WI: U.S. Congress passes Voting Rights Act before 1964 Civil Rights Act?

In his Then Everything Changed: Stunning Alternate Histories of American Politics, Jeff Greenfield talked about this a little bit.

In OTL, the Civil Rights Act was signed by Pres. Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964. And the Voting Rights Act was passed and signed in ‘65.

Please paint me some consequences, what if the VRA is passed earlier than 1964?
 
Yes, they might trot out the argument that African-American citizens circa 1962, for example, are not sufficiently “educated” to vote “just yet.”

But I think we can respond to that argument, almost with a sense of humor, basically saying, Look, most people vote their interests. And people have a pretty good idea of their interests even without a lot of book learning and school learning.
 

kernals12

Banned
Would this significantly affect the results in the 1964 election?
He probably gets 30% of the vote in Mississippi instead of 12%. The effect in the other deep south states is more mixed, the impact of enfranchised blacks could be cancelled out by more whites voting Republican.
 

kernals12

Banned
LBJ only got it through after winning enormous liberal majorities in both houses of congress. So how would he do it with smaller majorities?
 
Probably not. Remember a lot of these governments dragged their feet on the issue into the 1970s.
With school desegregation, yes, a lot of states dragged their feet till around ‘70 or ‘71.

With the Voting Rights Act (1965), not so much, with the Justice Department being able to look at systematic exclusion and requiring southern states (states where there had been a track record of voting rights violations) to pre-approve changes in voting procedures, I think Congress kind of got it right.
 
. . . could be cancelled out by more whites voting Republican.
Maybe. But I'm envisioning this as high trajectory for civil rights:

The '64 Civil Rights Act can be criticized by people like Rand Paul saying, look, a business owner ought to be able to exclude anyone they choose, even for a stupid reason. Now, Rand finally came around to, alright, segregation was enough of a glaring evil that the Civil Rights Act was okay, but it's kind of amazingly of how publicly this freshman dorm argument played out. And with the small percentage of dyed-in-the-wool libertarians and anti-government people, they're going to focus on this part.

With voting rights, it's a slam dunk. Yes, citizens should have the right to vote, and an effective right at that. No question about it.

If voting rights comes first, that might pull some people to the argument, okay, if you're going to present a business as serving the public, you need to treat everyone fairly.
 
Would this significantly affect the results in the 1964 election?

No. By 1964 whites were in a majority in the Deep South--even in Mississippi--and they were heavily for Goldwater. Don't forget that four of the five southern states Goldwater carried in 1964 (AL, GA, LA, MS) went for Wallace in 1968 and the fifth (SC--thanks to Thurmond) for Nixon--and that was three years after the VRA was passed.
 
My point being that even within the south not all ideas were monolithic.
The 24th Amendment, which we don't talk about much, abolished the poll tax. Yes, it proposed by 2/3's of the House and Senate on August 27, 1962, and ratified by the required 3/4's of states on Jan. 23, 1964.

And at least three border states ratified where it still counted:
https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal64-1304646

Tennessee March 21, 1963
Florida April 18, 1963
Kentucky June 26, 1963
 
No. By 1964 whites were in a majority in the Deep South--even in Mississippi--and they were heavily for Goldwater. Don't forget that four of the five southern states Goldwater carried in 1964 (AL, GA, LA, MS) went for Wallace in 1968 and the fifth (SC--thanks to Thurmond) for Nixon--and that was three years after the VRA was passed.
But...

Goldwater would vote for the VRA. Timing is of course important. If the VRA passes before the CRA, it could be seen as the key measure in ending white supremacy and Jim Crow. This would be especially significant if the CRA was delayed, as it might be, while the VRA was being put in effect.

Enforcement of the VRA would be a huge issue in the South in 1964, with many offices, state legislative seats, and even perhaps some US House seats poised to elect black candidates. Goldwater would also support enforcement of the VRA, which would alienate Dixiecrats. One might see another round of "uncommitted" elector slates as in 1960.

OTOH, Goldwater's position on the CRA would be less toxic outside the South. He'd still lose, but it might not be a national wipeout.
 
But...

Goldwater would vote for the VRA.

