THE 1976 ELECTIONS: VIRGINIA SECEDES from the SOLID SOUTH by LARRY SABATO

THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA VOL. 54 NO.1

THE 1976 ELECTIONS: VIRGINIA SECEDES FROM THE SOLID SOUTH By LARRY SABATO

Mr. Sabato, formerly a staff member of the dates receiving 836,554 and lead over Carter in the statewide Institute of Government, is currently a Rhodes 813,396 votes, respectively (or 49.3 tally. Scholar at Oxford University. percent to 48.0 percent), with four The populous Washington suburbs Happy days were here again for different third-party candidates ac- comprising the Eighth and Tenth Democrats nationally in 1976, as counting for the remainder. It-was a districts were of critical importance their party regained the presidency high-turnout election in Virginia, as to Ford. In these areas, heavily laden after an eight-year hiatus and in much of the South; a total of almost with federal government workers, managed to increase slightly their 1.7 million votes was cast, with 80.8 Carter's anti-bureaucratic stance overwhelming edge in Congress. percent of registered voters and 48.6 and his proposals for reorganization Democrats throughout the South percent of the total voting age were met with less than overwhelm- were especially joyous since one of population casting ballots. A sizeable ing enthusiasm. Consequently, Ford their region's own, Jimmy Carter, 17.8 percent turnout increase over secured most of his margin of victory had marched to the White House at 1972 was recorded, although this in the Eighth and Tenth districts; had the head of a p alanx of southern rise was considerably less than the Carter been able to carry them by as voters. But in the end there was no gains experienced in 1964 and 1968 little as 8,000 votes, he would have Virginia unit in Carter's army; the Old immediately after the abolition of the grabbed the Old Dominion's twelve Dominion was marching to a poll tax and the passage of the Voting electoral votes. different political drummer. When Rights Act. Ford's good performance in metro- faced with the choice of supporting a Despite his narrow loss ofVirginia, politan areas and the unique Carter southern Democratic moderate or a Carter carried a majority both of appeal to usually Republican rural non-southern Republican conser­ the counties (fifty-two of ninety-five) farming regions is reflected in Virgi- vative, the right-leaning Com­ and the cities (twenty-three of forty- nia's voting. Ford actually won both monwealth, unlike her neighbors, one). Overall, Carter's margin was the Urban Corridor, with 50.3 per- went with her head and not her heart. greatest in the Tidewater-Southside cent, and the state's seven Standard Virginia did not stop there; the Fourth Congressional District, where Metropolitan Statistical Areas national and regional Democratic he garnered 57 percent of the vote. (SMSAs), with 50.5 percent. Ford's trend was bucked from top to bottom. Carter also reached a plurality or margin in the SMSAs was due to Incumbent Independent U.S. Senator majority in the Northern Neck First, heavy support in the suburbs (which Harry Byrd, Jr., won his largest Norfolk-Virginia Beach Second, and comprise a large majority of the mandate to date, trouncing Democrat the Southwest Ninth districts. The SMSA voter pool), where he received Elmo Zumwalt, the former chief of Democratic presidential nominee ran 53.9 percent of the vote compared to naval operations, who had tried to surprisingly well in the Southside Carter's 43.7 percent. Carter won catch hold of Carter's coattails. Also, and Southwest areas of the state, as the central cities by a margin very a seat in the House of Represen­ his regional appeal seemed to carry similar to Ford's suburban edge, but tatives changed hands, giving the most weight there; more importantly, he also won a plurality of the rural GOP one of its few gains nationally he kept Ford's margins low in the vote (49.2 percent), reversing the and coloring the Virginia con­ normally conservative and presiden- regular electoral patterns. The Urban gressional delegation Republican tially Republican Southside Fifth and Corridor's vote, incidentally, was once again. Roanoke-based Sixth congressional more crucial than it was four years districts. (Carter, in fact, very nearly earlier, since it accounted for 58 PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS won the Sixth.) As expected, Ford's percent of the