VOL. 55, NO.2

THE VIRGINIA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION SINCE 1965 BY ALEXANDER J. WALKER

Mr. Walker is a former research aide on the staffofthe CAUSES OF TURNOVER One of the most important causes of the Institute of Government. high turnover of congressmen has been There are a number of reasons for this simply the retirement, after many years of turnover in representatives and senators. service, of venerable Organizatirn stal­ With all of the public attention that has The congressional redistricting brought warts. Conservative Democrats such as been devoted in recent years to Virginia's about by court action in the mid-1960s Watkins Abbitt (4th District) and William M. gubernatorial battles, the remarkable turn­ undoubtedly contributed to the retirements Tuck (5th District) were no doubt prodded over in the Virginia congressional delega­ and defeats at the polls for the old Organiza­ in their decisions by changes in the tion has gone almost unnoticed. Yet tion Democrats. Particularly in the 8th boundaries of their districts and in the superficially, enough evidence exists to District of northern Virginia, redistricting electorate, including increased black voter suggest that a quiet revolution has taken increased its metropolitan character and participation (an important factor where the place. In 1965, the ten members of the U.S. contributed to the defeat of octogenarian proportion of black voters is high-notably House of Representatives from the Old Howard Smith in the celebrated Democratic the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th districts, each Dominion had served a combined total of primary campaign of 1966 (as did the issue of having over 25 percent'black population). 123 continuous years. "Judge" Howard his age). The comparatively liberal winner of Political maneuvering in the black communi­ Smith had represented the northern Virgin­ that primary, George Rawlings, in turn was ty has been especially marked in the ia 8th Congressional District since 1931. defeated in the general election by conserva­ Southside 4th District, where incumbent Amorlg the other Democrats were Porter tive Republican William Scott. It is one of Republican Robert Daniel barely held onto Hardy, Jr., who had entered Congress from those historical ironies that the 8th District, his seat in 1974 with a 47 percent plurality in the 2nd District in 1947, andWatkins Abbitt, which Smith had represented for thirty-six a three-way race with Democrat Lester E. who had begun to represent the 4th District years (hence one of the most stable, "safe" Schlitz and black independent Curtis in 1948. In the Senate, Harry F. Byrd, Sr. had seats in the United States), has since Harris. In the Tidewater 1st Distric.t, an served since 1933 and was the third ranking become one of the most unstable. Scott, unusually large black vote for Republican member in seniority. His "junior" colleague, after serving three terms from that district, Paul Trible contributed importantly to A. Willis Robertson, had served since 1946. gave up the seat in 1972 to run for senator. In victory in his spirited campaign in 1976 for Even among the small Republican minority, that year of the Nixon landslide, the seat was the seat of retiring Democratic Representa­ stability was the rule in 1965, with represen­ taken over by another Republican, Stanford tive Thomas Downing. tatives Richard Poff of the 6th District and Parris. Unfortunately for Parris, the trauma Overall, a pattern seems to be emerging in Joel Broyhill of the 10th each having served of the Watergate scandal-plus undoubted­ the state's congressional turnover. Republi­ twelve years in the House. ly some confusion resulting from the cans have had little success against incum­ By 1978, a very substantial turnover had similarity of his opponent's name-brought bent conservative or conservative­ taken place. The ten Virginia members of his defeat at the hands of moderate-liberal moderate Democrats. But as soon as the the House had a total of only fifty-seven Democrat Herbert E. Harris in 1974. Two­ benefits of incumbency are lost to the years of service. The senior m~mber of the party competition most likely will continue Democrats, the inherent contradictions and House delegation, David Satterfield of the to be strong in Smith's old"safe" district for tensions within the Democratic party 3rd District, had been in office only since years to come. provoke an outbreak of fratricidal warfare. 1965 (Representative William Wampler was A similar seesaw has taken place with the The Republicans, having learned from years originally elected in 1952 but was subse­ Senate seat occupied for so many years by of status as the minority party, typically are quently defeated by former Representative Robertson. 