The U.S. Senate and Civil Rights Roll-Call Votes

• Author: Mary Alice Nye
• Published date: 01 December 1991
• Date: 01 December 1991
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591299104400410
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE

U.S.

SENATE

AND

CIVIL

RIGHTS

ROLL-CALL

VOTES

MARY

ALICE

NYE

University

of

North

Texas

rnstein,

Peabody,

and

Rohde

(1989)

note

a

variety

of

dra-

~

matic

changes

taking

place

in

the

U.S.

Senate

during

the

1960s

and

1970s,

such

as

increases

in

the

congressional

workload,

rule

changes

allowing

greater

participation

by

members,

and

alterations

which

made

committee

assignments

more

democratic.

Of

particular

interest

here

are

the

changes

in

the

partisan

composition

of

the

membership

and

regional

changes

which

contributed

to

changes

in

the

ideological

makeup

of

the

institution

(Ornstein

et

al.

1989:

14).

A

second

theme

in

the

literature

on

the

Senate

indicates that

during

the

1960s

and

1970s

senators

began

to

pursue

&dquo;increasingly

indepen-

dent

careers&dquo;

(Davidson

1989:

282).

The

increasing

success

of

Southern

Republicans

in

races

for

the

U.S.

Senate

is

well

documented.

Black

and

Black

acknowledge

not

only

Republican

Senate

victories

in

the

South,

but

also

the

staying

power

of

these

newly

elected

members

(1987:

291).

Commenting

on

Republican

Senate

losses

in

1986,

Bullock

says

&dquo;this

fluctuation

sug-

gests

competitiveness

more

akin

to

the

non-South

than

the

one-party

dominance

for

which

the

South

was

famous&dquo;

(Bullock

1989:

234).

What

consequences

does

the

rise

in

Southern

Republicanism

have

for

politics

within

the

Chamber?

If

Southern

regionalism

plays

less

of

a

role,

what

factors

take

its

place?

Rohde

suggests

that

the

role

of

party

has

become

more

important

in

Senate

politics;

in

fact,

he

iden-

tifies

a

distinct

increase

in

party

voting

occurring

in

the

mid-1970s.

Contributing

to

the

increase

in

party

voting

is

the

increase,

in

1979,

in

the

party

unity

of

Southern

Democrats

(Rhode

1989:

139).

Received:

May

7,

1990

Revision

Received:

October

18,

1990

Accepted

for

Publication:

October

23,

1990

Note:

A

previous

version

of

this

paper

was

presented

at

the

1989

annual

meeting

of

the

Southern

Political

Science

Association,

Memphis,

Tennessee.

Thanks

are

extended

to

the

Editor

and

anonymous

reviewers

for

their

comments

and

suggestions

and

to

my

colleagues

Frank

Feigert

and

Neal

Tate

for

their

assistance.

I

am

grateful

to

Glenn

Parker

for

his

valuable

support

and

advice

during

the

revision

of

this

research.

972

An

alternative

proposition

to

the

increased

importance

of

party

is

the

increase

in

individualism

identified

by

Davidson.

He

notes

that

senators

today

seem

engrossed

in

personal

ambitions

and

constituency

demands

to

the

exclusion

of

other

concerns

(1989:

276).

Davidson

explores

the

consequences

of

such

behavior

on

Senate

leadership.

Though

the focus

here

is

roll-call

vote

behavior

rather

than

leadership,

individ-

ualism

could

still

be

suggested

by

the

absence

of

strong

predictor

vari-

ables.

In

other

words,

if

the

Senate

operated

as

a

perfect

two-party

system,

then

party

should

be

the

most

important

predictor

of

voting

behavior.

If,

on

the

other

hand,

senators

manifest

the

delegate

role

of

representation,

constituent

characteristics

should

evidence

a

strong

impact

on

voting.

Total

or

complete

individualism

might

therefore

be

suggested

where

no

predictor

variables

explain

the

roll-call

votes.

Civil

rights

is

one

issue

that

frequently

divided

Northern

and

Southern

Democrats

and

it

is

in

civil

rights

roll-call

voting,

then,

that

one

would

expect

to

see

evidence

of

regional

and

ideological

changes

in

the

Senate.

The

research

which

follows

explores

Senate

civil

rights

roll-call

votes

from

the

88th

Congress

(1963-64)

through

the

100th

Congress

(1987-88).

Orfield

notes

that

the

1964

defeat

of

the

Southern

filibuster

against

the

Civil

Rights

Act

destroyed

the

&dquo;iron

wall&dquo;

of

Southern

resistance

and

opened

the

way

for

legislation

such

as

the

Vot-

ing

Rights

Act

of

1965

(Orfield

1975:

39).

The

Civil

Rights

Restora-

tion

Act

was

passed,

over

presidential

veto,

in

1988.

The

model

devel-

oped

herein

examines

not

only

constituent

characteristics

related

to

pro-civil

rights

positions,

but

also

member

characteristics,

such

as

party,

which

are

hypothesized

to

impact

roll-call

voting.

PREVIOUS

RESEARCH

Constituency

Characteristics

What

constituency

characteristics

might

explain

civil

rights

sup-

port

or

anti-civil

rights

positions?

Racial

composition,

as

Key

noted

(1949),

is

the

most

obvious

place

to

begin.

If

members

of

Congress

are

responding

to

their

constituents,

one

would

expect

pro-civil

rights

positions

by

those

with

large

numbers

of

minority

constituents.

Key,

however,

found

just

the

opposite

pattern

in

his

study

of

Southern

pol-

itics.

In

fact,

he

found

an

inverse

relationship

between

civil

rights

sup-

port

and

minority

population

(1949:

652).

Key’s

findings

are,

no

doubt,

due

to

the

fact

that

he

studied

the

South

at

a

time

when

Blacks

were

inhibited

from

voting.