THE UNIVERSITY OF VOL. 55, NO. 7

THE 1978 VIRGINIA CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS By Larry Sabato

Mr. Sabato is an assistant professor of government GOP remained loyal to its traditional judge recount panel. (In elections where the and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia. nominating convention. Both 1978 vote spread is less than 1 percent, state law conventions were relatively harmonious, allows the runner-up to file for a recount; but In 1972 Republican William L. Scott and the nominees emerged as the standard­ all costs of the recount must be borne by the captured the U.S. Senate seat from the bearers of united parties despite the runner-up unless he should emerge moderate Democratic incumbent, William crowded fields of contenders.2 Republicans, victorious in the retabulation, in which case B.' Spong, Jr., and became Virginia's first by a narrow margin on the sixth ballot, the bills are paid from the public treasury.) Republican U.S. senator in this century. In nominated conservative Richard D. The election proved to be Virginia's the 1978 Senate election another Obenshain, former state GOP chairman, closest statewide general election contest of Republican, John W. Warner, was elected past co-chairman of the Republican National the century, but voter interest did not (in a very close race) to the seat of retiring Committee, and one of the architects of the appear to be substantially heightened by the Senator Scott. In the House of party's conservative coalition that had perceived closeness of the race. The turnout Representatives contest, the six Republican emerged during the preceding decade. The of 32.7 percent of all potential voters was and four Democratic incumbents all'von re­ Democrats chose former state attorney about the same as the last off-year senatorial election, thereby allowing the GOP to general Andrew Miller, who in 1969 had election in 1970. However, since nationally maintain its majority there. Since 1969 the defeated Obenshain for that position. the trend of voter participation has been state Republican party has elected three The party conventions did not conclude generally downward, even matching the successive governors, two U.S. senators the nominating process, however, for in earlier turnout might be interpreted as (and in 1976 tacitly.sypported the successful early August Obenshain was killed in a plane encouraging.3 independent candidacy of Senator Harry F. crash. Despite some dissension among The election was won for Warner in the Byrd, Jr., against a Democrat), a lieutenant Obenshain loyalists, the GOP state central Second and Third congressional districts governor, an attorney general, and a committee named convention runner-up (the Tidewater and Richmond areas); his majority of the state's congressional as the candidate after former performance elsewhere was not particularly delegation. Virginia's once-mighty state Governor Mills Godwin, the first choice of impressive when measured by the standards Democratic party is now alone among the Obenshain's followers and the party set by other recent GOP candidates. In the ifty state Democratic organizations in leadership, refused to run. Second District, Virginia Beach's suburban having failed to elect a single one of its Republicans then swiftly closed ranks vote for Warner helped him decrease gubernatorial or senatorial standard­ around the moderate-conservative Warner Miller's expected margin to only 646 votes. bearers in a dozen years. Only the General and sought to make up for lost time-which In the Third District, support for Warner Assembly remains a Democratic stronghold they were barely able to do. Final official from the conservative Richmond in Virginia. returns showed that John Warner won a newspapers helped to build a massive vote paper-thin victory of 4,721 votes out of for him in Chesterfield, Henrico, and West­ THE SENATE ELECTION 1,222,256 total votes cast-or 613,232 votes End Richmond, despite Miller's Henrico In a major break with tradition, state (50.2 percent) to Miller's 608,511 votes (49.8 residency. Warner also won minimal Democrats abandoned their long-favored percent). Miller subsequently filed a recount victories in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh primary election at the statewide level and petition, but it was withdrawn in mid­ districts, all of them well off the beaten instead held a nominating convention to December when he could not meet the bond Republican path. choose their senatorial candidate.1 The costs of $80,000 fixed by a special three-

3Conceivably, turnout in 1978 was enhanced by the presence on lOnly twice before hadDemocratschosena nominating method the ballot of a referendum item pertaining to pari-mutuel betting on other than the primary, and in both instances it was to fill an un· horse racing. The proposal to authorize such betting on a local expected vacancy. See Larry Sabato, The Democratic Party 2For a detailed discussion of the conventions, see Alan option basis failed, 52 percent to 48 percent, with the Urban Primary in Virginia: Tantamount to Election No Longer Abramowitz, John McGlennon, and Ronald Rapoport, ''The 1978 Corridor, central cities, and Standard Metropolitan Statistical (Charlottesville: Published for the Institute of Government by the Virginia Senatorial Nominating Conventions," University of Areas favoring by a modest margin, but with all other areas University Press of Virginia, 1978), pp. 54-60, 83-84, 89-98. Virginia News Letter, December 1978. strongly opposed.