How do you know that? He wanted southern support, he didn't want Wallace to run as a third party candidate, and he could quite plausibly justify a vote against the bill on constitutional, not (openly) racist grounds--after all, Justice Black always thought the pre-clearance section was unconstitutional.
 
How do you know that? He wanted southern support, he didn't want Wallace to run as a third party candidate, and he could quite plausibly justify a vote against the bill on constitutional, not (openly) racist grounds--after all, Justice Black always thought the pre-clearance section was unconstitutional.

The VRA passed the Senate 77-19 (30-2 among Republicans). The CRA passed 73-27 (27-6 among Republicans), which IMO shows it was significantly more controversial. The House votes were VRA 333-85 (R, 112-24 ); CRA 289-126 (R, 138-34).

Granted, the climate had changed in the intervening year, but the principles involved were different. The CRA's provision regarding "public accomodations" that were privately owned was profoundly offensive to anyone of libertarian leaninss; but the VRA applied only to government. Justice Black's cavil over pre-clearance in the VRA was technical; the CRA's public accommodation clause was fundamental.

Goldwater could be ruthless - his OTL vote against the CRA shows that - but IMO voting against the VRA would be bridge too far, even for him.
 
Last edited:
My predition:

Goldwater votes for it. As far as I've seen in writing and interviews, he said nothing against it (unlike others like John Tower) and he did vote for all the other civil rights bills previously, and his justification for voting no in 1964 did not apply to the VRA.

As far as the idea he would do it for political reasons, I don't think a guy who went to Tennessee and bashed the TVA or spoke against Medicare in front of a group of seniors was gonna be that ruthless.

He said so himself in post-campaign interviews that he knew he would lose and he sure ran like it.

With Goldwater not being associated with being anti-civil rights, Wallace likely runs.

A NSS-type scenario is possible.

Personally I believe that a Wallace vs Goldwater debate is likely, as both candidates will want free airtime and the possibility to prop themselves with a national audience. , with Goldwater most likely winning in the eyes of northern voters (if only by getting the visual that he's not George Wallace) and losing in the south (as Wallace runs as a New Dealer type, but still anti LBJ, appealing to the economic views of the majority of southerners at the time)

Goldwater might win Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, and Utah, the closest 4 states OTL, but lose every state he won OTL. Heck depending on how the debate and follow-up goes, he might do better, especially if LBJ primarily sics the CIA on Wallace not Goldwater.

The reason being is that Goldwater might be seen as the only thing standing between Wallace and the Dixiecrats being taken seriously as the main opposition party to the Democrats. He also has the positive of not being literal hellspawn in the eyes of voters, what with George Frickin Wallace running right after standing in front of the schoolhouse door.

In addition, Goldwater now has two foils to run against-LBJ and Wallace. With both taking different polls of the civil rights issue, Goldwater seems like a moderate, which greatly helps his image overall.

Heck, he can have a chance to cry out against the eastern establishment media he so hated as liars who would put him with this "Insert Goldwaterism to describe George Wallace Here".

In addition, LBJ would focus more on destroying Wallace than Goldwater and instead of following Goldwater around, follow Wallace. After all, at this time LBJ's economic initiatives seemed less likely to be defeated (thus ruining his legacy) than his civil rights initiatives.

Heck, in this scenario LBJ has a chance to beat FDR and go 50 state sweep if he gets enough blacks voting in the south and Wallace and Goldwater to split votes just the right way, especially if they never debate each other.

If you want a real dystopia/crisis scenario/adventure, have LBJ's spying of both campaigns leak before election day...

Would make for a fun timeline either way...
 
. . . provision regarding "public accomodations" that were privately owned was profoundly offensive to anyone of libertarian leaninss; . . .
I wish libertarians found treating African-American persons as second-class citizens to be profoundly offensive.

And, not really that many full-bore libertarians anyway, Internet over-representation notwithstanding, I mean, wouldn’t you say this is largely the case?
 
I've got an earlier POD for this: the Republicans use a VRA with some teeth as a key condition to their support of FDR's domestic agenda during the War years. Especially with some adept propaganda, you could see an earlier generation faced with the "they can be drafted to die for this country, but can't vote" argument.

Alternately, if Wilson doesn't resegregate the Federal bureaucracy and the navy, then the above becomes that much stronger and easier.
 
Top