UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Partisan Pathways to Racial Realignment: The Gradual Realignment of Race and Party in the Twentieth Century Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5pf8q447 Author Butler, Sara Marie Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Partisan Pathways to Racial Realignment: The Gradual Realignment of Race and Party in the Twentieth Century A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Sara Marie Butler 2015 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Partisan Pathways to Racial Realignment: The Gradual Realignment of Race and Party in the Twentieth Century by Sara Marie Butler Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Los Angeles, 2015 Professor Scott James, Chair In the twentieth century, the Democratic and Republican Parties shifted their race views and adopted polarizing positions on civil rights. This phenomenon—the racial realignment of the parties—has been a topic of recent debate. The assumption has been that the parties followed similar paths and realigned at the same time. Further, recent work has investigated the realignment at either the national or state level. This one-pathway/one-site focus has narrowed the lens through which researchers have explained the realignment of race and party. This project takes a more comprehensive view by examining mass, state, and national actors, in addition to policy demanders, through the use of election returns, survey and roll call data, and archival materials. Considering multiple sources and different party actors allows me to determine how racial realignment unfolded across the state and federal governments. I use California as my state of interest because the narrative of racial realignment at the national level is so intimately tied to the political history of California. I argue that war mobilization and rapid demographic changes led to a push for economic civil rights by policy demanders in the 1940s. It was on these economic civil rights issues that the parties began to exhibit different pathways to realignment. I find that California and national Democrats were active in pushing race liberal ii policies in the 1940s, with only tepid backing from the party’s rank-and-file supporters. On the Republican side, it was the voters who united on race conservative principles in the 1940s, only to be joined by California and national leaders in later decades. It would not be until the Republican Party was purged of race moderates—beginning with the state parties in the 1950s and then the national parties in the 1960s—that race conservative voters would become Republicans, leaving behind a much more race liberal Democratic Party by the early 1970s. This study reveals that the voters and elected officials were responding not only to changing dynamics within their own parties, but also to developments within the opposing party. iii The dissertation of Sara Marie Butler is approved. Karen Orren John Zaller Scot Brown Scott James, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2015 iv Dedicated in loving memory to a warrior —my mother— Margaret Butler Langworthy v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations vii List of Tables, Graphs, and Figures viii Acknowledgements x Vita xi Introduction: Racial Realignment in the Twentieth Century 1 Chapter 1: A Shock to the Status Quo: The Federal FEPC Comes to California, 43 1941–1945 Chapter 2: The Republican Rank-and-File Respond to Economic Civil Rights: 80 Unified Race Conservatism, 1946 and 1948 Chapter 3: Republican Legislators Move to the Right on Race: The California 111 Assembly and the U.S. House of Representatives, 1945—1980 Chapter 4: William Knowland’s Role in Racial Realignment 160 Chapter 5: White Backlash and the Completion of Racial Realignment, 195 1964—1980 Discussion and Conclusion 250 Bibliography 267 vi ABBREVIATIONS AFL American Federation of Labor CAP 14 Californians Against Proposition 14 CAUSE Californians Against Unequal Schools and Education CIO Congress of Industrial Organizations CRA California Republican Assembly CREA California Real Estate Association EOP Executive Office of the President FEPC Fair Employment Practices Commission JBS John Birch Society LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Bisexual MOWM March on Washington Movement NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NCADH National Committee against Discrimination in NDAC National Defense Advisory Commission NLRB National Labor Relations Board OEM Office for Emergency Management OPM Office of Production Management RNC Republican National Convention USES United States Employment Services WMC War Manpower Commission vii LIST OF TABLES Table A. Republican National Convention (RNC) Locations, 1856–1952 and 34 1956–2012 Table 1.1. African American Population in California and Select Counties, 44 1930, 1940, and 1950 Table 2.1. Deterministic