April 8, 1964
Page 7198
THE PRIMARY RESULT IN WISCONSIN
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I cannot say that I am surprised at the statements that have been made in regard to the election in Wisconsin. But if Senators were honest with themselves, none of them expected that Wallace would get as much as 25 percent of the vote in Wisconsin.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I said yesterday that I expected Mr. Wallace to get 30 percent of the votes. I have been in enough elections in the Midwest to know that when one puts one's name on a party label, he gets 30 percent, dead or alive.
Mr. ELLENDER. If the present trend continues throughout the United States, the Democrats may be in for trouble this coming November.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest that the way to get a Wallace-type victory is to make statements for weeks that one does not expect to get more than 1 percent of the vote. Then, if a person gets 2 percent, he has a magnificent victory.
In the State of Maine, where it is difficult for a Democrat to win, a candidate still must get 50 percent of the vote, even though our enrollment is less than one-third..
[INTERVENING MATTER OMITTED]
THE WISCONSIN PRIMARY
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, as is well known, my State had a very significant primary election yesterday. Some claimed the primary was a referendum on the civil rights bill. I think it was not; but the Wallace showing should not be a surprise to anyone who has followed the Wallace campaign in Wisconsin. It was heavily financed. Governor Wallace was on virtually every television station in the State making very persuasive and effective half-hour speeches. He had full-page advertisements in every newspaper in the State. He conducted a very strong campaign. Governor Wallace has an attractive personality. He campaigned not only against the civil rights bill but against strong central government! He made an appeal to many Republicans.
There is an easier crossover system in Wisconsin than there is in any State. Every voter is given two ballots, one a Democratic ballot and one a Republican ballot. He marks one ballot and throws the other one away. Nobody knows which one he marks. But the crossover was conspicuously evident. In what is probably the strongest Republican district in Wisconsin, the new Ninth Congressional District, which consists primarily of wealthy Republican suburban Milwaukee, and Waukesha, 52,000 voted for Democrat John Reynolds, 45,000 for Democrat George Wallace and only 33,000 for Republican John Byrnes, chairman of the Republican policy committee in the House and a very fine Republican.
This pattern was followed throughout Wisconsin. I estimate 80 percent of the Wallace vote was Republican.
In spite of the crossover, in spite of the very obvious invitation to vote against Governor Reynolds, the fact is that more than 3 out of 4 Wisconsin voters did not vote for Wallace. They voted for Republican JOHN BYRNES, who voted for the civil rights bill in the House, and they voted for Governor Reynolds, who forthrightly supported the civil rights bill.
I think it can be clearly shown that the vote against Governor Reynolds was not entirely a vote against the civil rights bill. In the same election, one of the questions on which the people of Wisconsin voted was whether or not there should be an increase in the gasoline tax to support a new highway program. The Governor spoke almost as much in favor of a "yes" vote on this referendum as he did on civil rights in his campaign. Yet that referendum, supported by Reynolds, was defeated by more than 6 to 1. This is only one indication of a number of tough, courageous, and very unpopular decisions that Governor Reynolds had the statesmanship to make.
I have been among the people of Wisconsin as much as anyone else. I was there last week. There was a protest that had nothing to do with civil rights by many Republicans and even by some Democrats against the Governor in this election.
I repeat, Governor Reynolds is a good Governor, a fine and courageous Governor, but he had made some very tough and unpopular decisions.
Mr. President, if the object of an election is to win elections, the object of primaries is to win delegates. There were delegates at stake in every one of the 10 congressional districts of Wisconsin. There were delegates at large at stake. Governor Wallace won not a single delegate, not one. He was defeated in every congressional district. He was defeated Statewide overwhelmingly by Governor Reynolds. Wallace got less than 1 out of 4 votes.
It seems to me that when a Governor comes into a State to run for delegates to a national convention, gets front page news publicity, is on every television station, buys big newspaper advertisements, and then gets only 1 out of every 4 votes, his defeat in the primary is a big and emphatic defeat. That vote, in view of the controversial candidacy of Governor Reynolds, can be viewed as an affirmation and support for the civil rights bill, and not a defeat f or it.
Governor Wallace did not just happen to enter in Wisconsin. He picked it very shrewdly indeed, knowing of the crossover system in Wisconsin and Governor Reynolds' problems.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I will with the permission of the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has the floor.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I shall not object to yielding briefly to the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from Wisconsin, but I should like to get on with my speech. I obtained the floor at 10:27. 1 have been fairly indulgent with my colleagues in yielding to them. But I will say that after a brief colloquy between the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from North Carolina, I shall not yield until I complete my speech, after which time I shall be glad to yield.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. CLARK. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey as the acting minority leader.
Mr. CASE. If the Senator from Pennsylvania had not decided to do as he has just stated, I would have insisted on its being done by objecting to further yielding except for the current colloquy.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I should like to inquire if the Senator from Pennsylvania has agreed that I may ask one or two questions, for my enlightenment, of the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. CLARK. Would the Senator be willing to confine his questions to the old 3-minute limitation?
Mr. ERVIN. I think perhaps I can do that.
I should like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he did not see many statements in the newspapers to the effect that the vote in Wisconsin as between Governor Wallace and Governor Reynolds would be a vote on the civil rights bill -- in effect, a referendum on the civil rights bill?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Many such statements were made. The Senator is correct. In part, it was. A part of the vote for Governor Wallace had nothing to do with the civil rights bill, however. I believe that is a significant point.
Mr. ERVIN. Did not Governor Wallace state over the television and other media of communications to the people of Wisconsin that his purpose was to provide a referendum on the civil rights bill, rather than to get the delegates from Wisconsin on his side for the presidential nomination?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Governor Wallace said that his purpose was to show opposition to the civil rights bill, but he also said -- and he emphasized it strongly -- that he was against central government and for States rights. In the primary campaign, he said the issue was not the civil rights bill, but States rights against big, central government. This has strong appeal in my State.
Mr. ERVIN. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Wisconsin if, in times past, the political leaders in Wisconsin have not been advocates of a civil rights bill, and if this is not the first time that the people of Wisconsin have had any opportunity to express any opinion respecting a civil rights bill.
Mr. PROXMIRE. No, indeed. Civil rights legislation has been at issue in the State for a long time. We have a stronger public accommodations law than is provided in the bill now before the Senate. We have a stronger FEPC than is now provided in the bill before the Senate. All of that was debated and discussed long ago. They were issues in the election when they passed. The public accommodations law was enacted in 1895, at which time the people of the State of Wisconsin had an opportunity to discuss the issue. FEPC was passed in 1945, and I recall that was discussed in Wisconsin.
Mr. ERVIN. My question was, Have not the political leaders in both the two major political parties in the State of Wisconsin been advocates of civil rights on a Federal level?
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is correct, with the exception of the Representative from the Sixth District, who strongly opposed the civil rights bill in the House, and voted against it and made it an issue in his district. Notwithstanding that fact, Governor Reynolds carried that district substantially. The combined vote of Governor Reynolds and Representative Byrnes was far more than that for Governor Wallace.