WI: No Voting Rights Act of 1965

I imagine Wallace would do somewhat better in 1968, although he could at most win only two more states than IOTL, and cannot possibly have become President.

Eventually, the literacy tests and other obstacles to voter registration would have to go away. This would probably happen by 1970. No particular reason, it just seems that the zeitgeist of the late 60s wouldn't allow disenfranchisement of blacks to continue much longer than it did IOTL.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It passed the Senate 77-19 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s78 and the House 333-85. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h87

For it not to pass you need a *very* different Congress in 1965--which presumably would have a lot of consequences apart from voting rights.

Indeed, in some respects voting rights is the easiest thing to pass a civil rights bill about, since unlike housing or employment discrimination it has very little effect outside the South.
Completely agreed with all of this. Also, in regards to your last point here, I would like to point out that any supporter of the Voting Rights Act could simply say that he or she voted to enforce something that was a part of the U.S. Constitution for 95 years by this point in time.

What if there was no Voting Rights Act of 1965? What effects does this have on elections?
If this somehow magically occurs without butterflies, we might see somewhat less of a shift of White Southern voters from the Democrats to the Republicans. After all, I seem to remember reading about how one GOP strategist said around 1970 that, without massive numbers of Blacks registering to vote, Southern Democrats would have continued their historical alignment with the Democrats.
 
It passed the Senate 77-19 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s78 and the House 333-85. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h87

For it not to pass you need a *very* different Congress in 1965--which presumably would have a lot of consequences apart from voting rights.

Indeed, in some respects voting rights is the easiest thing to pass a civil rights bill about, since unlike housing or employment discrimination it has very little effect outside the South.
The POD is that nobody introduces the Voting Rights Act.
 
Completely agreed with all of this. Also, in regards to your last point here, I would like to point out that any supporter of the Voting Rights Act could simply say that he or she voted to enforce something that was a part of the U.S. Constitution for 95 years by this point in time.


If this somehow magically occurs without butterflies, we might see somewhat less of a shift of White Southern voters from the Democrats to the Republicans. After all, I seem to remember reading about how one GOP strategist said around 1970 that, without massive numbers of Blacks registering to vote, Southern Democrats would have continued their historical alignment with the Democrats.

It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not the Voting Rights Act, that turned southern whites away from the Democratic party (on the national level). A glance at the 1964 election results will show that. The VRA at least provided *some* counterweight, though not enough to make the Deep South competitive for the Democrats until 1976, and then not for long.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not the Voting Rights Act, that turned southern whites away from the Democratic party (on the national level). A glance at the 1964 election results will show that. The VRA at least provided *some* counterweight, though not enough to make the Deep South competitive for the Democrats until 1976, and then not for long.
Please keep in mind that the states in the Upper South plus Texas voted for LBJ in 1964, though. Heck, Texas even voted for Humphrey four years later.

Also, while your points here might very well be valid, the quote that I mentioned here appears to be accurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Phillips_(political_commentator)#Southern_strategy

"'All the talk about Republicans making inroads into the Negro vote is persiflage. Even 'Jake the Snake' [Senator Jacob Javits of New York] only gets 20 percent. From now on, Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote, and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.'[1]"

This could help explain why the Nixon Administration didn't weaken enforcement of the VRA--specifically, they thought that it would hurt them among Southern Whites.
 
Please keep in mind that the states in the Upper South plus Texas voted for LBJ in 1964, though. Heck, Texas even voted for Humphrey four years later.

But Goldwater had extraordinary weaknesses--and he still made decent showings (well over his national average) in even the non-Deep South. Even leaving aside the fear he would lead the US into a nuclear war, 44.5% in Tennessee isn't that bad for someone who wants to sell the TVA, and 48.85% is pretty good in Florida for someone who wants to make Social Security voluntary...
 

CaliGuy

Banned
But Goldwater had extraordinary weaknesses--and he still made decent showings (well over his national average) in even the non-Deep South. Even leaving aside the fear he would lead the US into a nuclear war, 44.5% in Tennessee isn't that bad for someone who wants to sell the TVA, and 48.85% is pretty good in Florida for someone who wants to make Social Security voluntary...
Completely agreed with your point here.

However, on the local level, didn't Democrats keep winning for a while in various Southern states after 1964? Indeed, I seem to recall various Blue Dog Democrats getting re-elected and re-elected in the Southern U.S. until the great Republican wave of 1994.
 
Top