Bounds for Conservative Support on Propositions 3, 89 11, and 14, 1946—1948 Table 2.2. Goodman’s Regression Coefficients and King’s Ecological Inference 92 Estimates for Conservative Support for Propositions 3, 11, and 14, 1946—1964 Table 2.3. Ecological Inference Results for Proposition 11 (1946)—African 100 American Population. Rates of support for the conservative position Table 2.4. Ecological Inference Results for Proposition 14 (1948)—African 104 American Population. Rates of support for the conservative position Table 3.1. Support and Opposition in the California Assembly on A.B. 3 (1945): 121 Motion to remove from Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Economy and re-refer to Committee on Ways and Means Table 3.2. Support and Opposition in the California Assembly on A.B. 3 (1945): 123 Motion to remove from Committee on Ways and Means and placed upon file for future consideration Table 3.3. Support and Opposition in the California Assembly on A.B. 3 (1945): 124 Motion for final vote, needed 60 votes Table 3.4. Support and Opposition in the California Assembly on A.B. 1399 (1945): 127 Motion for final vote, needed 60 votes Table 3.5. Support and Opposition in the California Assembly on A.B. 97 (1946): 129 Motion to remove from Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Economy and re-refer to Committee on Ways and Means Table 3.6. Support and Opposition in the California Assembly on A.B. 971 (1955) 134 and A.B. 2000 (1957) Table 3.7. Support and Opposition in the California Assembly on A.B. 1223 (1959), 138 A.B. 801 (1961), and A.B. 1240 (1963) Table 5.1. Goodman’s Regression Coefficients and King’s Ecological Inference 216 Estimates for Conservative Support for Propositions 14 and 17, 1964 Table 5.2. Ecological inference results for Proposition 14 (1964)—African 217 American Population. Rates of support for the conservative position Table 5.3. Goodman’s Regression Coefficients and King’s Ecological Inference 221 Estimates for Conservative Support for Propositions 21 and 22 Table 5.4. Ecological Inference Results for Proposition 21 (1972)—African 223 American Population. Rates of support for the conservative position Table 5.5. African American Population in California and Select Counties, 1950 243 and 1960 viii LIST OF GRAPHS Graph A. Bivariate Weighted Regressions: Issues and Republican vote choice 32 in California Graph 3.1. Sponsorship of Non-Economic and Economic Civil Rights in the 154 U.S. House of Representatives (1920—1971) by Party Graph 3.2. FEPC Sponsorship in the U.S. House of Representatives 155 (1941—1971) by Party Graph 3.3. Sponsorship of Anti-Busing Legislation in the U.S. House of 157 Representatives (1970—1980) by Party and Region Graph 4.1. Quarterly GDP Percent Change based on Chained 2009 Dollars, 171 1947—2014 Graph 4.2. Partisan Registration in California, 1922—1984 190 Graph 5.1. Violent Crime Rates in California, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, 246 1960-1966 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. Scatter Plots of Conservative Support—Propositions 3, 16, 11 109 and 14 Figure 5.1. Scatter Plots of Conservative Support—Propositions 14 and 17 226 (1964) and Propositions 21 and 22 (1972) Figure 5.2. The Role of William Knowland in the Rise of Barry Goldwater and 239 Ronald Reagan ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It has been an honor and a privilege to work with my committee members. Thank you Karen Orren and Scot Brown for your feedback. You have helped make this process as smooth as possible. Thank you John Zaller for your support over the years. Your help and encouragement gave me confidence in my abilities and improved the quality of my work. And to Scott James—thank you for everything. I could not have asked for a more patient and attentive mentor. Without your guidance over the past 8 years, this journey would have been much more difficult. You have helped me at every stage of my graduate career and I am eternally grateful. Thank you to the professors at the College of Staten Island, who fostered my love of political science and history. I am most indebted to Rich Flanagan. I have been fortunate to have you as a teacher, mentor, colleague, and a friend. Without your unwavering support and the opportunities you’ve afforded me over the past 10 years, I would not be where I am today. Thank you to the UCLA professors who helped me along the way, whether it was providing feedback, helping me with R, or chatting about my research: Lorrie Frasure-Yokley, David Sears, Tom Schwartz, and Jeff Lewis. I want to thank Jeff Decker and Tobias Higbie for giving me the opportunity to teach my own seminars. I must also thank Joseph Brown for being the best graduate advisor on campus. Further, I am grateful for Drew Bennett, Stacey Greene, Mzilikazi Koné, and my wonderful colleagues at College of the Desert for providing positivity when I needed it the most.