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT / UNIVERSITY OF VIRGIJolIA / CHARLOTTESVILLE / MARCH 1979 26

Miller showed surprlSlng strength in Warner's victory was due in large percent, as compared to only a 2.3 percent Southside, the Valley, and western Virginia. measure to his strong suburban vote. He ran decline in the overall total vote. Ifthe decline He also won the marginal First District with considerably better in suburban areas (53.7 in black turnout from 1977 had not beenany a convincing majority and the solidly percent) than in either the central cities or greater proportionately than the total vote Democratic Fourth District by a rnuch the rural areas of Virginia, both of which decline, of course, Miller would have been larger margin. The vote in the southwest Miller carried (see Table 1). This substantial elected. Virginia Ninth District, where Miller was a suburban edge for Republicans has been the H "favorite son candidate because of his normal voting pattern in all modern Virginia An Associated Press-NBC news poll of earlier residence there, was something of a elections. The closeness of this year's race 2,800 voters as they left the polling booths disappointment to him (as it has been to was especially reflected in the Urban on election day found that Warner won 60 most Democratic candidates); although Corridor vote, where Warner narrowly led percent of the independent vote, and this Miller carried the district, the majority did Miller, 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent. pattern closely follows that of recent years in not approach the anticipated margin. Virginia. Independents in Virginia tend to be Miller's most amazing feat, however, was congregated at the conservative end of the winning the northern Virginia Eighth and A good part of Miller)s urbanstrengthwas derived from a solid black vote in his favor. A ideological spectrum; and the greatest part Tenth districts. The Miller vote there of the conservative coalition, led by former appeared to be a "coattail" effect of the survey of forty-three selected predominant­ ly black precincts in Virginia indicates, as Governor Mills E. Godwin, Jr., supported strong vote-producing organizations of Warner in the general election even though northern- \1rrglnia"s tW61fuperl1e-d liberal shown in ''fable 2, that despite MiHees lukewarm support by black voter organiza­ he was not their original choice for the Democratic congressmen. Miller's effort in Republican nomination. Warner's wife, the region was helped by endorsements tions (due to his ambivalent stand on future extension of the Voting Rights Act and the actress Elizabeth Taylor, helped to provide from both and the crucial name identification for him quickly, Washington Star; Warner's image was hurt enlistment of former segregationist con­ gressman Watkins Abbitt in his campaign), and Warner)s personal finances supported by allegations late in the campaign that he an intensive media effort. Warner spent had"bought" his position as Secretary of the 92.9 percent of the black voters cast a ballot for Miller. Turnout in black precincts was about $1.1 million of his own money in his Navy in the Nixon administration with large nomination and general election campaigns. family contributions to Nixon's presidential down somewhat from the 1977 gubernator­ ial election) however, declining by 11.4 In the general election his campaign spend­ campaigns. ing totalled $1.2 million to Miller's $0.8 million. The state Republican party comple­ mented Warner's persona] efforts by run­ ning yet another up-to-date, highly profes­ sional campaign (a far better one than the stateDemocrats are technologically capable of conducting).

TABLE 1 Miller was able to expand the Democratic base considerably beyond gubernatorial The Urban Vote in the 1978 Virginia General candidate Henry Howell>s weak 1977 Election for U. S. Senator showing, though not as far as Charles Robb did in his successful race that year for lieutenant governor. Despite being underfi­ nanced and lacking exceptional campaign Percent Percent Percent skills, Miller was able to capitalize on his ___llrbart Mea~~~~ 0(19tal for .for _. _ Virginia roots and past elective record, as Vote Miller (D) Warner (R) well as his moderate-conservative positions Urban Corridora 53.6 49.5 50.5 on most issues, to attract a portion of the Standard Metropolitan conservative vote. But even this, combined Statistical Areas b 58.9 49.1 50.9 with solid support from labor, teachers, and Central Cities 19.8 54.6 45.4 blacks, could not produce a majority of Suburbs 39.1 46.3 53.7 votes for Miller-still another reminder that Other Areas c 37.9 50.6 49.4 victories do not come easily anymore even to Virginia Democrats with relatively broad SOURCE: Compiled from official election results provided by the State Board of Elections. bases. alncludes cities of Alexandria, Chesapeake, Colonial Heights, Fairfax, Falls Church, Fredericksburg) Hampton, Hopewell, Manassas, Manassas Park, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg, Poquoson, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Portsmouth, Richmond, Virginia Beach, and Williamsburg; and the counties of Arlington, Caroline, Charles City, Chesterfield, Clarke, Dinwiddie, Fairfax, Fauquier, Hanover, ~ienrico, James City, CONTEST Loudoun, New Kent, Prince George, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Stafford) and York. bThe seven Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) for Virginia are Lynchburg, Washington, D.C., Newport News-Hampton, Norfolk-Portsmouth, Petersburg-Colonial Heights, Richmond, and On the House side of Virginia's 1978 Roanoke. The Petersburg-Colonial Heights SMSA was added after the 1970 census; however, it is used in elections it was the H year of the incum­ all elections analyzed in this volume for the purpose of comparison. "Central cities" and "suburbs" are bents," with all ten members of the included in the SMSA figures. House (six Republicans and four Democrats) winning re-election. This was C All Virginia localities not included in either an SMSA or the Urban Corridor. 27