1 Robertson was defeated in the united going into the election; by exploiting W. Pat Jennings in 1954, so he has served Democratic primary of 1966 by William the divisions within the Democratic party, continuously only since 1967). The majority Spong in an election that was a turning point they often are able to elect a young of the ten congressmen were elected to their in the history of the Democratic anti­ conservative Republican. first term in the 1970s. Similar instability Organization forces. Six years later, Spong This mixture of factors-incumbency, marked Virginia representation in the upper himself was defeated by William Scott in factionalism, and partisanship-goes far in house. Senators Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (who what was widely regarded as an upset. explaining why the congressional vote, in succeeded his father in 1965) and William Currently another furious battle is being terms of party voting by cities and counties, Scott had in 1978 a total of only eighteen waged over who will succeed the retiring is so chaotic, even when compared to the years in the Senate, with another turnover Senator Scott. disorder associated with the voting statistics assured by Scot's decision not to seek re­ IFrom 1895 to 1967, this seat was occupied by only three for gubernatorial races. Table 1 shows the election in 1978. men: ThOJTl;\S S. Martin, Carter Glass, and Robertson. correlations for Republican strength across INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA / CHARLOTTESVILLE / OCTOBER 1978 TABLE 1 committee that most of the real work is done and crucial decisions are made. This CORRELATIONS OF REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL AND CONGRESSIONAL generalization is especially applicable to the VOTING STRENGlH WITH lHAT FOR MOST RECENf PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 1952-1970 House, which has more stringent limitations on debate and amendment on the floor than 1953 Gubernatorial 1954 Congressional the Senate. The committee system is a 1952 Presidential .5359 .3698 creature of the Congress itself and not the product of any constitutional mandate, and 1957 Gubernatorial 1958 Congressional thus each house is free to organize its 1956 Presidential .6797 .1862 committees according to its own rules. 1961 Gubernatorial 1962 Congressional However, in practice both houses organize 1960 Presidential .4668 .3868 their committees according to party affilia­ 1965 Gubernatorial 1966 Congressional tion and seniority. Although the seniority 1964 Presidential .0264 -.0826 rule is not as ironclad as it once was, committee chairmanships still go mostly to 1969 Gubernatorial 1970 Congressional the senior members of the majority party; 1968 Presidential .6660 .4486 the majority party has been the Democratic party continuously since 1955. Seniority in SOURCES: Votes for president and governor to 1968 from Ralph Eisenberg, Virginia Votes 1924-1968 the chamber is also a factor in determining (Charlottesville: Institute of Government, University of Virginia, 1971). Votes for U.S. House of who is assigned to particular committees. Representatives and governor, 1969, from results provided by the State Board of Elections. This is another crucial point since, obvious­ NOTE: Figures represent the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of the Republican vote for the pairs of ly, some committees are more important offices by cities and counties. This statistic can range from -1.0 (perfect negative correlation) through 0.0 than others. (no correlation) to ] 0 (perfecLposillile-correlatLon). Has the high rate of turnover affected Virginia .representatives'opportunities-to gain seats on the more important commit­ presidential, gubernatorial, and midterm Representative Richard Poff had given up tees? To answer that question, we can draw congressional elections between 1954 and his seat to accept a federal judgeship and upon a ranking of congressional committees 1970. A correlation is a statistical measure of was succeeded by Representative Caldwell developed by H. Douglas Price, a Harvard how well one can predict the variation in one Butler, a fellow Republican. political scientist. In the House the most variable by the variation of another. In this The net effect of all of this movement back important committees (Rank I) are those case, it is the measure of how well one can and forth between 1970 and 1976 has been having to do with taxing and spending predict variations in Republican congres­ to reinforce the trend toward congressmen (Appropriations, Ways and Means) and the sional voting from variations in Republican with less seniority. Table 2 presents a broad flow of legislation to the floor (the Rules presidential voting (see note to Table 1). In picture of how the rank in seniority has Committee). The second most important states with stable party systems, the declined for the ten Virginia seats in the group (Rank II) includes those which correlations between congressional and House since 1965. The first column of Table specialize in certain prestigious areas, presidential voting are high-atleast.7or .8. 