburn and Charles M. Grigg, "Factors Related to the Virginia Vote on Segre- gation," Social Forces 34 (May 1956): 301-308; David M. Heer. "The Sentiment of White Supremacy: An Ecological Study," American Journal of Sociology 64 (May 1959): 592-598; Norman I. Lustig, '!The Rela- tionships Between Demographic Characteristics of the Pro-Integration Vote of White Precincts in a Met- ropolitan Southern County," Social Forces 40 (De- cember 1962): 205-208; Donald R. Matthews and J.W. Prothro, Y3ocial and Economic Factors and Negro Voter Registration in the South." American Political Science Eeview 62 (March 1963): 24-44; and Werner Grunbaum, I?Desegregation in Texas Voting and Action Patterns," Public Opinion Quarter 28 (Winter 1964): 606-614; Joe R. Feagin, "C Rights Voting by Sou thern Congressmen,1r passim.

13See V.O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics; Alex- ander Heard, A Two-Party South? (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1952); William J. Keefe, llSouthern Politics Revisited," Public Opinion Quarterly 20 (Summer 1956): 405-412; Thomas F. Pettigrew, "Demographic Correlates of Border State Desegregation,I1 American Sociological Review 22 (December 1957): 683-689; and Bernard Cosman, Five States for Goldwater (University, Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1966).

14See V.O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics, 3-12; Donald R. Matthews and J.W. Prothro, Negroes and

86

the New Southern Politics, 115-120; Earl Black, Southern Governors and Civil Rights (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976); David Knoke and N. Kyriazis, "The Persis tence of t h e Black-Belt Vote: A test of Kev's HvDotheses." Social Science Quarter ly 57 (March "1977j:- 900-908; and Gerald C. Wright, Jr., "Contextual Models of Electoral Be- havror:. The Southern Wallace Vote," American Pol- i t ical Science Review 7 1 (June 1977): 497-508

15Johnnie Daniel, "Negro Polit ical Behavior and Community Political and Socio-Economic Structural Factors," Social Forces 47 (March 1969): 274-279; and Joe R. Feagin and H. Hahn, "The Second Recon- struction: Black Political Strength in t h e South," Social Science Quarter ly 51 (June 1970): 42-56; Harrell R. Rodgers, Jr. and C.S. Bullock, 111, Law and Social Change (New York: McGraw H i l i x Numan V. Bartley and H.D. Graham, Southern Polit ics and t h e Second Reconstruction (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975); and Richard Murray and Arnold Vedlitz, "Race, Socioeconomic Status , and Voting Part ic ipat ion in Large Southern Cities," Journal of Polit ics 39 (November 1977): 1964-1972.

16Thomas E. Cavanaugh, "Changes in American Electoral Turnout, 1964-1976," paper presented at t h e annual meet ing of t h e Midwest Political Science Association in 1979.

17David Campbell and J.R. Feagin, "Black Pol- i t i c s in t h e South: A Descriptive Analysis," Journal of Polit ics 37 (February 1975): 129-162.

18See Earl Black, "Racial Composition of Con- gressional Districts and Support for Federal Voting Rights in t h e American South," 448; and William R. Keech, The Impact of Negro Voting (Chicago: Rand McNally, 19681, 101.

87

19Herbert B. Asher and Herbert F. Weisberg, "Voting Change in Congress: Some Dynamic Per- spectives on an Evolutionary Process,11 American Journal of Political Science 22 (May 1978): 391-425.

2oCongressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 29 April 1978, 1050.

21See Jack Bass and W. DeVries, The Trans- formation of Southern Politics; and Earl Black, "Racial Composition of Congressional Districts and Support for Federd Voting Rights in the American South;" and Merle Black, l'Regiona1 and Partisan Bases of Congressional Support for the Changing Issues of Civil Rights Legislation," Journal of Politics, 4 1 (May 1979): 665-679.

%ee U.S. Bureau of the Census, Con ressional District Data Book (Districts of the 8- '(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963); and U.S. Bureau of the Census, District Data Book (Districts of the '(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

'1973).

23This is practically the same as percent black in the South, as every state except North Carolina has less than one percent non-white in the population that is characterized in the census as other than Negro. North Carolina has only 1.1% of its non-white population characterized as other than Negro.