statewide total (up In the closest presidential contest margins were substantial in the from 52.5 percent in 1972). The in Virginia since 1888, Gerald Ford Piedmont Seventh and Richmond- proportion of the total vote from nipped Jimmy Carter by a margin of area Third districts, yet the votes won SMSAs remained fairly constant at about 23,000 votes, the two candi- there gave Ford only a paper-thin 61.6 percent. INSTITUTE OF GOVERNNIENT / UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA / CHARLOTTESVILLE / SEPTEMBER 1977 In a coalition strikingly similar to THE SENATE RACE exploited his Democratic op.pone.nt'.s the one which has propelled Henry lack of close association With Virgi­ While Carter's accent, ancestry, Howell to the fore, votes from both nia. and occupation enabled him to blacks and those who had once An added advantage for Byrd was compete closely on Virginia's alien supported George Wallace swelled the absence of a GOP opponent. The ideological turf, his fellow Democrat Carter's total in both urban and rural Republicans, who had tried repeated­ at the senatorial level, Elmo Zum­ areas of Virginia (see Table 1). Cart~r ly to entice Byrd to join their number, walt, had none of his advantages. secured 53.3 percent of the votes In decided to nominate no one for the Accordingly, Zumwalt was swamped Wallace precincts, demonstrating a U.S. Senate in 1976, thus giving .a by the bearer of the most famous strong pull among urban blue collar tacit endorsement to Byrd despite his name in Virginia politics, Harry F. workers. At the same time, the retention of the Independent label. A Byrd, Jr., as Byrd sought to retain his Democratic nominee took the lion's disgruntled little-known Republica~, U.S. Senate seat. In giving the share of black votes (91.2 percent), Martin Perper, who had sought hls Independent Byrd a 57.2 percent leaving Ford with but a paltry 5 party's nomination, filed and ran as majority (or almost 891 ,O~O t~tal percent. The only discouraging an Independent but had little p.arty votes), Virginia gained a historical finding for Carter on this .front was support. Without a Re~ubllcan distinction as the only state ever to that turnout in black precincts con­ opponent, Byrd was able to Improve have re-elected an Independent to tinued to be several percentage upon his 1970 performance .by the U.S. Senate. points below that in wh~te .preci~cts; several percentage points, holding Zumwalt won the Democratic and when this differential IS proJect­ Zumwalt to 38.3 percent of the nomination unopposed when no one ed statewide, it becomes apparent almost 1.6 million votes cast. (Perper else filed for what was widely viewed that it made the difference between obtained just 4.5 percent of the totaL) as a hopeless endeavor. An energet­ victory and defeat for Carter. . In carrying thirty-seven of forty-one ic campaigner, Zumwalt hammered One other factor might possibly cities and eighty-nine of ninety-five hard at Byrd's "Iack of leadership" on have proven decisive in Carter's counties, Byrd managed to sweep the Kepone chemical disaster and defeat. The presence on the ballot of virtually the entire state, winning also directed heavy criticism at the four minor parties, which together even in areas such as Southwest policies of Secretary of State Henry drew 46,664 votes (2.7 percent of the Virginia where he previously had Kissinger. Zumwalt's efforts were to total), might have deprived Carter ~f a been weak. no avail, however, and his campaign plurality. The two strongest third Byrd and Carter jointly .carried was dogged by poor organization and parties-the Socialist Workers a~d forty-nine counties and nineteen limited financial resources. On the the American parties-ran well In cities, apparently sharing the sa~e other hand, Zumwalt's weaknesses areas where Carter also performed vote most widely in the SouthSide were Byrd's strengths, and Byrd's well· and many of these votes might area. Their mutual appeal was rooted ample treasury and well-run organi­ hav~ been Carter's had his sole both in their origins and in the flavor zation ensured his victory. The opponent been Gerald Ford. of their campaign rhetoric and popu­ incumbent senator also effectively lar image. Both were "anti-big government," a popu'~r. ~olitica' TABLE 1 portrait for much of Virginia-but anathema to Northern Virginia, heav­ Voting in Selected Predominantly Black and Wallace Precincts in Virginia