TABLE 2 Three other challenged incumbents, all Republicans) easily defeated their opponents. Kenneth Robinson of the Voting in Selected Predominantly Black Precincts in Seventh District handily defeated liberal Virginia Cities) 1978 General Election for U.S. Senator General Assembly delegate Lewis P. Fickett. Robinson had a Watergate-related scare in 1974, when he was held to 52.6 Total Percent Percent of percent of the vote; but otherwise he has No. of Votes Turnout of Votes Cast had no electoral worries since he first won City Precincts Cast Registered for Miller (D) his seat in 1970. William Wampler of the southwest Virginia Ninth District had little difficulty defeating his Democratic Charlottesvillea 1 512 58.6 89.7 opponent, Champ Clark. Wampler was first Virginia Beachb 1 424 49.4 84.0 elected in the Eisenhower landslide of 1952, HamptonC 2 2,242 57.9 82.9 but he was unseated two years later by Newport Newsd 8 4,871 65.7 91.2 Democrat Pat Jennings, whom Wampler in Norfolke 10 8,961 58.0 95.1 turn unseated in 1966. Like Robinson, Portsmouthf 2 3,109 62.4 95.7 Wampler was nearly defeated again in 1974, Richmondg 15 10,113 50.1 93.2 but he has easily disposed of all other Emporiah 1 227 55.1 91.8 challenges since regaining his seat. Finany, Petersburgi 3 1,889 54.9 94.8 Representative Paul Trible of the First TOTALS 43 32,348 56.4 92.9 District, originally elected two years ago at SOURCE: Official election results provided by the State Board of Elections. the age of 29, won re-election by a stunning margin. His energetic style~ close attention aFirehouse precinct. to constituent concerns, and agile use of bSeatack precinct. congressional perquisites have combined to cPhenix and Pembroke precincts. secure his seat in a very short time. dDunbar, Lee, Marshall, Chestnut, Jefferson, Huntington, Washington, and Newsome Park precincts. Five of the ten members of Virginia's eprecincts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,8,9, 17, and 42. House delegation were not even opposed by fprecincts 26 and 27. the other party. Two of them, conservative 9Precincts 206, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 504, 601, 602, 603, 604, 607, 701, 702, and 703. Democrats Dan Daniel of the Fifth District hWard II. and David Satterfield of the Third District, have compiled congressional voting records iSth Ward, 6th Ward-1st precinct, 6th Ward-2nd precinct. that are quite compatible with the GOP. Daniel and Satterfield have not had Republican opposition since 1970 and are as well-entrenched as that record suggests. the first election year since 1962 in which staffing, franking, travel, communications, Among the three unopposed there was not a single change in Virginia's and other perquisites. In the congressman's Republicans, G. William Whitehurst of the House delegation, and the first since 1964 in name, thousands of errands are run and Tidewater Second District has regularly and which there had not been at least one party services performed for constituents~ and severely defeated his opposition since he change-over. this ombudsman role is politically very gained his seat ten years ago. While not as profitable for any incumbent. A challenger impressive as that of Whitehurst, Caldwell cannot hope to match either the constituent Butler)s record in the Sixth District was This bias toward incumbents is observed service or the level of publicity afforded an nationally, not just in Virginia. On the sufficient to deter anyDemocrat from filing. incumbent> and so he must rely on both his average, over 90 percent of all House Robert Daniel of the Fourth District has the own resources and that of his party to score incumbents who seek re-election are weakest political history of all, having won successful. In the past two elections fully 95 a victory. It is not surprising, then, that an three previous elections by only narrow percent of all congressmen throughout the incumbent's defeat is almost always consi­ margins beginning with his initial victory in dered an "upset." United States have won additional terms if 1972. Although Democrats despaired of Most of the 1978 Virginia House contests they sought them. The value of incumbency defeating Daniel in 1978, the Fourth District, were not even close; only the two liberal is not hard to fathom. Incumbency builds the most heavily Democratic district in Democratic congressmen from northern name recognition and is, according to a 1977 recent statewide elections> will no doubt be a Virginia faced stiff challenges. Herbert study by the Americans for Democratic prime Democratic target in the future, Harris of the Eighth District and Joseph Action, worth almost $570,000 in election particularly after Daniel's retirement, when benefits from the public treasury every two Fisher of the Tenth District both managed to the bias of incumbency can be eliminated. defeat their opponents, but not by years. 