2 shows the sum of years of continuous typically involving large scale federal activity In Virginia between 1954 and 1966, as Table service for all ten congressmen. If all of the (Armed Services, Judiciary, Agricultur~, 1 shows, there was no correlation between ten incumbents remain in office, this figure Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Foreign the county or city vote for a Republican should increase by twenty years for each Affairs, Government Operations). At the congressional candidate and the Republican new Congress (two years' more seniority for low end of the scale (Rank V) are those vote for Goldwater in 1964, nor for Holton each incumbent). In 1965, the total was 123 committees with very limited scope and little for governor in 1965. As late as 1970, the years, including one committee chairman national significance (District of Columbia, relationship between the vote for Nixon in and two members each of whom was the House Administration).2 1968 and votes for congressional candidates second ranking congressman of his party Despite the loss. of seniority, one finds was a weak one. The general instability of on committee. Since then, Virginia has upon close examination that Virginia is still the mid-1960s is clearly reflected in these suffered a net loss in seniority in every new fairly well represented on the key commit­ figures. Congress except one. While today no tees. Table 2 reveals that the distribution for Nonetheless, the overall trend has fa- committee chairman is from Virginia, one committee assignments in terms of ranks is __.--JIored the Republicans. In 1965 only two of ranking Republican and one second ranking almost as good as it was in 1965. One of the the ten Virginia House seats were occupied Democrat are from the Old Dominion. advantages of electing representatives from by Republicans. Through the late 1960s and The most consistent factor in the Virginia the minority party is that they are more likely early 1970s, however, they gained a new seat congressional picture has been the invinci­ to gain good committee assignments ·rela­ almost every two years, finally reaching a bility of the name of Harry Byrd. Harry F. tively early. (On the other hand, committee peak in 1973 of seven seats. In addition, the Byrd, Jr. was appointed to fill his father's chairmanships and the house agenda are GOP gained one of the two Senate seats; unexpired term in 1965 and barely managed controlled by the majority.) Representative and with Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr.'s to survive the Democratic primary and J. Kenneth Robinson of the 7th District decision to stand as an independent in 1970 general elections of. 1966. Since then, moved onto the House Appropriations and 1976, the Democrats were denied any however, Senator Byrd has won re-election Committee in his first term, which is very claim to the other Senate seat. Most twice as an independent by considerable unusual. Also, Representative Joseph L. commentators agree that the effects of the margins. However, Senator Byrd's decision Fisher was awarded a post on the House Watergate scandal were a significant factor to avoid identification with either major Ways and Means Committee in his very first in the two Washington suburban districts, in political party will necessarily limit his term, which is equally unusual. Virginia also which incumbent Republicans Parris (8th potential for power and influence in Con­ has representation on the Agriculture District) and Broyhill (10th District) were gress, given the importance of parties in the Committee, where Representative defeated in 1974 by two moderate-liberal organization of the Senate. Democrats, representatives Harris and 2Cited in Stephen K. Bailey, Congress in the Seventies (New COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Joseph L. Fisher. Broyhill was then the York: St. Martin's Press, 1970), pp. 52-53. However, there are senior member of the Virginia delegation The matters of seniority and partisanship pitfalls in trying to establish any hard and fast rankings. For with twenty years of continuous service. In have been reviewed at length here because a example, former Representative Wayne Hays, longtime chairman 1976 the Republicans gained one seat with congressman's influence and effectiveness of the lower ranked House