24Norman H. Nie, et. al., SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw Hill, 1975).

25Mark Stern, The Pro-Civil Rights Congres- sional Districts of the South= 1946-1972.*11 The rela- tionship between foreign stock and congressional civil rights liberalism was first found by Edward Schneier.

88

and Julius Turner among northern Congressman. They suggest this exis ts because of t h e feelings of minority s t a t u s that e thnic groups may have. See their: Par ty and Constituency: Pressure in Congress (rev. ed.; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970).

26W. Wayne Shannon, "Revolt in Washington," 689. Although a t t h e t i m e this paper is being wri t ten t h e United States S e n a t e had still not begun floor debate on t h e issue. T h e House did pass on October 5 , 1981, a s t rong bill extending the 1965 Voting Rights A c t (HR 3112) by a v o t e on final passage of 389-24. While Wolf (10th C.D., R.) voted for final passage of the bill all of Virginia's nine o ther Congressman voted against final -passage of t h e bill. Ten o ther southerners also voted nay: t h r e e from Alabama (Dickens, 2nd C.D., R.; Nichols, 3rd C.D., D.; Shelby, 7 th C.D., D.) and two e a c h from Georgia (Brinkley, 3rd C.D., D.; McDonald, 7 th C.D., D.), Mississippi (Montgomery, 3rd C.D., D.; Lot t , 5 th C.D., R.), and Texas (Collins, 3rd C.D., R.; Archer, 7 th C. D., R.), as well as one d issenter from North Carolina (Johnston, 6 t h C.D., R.).

APPENDIX

House Votes Used far Analysis

HR 6400. Voting Rights Act o f 1966

HR 14765. C f v i l Rights Act o f 1966

HR 10065. Equal m l o y n m t Opportunity. 1966

HR 10805. C iv i l Rights Colniss lon Extension, 1967

HR 2516.

HR 421. Ant i r io t B i l l . 1967

5 989. Federal Jury Selectlon. 1968

HR 2516. H. Resolution 1100. Resolutlon adoptlng Senate anmmts t o HR 2516.. 1968

Pmvldes protection against jntcrference with Penons exercising thefr c l v i l r lght r . 1967

89

(69a)

(6%) HR 5249. Voting Rfghts. 1969

(701) S 2455. Increased appmpriatlon fo r C i v i l Rights Cmfss ion . 1970

(70b)

(7Oc) HA 4249. Resolution supporting Senate Amcndmnts t o B i l l f o r the extension o f the Voting Rlghts Act, 1970

(71) HR 7271. Increased apprapriatlon for C i v i l Rights Comission. 19n

(nr) HR 12652. B i l l extending l i f e of C l v i l Rights Cmiss ion , 1972

(72b) HR 1746. Equal Enployrn t Opportunities Enforcement Act, 1972

(74r) HR 15580. Labor-HEY Appmpriations Ashbrwk ( R . Ohio) a r m n m t to

HR 1035. 8111 pmh ib i t l ng camping and s i t - i ns on public pmperty i n the D i s t r i c t o f Columbia, 1469

HR 19446. Emergency School Aid, to a id desegregation o f public schoo 1 5, '370

prohibi t use o f funds f o r busing to integrate schools, 1974

( 7 8 ) HR 16900. Supplemental Appropriations B i l l . Hol t (A. W.) anmd- mnt to prohtbi t federal government fmm withholdlng funds for lack o f compliance in school dcscgregrtton. 1974

( 7 4 ~ ) HR 7824. Legal Services Corporatfon, 1974

( 7 k ) HR 6219. Voting Rights Act Amendments, 1975

(7%)

(76) HR 6516. Consumer Credi t Discrimination Act, 1976

(77a) HR 6666. Legal Services Corporation. Wylie (R. Ohio] h n d g n t

HR 10024. Banking Regulations, ant i -"redl in ing" requires disclosure of lending by census t r a c t and rip code, 1975

t o p roh ib i t use o f funds i n cases involv ing school ' desegregation, 1977

(77b) HR 5645. C i v i l Rights Comnission, increased appropriation. 1977

(78) HJR 554, Const i tut ional Amendment g i v ing O i s t r i c t o f Colunbia fu l l voting r i gh ts i n Congress. 1978

90