4 These benefits include salary, convincing margins (50.5 and 53.4 percent, Overall, despite the Republican failure to respectively). Even with the third terms just recapture the Eighth and Tenth districts, the won, they cannot be said to have safe seats. GOP had another banner year in the 1978 4"Americans for Democratic Action Special In these highly party-competitive districts, House elections, winning 56.3 percent of Report: Advantages of an Incumbent Seeking Re-election" probably no incumbents will ever be truly votes cast for all ten House seats, and an (Washington, D.C., 1977). secure. even higher 58.5 percent of the votes cast in 28 the five districts with party contests (see TABLE 3 Table 3). It is only the second time in modern Virginia history that the vote for Republican congressional candidates has Vote by Parties in Congressional Elections, 1966-1978 exceeded that for Democrats in the full set of House elections (the other being in 1976). Furthermore, in party-contested districts, Percent of Vote the GOP reached a record high-one more Party 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1966-1978 reminder, if any was needed, that Republi­ Average cans in Virginia no longer meet in telephone booths. All House Elections Democratic 57.3 48.4 51.4 49.4 54.8 45.5 42.0 49.8 Republican 39.3 43.5 45.8 46.4 39.1 45.8 56.3 45.2 Others 3.4 8.1 2.8 4.2 6.1 8.7 1.7 5.0 CONCLUSION TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Despite the Republicans' electoral record Party-Contested in recent years, Virginia is not a one-party House Elections Republican state, subject to the kind of rigid Only contro\ once exercised by the Democratic ----- Democratic 43.9 47.4 47.2 40.7 44.8 47.0 41.0 44.6 Byrd machine in the days when the pool of Republican 56.1 49.7 49.7 54.3 48.8 50.0 58.5 52.4 voters was severely restricted. The abolition Others 0.0 2.9 3.1 5.0 6.4 3.0 0.5 3.0 of the poll tax and the passage of the Voting Rights Act not only created a mass TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 electorate but also unleashed forces that SOURCE: Compiled from official election results provided by the State Board of Elections. have helped to convert a one-party Democratic bastion into a two-party elections. Even so, in the 1978 Senate race the statewide level. Never again will­ competitive state which normally leans the Democratic candidate, Andrew Miller, Virginia's Democrats have a monopoly on Republican because of the GOP's adoption did almost win. If Democrats can put aside public office in the state-but neither will the of the symbols of conservatism in a their factional feuds, if they can concentrate Republicans achieve that sort of monopoly singularly traditionalist state. on improving their organization and can in modern-day Virginia. The hope must be The state's Democratic party, stricken finance the acquisition of new campaign for two strong and competitive parties, each with severe factionalism and organizational technology, and if they can nominate capable of vigorously contesting elections, and financial difficulties, has faced extraordi­ moderate candidates with more suburban and each with a reasonable chance of nary hurdles in the last decade's appeal, they can be successful once moreat winning the statewide laurels.

Errata: In the February 1979 issue ofthe news letter, the black percentage ofcouncil seats for the City ofHampton, reported in Table 1, should read 14.3, not 0.0; the index of black representation for Hampton should read .478, not .000. The average index for all at-large cities in Virginia, as a result of this correction, is .551, not .524. In fifteen (not fourteen) of eighteen at-large cities, blacks held council seats in 1977. Also, the footnote following "Alexandria" in Table 1 should be "a," not "b."

THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Entered as second-class matter WS Charlottesville, Virginia LETTER

(ISSN 0042-0271 ) Editor/ Clifton McCleskey Assistant Editor/Sandra Wilkinson Published each month from September through August by the Institute ofGovernment, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and are not to be interpreted as representing the official position of the Institute or the University. Entered as second-class matterJanuary 2, 1925, at the post office at Charlottesville, Virginia, under the act of August 24, 1912.

@ 1979 by The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. Printed by the University Printing Office.