Adminstration Committee, managed to the previously mentioned election of is partly a function of his years of continuous carve out a small empire for himself in the House through the Representative Trible to succeed retiring service. The committee system is the granting or withholding of prime office space, staff, and expense Representative Downing. Earlier, in 1972, backbone of the Congress. for it is in allowances for other congressmen. TABLE 2 VIRGINIANS AS CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS VIRGINIA DELEGATION TO U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: SENIORITY, COMMITTEES, AND CONSERVATISM But what of the role of the Virginians vis-a­ vis the rest of the nation? Virginians have 1965-1977 something of a tradition of distinguished service, particularly in the U.S. Senate. UJ~ While it is true that Senator Harry F. Byrd, ~C!:- ~0t5 Sr. perfected his position in Washington ~~ffi ::JC!:C!:(/)UJ also true that he became an influential figure Z~~ soon after entering the Senate in 1933, aided ~ ~ Clc.:J~~ ZO~ no doubt by the national prominence he had ZZ UJ O-X OS2C!:co uf::: UJ already attained as well as by his native YEAR TOTAL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS ~I~Great Society House and Senate who have gained national the Armed Services committees of both debates in Congress, senators Harry F. prominence in recent years have done so by houses of Congress. Both senators sit on Byrd, Sr. and A. Willis Robertson voted in espousing conservative positions. Yet the Senate Armed Services Committee, and agreement with the "Conservative Coali­ members of the Virginia delegation in no less than four of the ten representatives tion" (Republicans and southern Democrats Congress are seldom seen or heard by the sit on the House committee. None of the against a majority of northern Democrats) nation on such matters. other states has such representation. 76 and 77 percent of the time, respectively. Part of the explanation perhaps can be Considering the importance of defense In 1977, after a decade of "change," HarryF. found in the matter of legislative style, a spending both for the state's economy in Byrd, Jr. and William L. Scott voted in necessary element in completing any profile general and for three of the four Virginia agreement with that coalition 97 and 72 of the Virginia congressional delegation. In districts represented, this is a very powerful percent of the time, respectively. On the studies both of state legislatures and of the political posture. House side, in 1965 the average "Conserva­ Congress, political scientists have identified tive Coalition Support Score" for Virginia's certain archetypical styles of legislators. FLOOR VOTES ten congressmen was 87 percent. In 1973, Some legislators clustered around one pole after Messrs. Smith, Tuck, and Abbitt had are "activists"- fighting and bargaining for Table 3 shows scores on the floor votes departed from the scene, the score moved sweeping legislation before the public, of Virginia's ten representatives as compiled up a few notches to peak at 91 percent. Its holding press conferences, participating in by five different Congress-watching groups. fall to below 80 percent since 1975 is .forums, and aspiring to national office. The Joint Center for Political Studies obviously due to the presence of Harris and Another group of legislators are recorded how congressmen voted on issues Fisher, whose scores depart rather conspic­ "delegates"- representing their particular on which the congressional black caucus uously from the norm (see Table 3). districts, helping constituents, working took a position. Similarly, the other indices Another interesting point about the quietly to positions where they can address reflect floor votes involving liberal issues, Virginia congressional delegation is that it issues of immediate concern to their labor issues, conservative coalition support, ranks as one of the most solid supporters of particular districts, and shunning the great and key conservative issues. No one can the "Conservative Coalition," even when debates. This matter of style, in the last dispute the depth of the Virginians' conser­ compared to the sister states of the old analysis, has nothing to do with ideology. If vatism. This is not surprising and probably Confederacy. As a matter of fact, according the"activist" style is associated more with a reflects the views of the majority of voters in to Congressional Quarterly figures, Virginia liberal approach to political issues, it is so the state (though one could make an ranks third. Only Mississippi and Georgia only for reasons that are today historically argument that conservative scores of 80 and congressmen have higher average conser­ irrelevant. (Indeed, more than one conser­ 90 percent on voting indices are not a vative support scores (88 and 78 percent, vative commentator has complained that perfectly faithful expression of the whole respectively). Considering the difference in the problem with conservatives today is body of political opinion in this diverse time and circumstance, it is a fair conclusion that, having spent so many years in Commonwealth). What may be surprising that the Virginia delegation is as conserva­ opposition to liberal initiatives, they have to some is that the overall score for the tive as it ever was, or more so. forgotten how to initiate their own program.) In any case, it appears that the attainment of national visibility today requires a member TABLE 3 of Congress to adopt an "activist" style. If we are correct in saying that the Virginia RATINGS FOR VIRGINIA DELEGATION TO U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES congressional delegation today lacks capaci­ ty for national leadership, perhaps the 95th CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION (1977) explanation lies, at least in part, in the reserved style of politics so much a part of the Virginia tradition. INDICES CONCLUSION JOINT AMERICANS AFL-CIO C.Q. AMERICANS CENTER FOR COMMITTEE CONSERV- FOR It is always difficult to chart the meaning of FOR DEMOCRA- ON ATIVE COA- CONS1TIU- political change, precisely because there are POLITICAL TIC ACTION POLITICAL LITION TIONAL always contradictions-cross-currents that STUDIES EDUCATION SUPPORT ACTION seem to move men and events first in one direction, and then another. This article CONGRESSMAN (BLACK INDEX began by noting the extraordinary turnover CONGRES- of Virginia congressmen since 1965 but ends SIONALCAU- (LIBERAL (LABOR by concluding that, except for the party CUS ISSUES) ISSUES) ISSUES) (CONSERVATIVE ISSUES) labels, the "change" is more apparent than (1) TRIBLE 0% 5% 13% 90% 85% real, with conservatism still the dominant force. When one looks at the office of the (2) WHITEHURST 0 0 14 81 75 governor of Virginia, or the functions of the (3) SAIIEREIELD 0 0 8 95 96 Genera: Assembl , or he workirrg-c:--r\+-r--r+r-,~-- (4) DANIEL, R. 6 5 13 91 93 and county governments across the state, (5) DANIEL, W. 0 0 8 97 93 one can point to empirical data demonstrat- (6) BUTLER 12 5 8 88 85 ing changes in programs and styles. This is not the case with the Virginia congressional 0 8 97 93 (7) ROBINSON 0 delegation. Despite the loss in seniority due (8) HARRIS 87 70 65 18 15 to the large turnover, Virginia members of (9) WAMPLER 0 5 13 90 65 Congress have managed to maintain a (10) FISHER 81 75 82 24 19 reasonably good position in terms of committee assignments important to the state, particularly the remarkable bloc on the Armed Services committees. However, SOURCES: Maybelle Bennett and Ellen Scudder, "JCPS Voting Study," Focus, April 1978; Vicki Otten in terms of national leadership, we are and Bruce Camerson, " ADA's 1977 Voting Record," ADA Legislative Newsletter, January 1.,1978; "A forced to conclude that, contrary to nearly Report on Congress-1977," AFL-CIO News, November 26, 1977; The Congressional Quarterly everyone's expectations, the state has fallen in stature since the heyday of Senator Harry Almanac, 1977; and "ACA Index, 1977." F. Byrd, Sr. and his associates. This, of course, is not to say that the situation will continue this way indefinitely. NOTE: The Congressional Quarterly index indicates the support given by the congressman to a majority There are personalities on the Virginia scene of southerners and Republicans (the "Conservative Coalition") when opposed by a majority of northern today in both parties with national leader­ Democrats. All other indices represent the percentage of congressman's votes in agreement with position ship potential.- One can hope that the taken by the interest group on floor votes considered by that group as the "key test votes" for 1977. Commonwealth will make the best of her opportunities.

THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Entered as second-class matter EWS Charlottesville, Virginia ETTER

Editor / Clifton McCleskey Assistant Editor I Sandra Wilkinson Published each month from September through August by the Institute of Govern­ ment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Virginia 22903. The views and opinions ex­ pressed herein are those of the author, and are not to be interpreted as representing the official position of the Institute or the Uni­ versity. Entered as second-class matter January 2. 1925, at the post office at Charlottesville. Virginia, under the act of August 24, 1912. @ 1978 by The Rector and Visitors of th~ University of Virginia. . Printed by the University Printing Office.