WI Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed in Original form

When the CRA was introduced by the Eisenhower Administration in 1957, it was originally a lot more ambitious, but was watered down when LBJ (as majority leader) gave it to Eastland's committe, where it was watered down to the point where it was purely symbolic, if anything.

What if this had been avoided? As to how -- say one more Senate election in 1956 goes Republican, giving the party of Eisenhower a slim majority (w VP Nixon). If this doesn't do it, what would?
 
THe CRA is a judicial bill, therefore it has to go through Judiciary. There are procedural moves to bring it directly to the floor that Mansfield used in '64 IOTL, but even then it will be subject to a filibuster. Your best bet will have the filibuster abolished, but that means no Democratic support for Lebanon. If not, then the Southerners filibuster it and getting enough votes to override will be tricky.


If it passes: 1960-2 moves up from OTL: '57 isn't as strong as '64. The major provision was judge instead of jury trials, which given the sympathies of most Southern judges was hardly an enormous improvement.
 
THe CRA is a judicial bill, therefore it has to go through Judiciary.

My idea was, if one more Senate election in 1956 went Republican, the chamber would be split, with Nixon breaking ties, so Knowland would be the one passing it to the Judiciary, headed by Langer (I believe).

There are procedural moves to bring it directly to the floor that Mansfield used in '64 IOTL, but even then it will be subject to a filibuster. Your best bet will have the filibuster abolished, but that means no Democratic support for Lebanon. If not, then the Southerners filibuster it and getting enough votes to override will be tricky.

Technically, in the situation above, don't the Republicans just need 10 Democratic votes for cloture?

If it passes: 1960-2 moves up from OTL: '57 isn't as strong as '64. The major provision was judge instead of jury trials, which given the sympathies of most Southern judges was hardly an enormous improvement.

I had thought the bill, both before and after alteration, mainly dealt with voting rights?
 

bguy

Donor
Technically, in the situation above, don't the Republicans just need 10 Democratic votes for cloture?

Didn't cloture required 67 votes at that time?

I had thought the bill, both before and after alteration, mainly dealt with voting rights?

I believe RB is referring to the question of how to handle contempt of court hearings for people accused of denying voting rights in defiance of court orders. That was one of the major points of contention with the '57 bill with the South insisting on jury trials for all such contempt actions (which would of course all but guarantee acquittals) and the pro-civil rights faction wanting bench trials.
 
Didn't cloture required 67 votes at that time?

I thought the downgrade of the cloture requirements from 2/3 to 3/5 came during FDR?

I believe RB is referring to the question of how to handle contempt of court hearings for people accused of denying voting rights in defiance of court orders. That was one of the major points of contention with the '57 bill with the South insisting on jury trials for all such contempt actions (which would of course all but guarantee acquittals) and the pro-civil rights faction wanting bench trials.

Ah, that makes sense; thank you.
 
No, the filibuster revision came in 1966. That's why if you look at the famous tally sheet for the CRA it says "69-31" with the circle on 69, and yes I was referring to the contempt of court provision. Even JFK voted tactically with the South on that one for political reasons.
 
Top