Cities, 1976 General Elections ily populated with federal govern­ ment employees. Consequently, Percent of Votes Cast for _ neither Byrd nor Carter carried that % President area's Eighth andTenth congression­ Total Turnout al districts. Zumwalt eked out narrow No. of Votes of Reg- Ford Carter Others City Precincts Cast istered (R) (0) pluralities there; but as the only -- chinks in the Byrd armor, they were BLACK PRECINCTS not enough. Charlottesville 1 642 68.0 10.0 85.7 4.3 Byrd garnered more than 54 per- Virginia Beach 1 619 73.1 9.1 78.5 12.2 cent of the vote in both the Urban Hampton 2 3,166 77.0 8.0 84.9 7.1 Corridor and the SMSAs, and even 1.5 Newport News 8 6,092 80.8 4.1 94.4 carried the central cities with a 51.4 Norfolk 10 12,899 74.5 4.5 88.8 6.7 Portsmouth 2 4,200 83.0 2.7 95.7 1.6 percent majority. Byrd ran better still Richmond 15 15,284 75.6 5.5 92.3 2.2 in the suburbs, with a 55.9 percent of Emporia 1 337 76.6 6.4 86.7 6.9 the vote; and, as has been tr_aditional­ Petersburg 3 2,877 74.4 3.8 94.2 2.0 Iy the case, he proved to be strongest ------TOTALS 43 46,116 76.4 5.0 91.2 3.8 of all in rural areas, where he secured 61.9 percent of the vote. Both Carter WALLACE PRECINCTS Newport News 3 4,126 76.7 45.7 53.2 1.1 and Byrd, then, were the choice of the Virginia Beach 2 881 76.4 37.6 53.5 8.9 rural electorate, although Byrd ran Portsmouth 4 a,643 79.2 40.5 58.1 1.4 far ahead of Carter. Chesapeake 6 6,531 84.2 43.1 51.6 5.4 As in his past elections, Byrd drew ------TOTALS 15 15,181 80.4 42.5 53.3 4.2 heavy support from supporter.s of George Wallace. In sample preclncts which gave Wallace a majority of the SOURCE: Compiled from official election results provided by the State Board of Elections. vote in the three-way 1968 presiden­ NOTE· Identification of the precincts used in this analysis, o~itte~ here ~e~a~se of space tial election (the same ones used in limitations, may be obtained from the Institute of Government, University of Virginia. Table 1), Byrd won 65.5 percent of the total, a margin far larger than his TABLE 2 statewide percentage. Of all voting Vote by Parties in Congressional Elections, 1966-1976 groups in the state, Byrd probably ran weakest among black voters, among Party Percent of Vote whom the Byrd name and dynasty is still associated with the long denial of black voting rights. As a result, 1966-1976 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 Average Zumwalt secured 93.9 percent of the All Districts black votes, a proportion even larger Democratic 57.3 48.4 51.4 49.4 54.8 45.5 51.1 than Carter's. Byrd received only 4.4 Republican 39.3 43.5 45.8 46.4 39.1 45.8 43.3 percent, a minimal increase over his Others 3.4 8.1 2.8 4.2 6.1 8.7 5.6 3 percent showing in 1970. ------TOTALS 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

HOUSE CONTESTS Districts with Major Party Republicans and conservatives Contests also prevailed in the 1976 House Democratic 43.9 47.4 47.2 40.7 44.8 47.0 45.2 elections in Virginia, as the GOP was Republican 56.1 49.7 49.7 54.3 48.8 50.0 51.4 Others 0.00 2.9 3.1 5.0 6.4 3.0 3.4 restored to the dominant position ------which had been lost in the wake of TOTALS 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 the Watergate scandals. Shaky GOP SOURCE: Compiled from official election results provided by the State Board of Elections. seats in the Fourth and Ninth con­ gressional districts were streng­ In the November general election, percent against Democrat Billy thened, and a Republican captured the major news was the victory of a O'Brien. Daniel carried all seven the First District berth as long-time twenty-nine year old Republican, counties and seven of nine cities Democratic Representative Thomas Paul Trible, in the First Congressional despite a Carter landslide in the N. Downing retired. District contest. Trible's victory there Fourth, and he split the vote evenly House races provided the year's solidified GOP control of all of with O'Brien in the latter's own only primary nomination contests in eastern Virginia. He carried thirteen Portsmouth and Chesapeake areas. the state, with five contested elec­ of seventeen counties and two of four O'Brien did receive overwhelming tions being staged in different dis­ cities to edge Democrat Robert Quinn black support, and his defeat must be tied to his personal campaign perfor­ tricts. The results were not particu­ with 48.6 percent to 47.4 percent of mance which, while hard charging larly auspicious for the primary, the vote. Even while Carter was and dedicated, was often inept and however, since the three Democrats winning the district, Trible held outclassed by Daniel. and two Republicans so nominated Quinn to a narrow win in Quinn's In the Southwest Ninth Congres­ all lost in November. The most home city of Hampton and carried sional District another Republican heated primary was conducted in the neighboring Newport News. Trible, incumbent, William C. Wampler, Northern Neck First Congressional the commonwealth's attorney of turned back a second challenge from District, where three Democrats vied Essex County, had already bested Democrat Charles Horne with sur­ to succeed Downing. Moderate­ one Hampton Roads power, State prising ease, sweeping eighteen of conservative Robert E. Quinn eased Senator Herbert Bateman, to win the nineteen localities. Horne had very to victory over his two liberal chal­ GOP nomination. (Bateman, in fact, nearly defeated the veteran Wampler lengers, primarily due to the popular switched parties primarily to make in 1974. Again, Carter ran far ahead Downing's emphatic endorsement. the congressional bid under the of the Democratic congressional Democratic primaries were also held Republican banner.) Trible's victory, ticket-mate and actually carried the in the Second and Fourth congres­ a major boost for state Republicans, Ninth. siona) districts, while two Republican was built on good organization and Virginia's "Watergate congress­ state delegates were nominated from energetic campaigning, in contrast to men," Democrats Herb Harris of the multi-candidate fields in GOP prim­ the lackluster efforts of the over­ Eighth and Joseph Fisher of the aries in the Eighth and Tenth dis­ confident Quinn. Black voters, who Tenth districts, won their first re­ tricts. The primary turnouts, except had become disaffected after Quinn's elections (along with virtually all of in the hotly contested First District, bruising primary battle with a black the 1974 freshman class nationally). were uniformly poor. While the First Newport News city councilwoman, Both carried all the jurisdictions in District race drew 36.7 percent of were openly courted by Trible; and, their Northern Virginia districts, registered voters to the polls, the like Linwood Holton in the 1969 though not by overpowering margins. voter participation in other districts gubernatorial election, Trible was Fisher and Harris are presumably more secure now, but in highly ranged from 15.9 percent in the rewarded with a larger share of the competitive and unpredictable North­ Fourth to a sparse 6.5 percent in the black vote than is usually accorded a ern Virginia, neither can be regarded Tenth. Three other Democrats were Republican. Inroads to the labor vote as permanently safe. nominated in unopposed primaries, were also apparent in this heavily The only other district with a party maritime district. and three Democrats and six Republi­ contest was the Norfolk-Virginia cans got a convention nod. Demo­ The results in the Fourth and Ninth Beach Second District, where incum­ crats chose not to nominate candi­ districts also bode well for Republi­ bent Republican G. William White­ dates against incumbent cans. Incumbent Republican Robert hurst again proved invincible as the Republicans in the Sixth and Seventh Daniel of the Tidewater-Southside beneficiary of massive ticket split­ districts, and the Republicans fol­ Fourth District, whose two previous ting, especially in Norfolk. In trounc­ lowed the same policy in the Third wins had been mere plurality victo­ ing an active Democratic opponent and Fifth. ries, gained a solid margin of 53 for the fifth consecutive time, White- hurst appears to have assured him­ receive GOP voter support in No­ date will usually emerge victorious, self, barring scandal or disaster, of a vember. Thus, Republican strength be he Republican, Democratic, or long tenure if he so desires. may be underestimated by this mea­ Independent. (The 1977 gubernator­ Two other Republican incumbents sure. ial election may prove Henry Howell swept past third-party opponents. J. Since in 1976 simultaneous elec­ to be an exception; but he is per­ Kenneth Robinson of the Piedmont tions were held for president, sena­ ceived by some of his supporters as a Seventh District, after a close race in tor, and congressional representa­ conservative, and his populism has 1974, effortlessly turned aside a tives, one further note should be proven to be sufficiently potent to challenge from an American party added. Virginia's 1976 voting pattern overcome other doubts.) The impor­ candidate so conservative that Ro­ exhibited the same ballot "fall-off" tant distinction here is that Virginia's binson even received a large majority noted in so many other states, cultural and economic conservatism of black votes. In the Roanoke-based whereby voters cast ballots for presi­ gives rise to a pol itical ideology that is Sixth District Caldwell Butler, who dent but not for lesser offices. wedded more to principle than party. had won by only a plurality in 1974, Virginia's ballot structure, which is Republicans have done well in recent garnered 62.2 percent of the vote in a an"office block" ba lIot rather than a years not because of a new-found rematch with one of his previous "party column" one, encourages this wellspring of emotional attachment opponents, Independent Warren phenomenon of voter fatigue or to the GOP among Virginians, but Saunders. Two Democratic incum­ disinterest. The presidential contest because the GOP has presented bents had an even easier time. received an average of 98.8 percent conservative aIternatives to more Archconservative David Satterfield of of the total votes cast in the state. The liberal Democratic nominees for a the Richmond-area Third District had senatorial race, by contrast, attracted host of offices. Thus, for all of his in­ opposition only from the U.S. Labor the participation of only 90.7 percent. bred advantages, Carter could come party, and equally conservative Dan close in 1976 but could not win. Daniel of the Southside Fifth District CONCLUSIONS These same ideological inclina­ was completely unopposed. The 1976 elections suggest at least tions have allowed Harry Byrd, Jr., to Overall, the House results gave one conclusion about modern-day survive and prosper in a mass Republicans much cause for cheer. In Virginia: she is a nonconformist, both electorate which doomed h is father's addition to capturing another seat, politically and regionally. Much more machine. Byrd narrowly escaped every incumbent Republican re­ independent in her voting habits than electoral disaster in 1966 when the bounded from 1974, strengthening almost any other state, Virginia pent-up frustrations of new voters­ the GOP hold on most districts. refused to fall in line behind her sister long deprived of their franchise by the Moreover, for the first time the GOP states of the South and opted, not for poll tax and race barriers-sought to received a plurality of the total vote one of the region's own for president, dismember Byrd and his father's cast for congressional candidates in but for the "outsider." While other organization. But the vengeful Virginia (see Table 2). Republican states were voting Democratic for feelings subsided, and Byrd has candidates also secured a majority of Congress as well as for president, skillfully positioned himself above the vote in the party contest districts, Virginia added another Republicanto the fray on a safe Independent perch, continuing a trend evident since her Capitol Hill delegation. but within the political sight of his 1966. The Democratic statewide While Virginia may be nonconfor­ conservative majority. Harry Byrd, vote totals, it should be noted, include mist and independent of party ties, Jr., has outlasted the Byrd machine those cast in the Third and Fifth however, ideology still prevails. The in part because he showed no affinity districts for Satterfield and Daniel Old Dominion is more consistent for running it, or perhaps because he who, while maintaining Democratic than most in her electoral preferen­ recognized that in the broad-based affiliation, are at least as conserva­ ces; and, other factors like financing electorate of modern Virginia the tive as any of Virginia's Republican being equal, the moderate­ attempt would be neither possible congressmen and who normally conservative to conservative candi- nor politically wise.

THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Entered as second-class matter EWS Charlottesville, Virginia LET TER

Ed itor / CI ifton McCleskey Assistant Editor / Sandra Wilk inson 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. © 1977 by The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. Printed by the University Printing Office.