The Federal Elections Bill of 1890: Postscripts and Prelude

Welch, Richard E.

doi:10.2307/1890845

Cited by 16 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the civil rights area, in the face of southern obstruction, such procedural switching was once a signature move for many northerners. In 1890-91, the Federal Elections Bill gave way to pressing tariff and silver issues (Welch 1965). The anti-lynching cause had to give way to "the New Deal's 1935 program" or, for Senator George Norris (Ind-NE), "important economic legislation, " in 1935" in (Sitkoff 1978Greenbaum 1967, 83); to "many other important measures" including a $250 million relief bill in 1938 (New York Times, January 25, 1938, 6;Sitkoff 1978, 294); to defense and foreign policy considerations in 1940 (Sitkoff 1978, 295).…”

Section: ) the Senate With Its Rules That Allow Slowdowns Is Unusumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For an intensity differential on Capitol Hill, at least in the realm of reasonably broad issues, possibly nothing in American history has matched civil rights from the 1890s through the 1950s. In 1890-91, the Federal Elections Bill gave way to pressing tariff and silver issues (Welch 1965). Anti-civil rights southerners representing their region's dominant white caste cared a lot; pro-civil rights northerners representing few blacks and largely indifferent whites cared little.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supermajority Rule in the U.S. Senate

Mayhew

2003

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: ) the Senate With Its Rules That Allow Slowdowns Is Unusumentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supermajority Rule in the U.S. Senate

Mayhew

2003

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…31 Welch 1965, Upchurch 2004. 32 Hoar 1903, Welch 1965, Upchurch 2004. 33 Congressional Record, January 22, 1891, 1690-1691.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Going Nuclear, Senate Style

Binder

Madonna²,

Smith³

2007

PPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict within and beyond the United States Senate has refocused scholarly and public attention on "advice and consent," the constitutional provision that governs the Senate's role in confirming presidential appointments. Despite intense and salient partisan and ideological disputes about the rules of the game that govern the Senate confirmation process for judicial appointees, reformers have had little success in limiting the ability of a minority to block contentious nominees. In this paper, we explore the Senate's brush with the so-called "nuclear option" that would eliminate filibusters of judicial nominees, and evaluate competing accounts of why the Senate appears to be so impervious to significant institutional reform. The past and present politics of the nuclear option, we conclude, have broad implications for how we construct theories of institutional change.

show abstract

“…With Harrison in the White House, the Republican Party also enjoyed majorities in both congressional chambers, and there was a serious push (the first since Reconstruction) to create new voting rights protections for African Americans in the South. This effort -the Federal Elections Bill-fell just short thanks to a filibuster in the Senate led by Southern Democrats (Calhoun 2006;Welch 1965). As a result, beginning with Mississippi in 1890, white Democrats in the South began a process of disenfranchising African Americans (and some poor whites) through a variety of legal techniques, like poll taxes and literacy tests, which we discuss fully in section 3.…”

Section: Turnout and Republican Vote Share By Region: A Century Of Ch...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Disenfranchisement in US Elections, 1870–1970

Gray,

Jenkins

2024

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is commonly understood that the poll tax and literacy tests, among other measures, were used effectively in the South to disenfranchise Black voters from the late nineteenth through the mid-twentieth century, what is not well known is how much those disenfranchising laws mattered. Specifically, how much did the enactment of poll taxes or literacy tests affect turnout in federal and state elections? And how much did those disenfranchising provisions dampen vote totals for Republican candidates in the South? Using the staggered implementation and removal of several disenfranchising policies over a 101-year period, we answer these questions and provide some precision to our collective knowledge of the “disenfranchising era” in American electoral politics. Overall, we find that the poll tax was the main driver of disenfranchisement in Southern elections, with literacy tests and the Australian ballot providing some secondary effects. We also find that ex-felon disenfranchisement laws were considerably more important—both in reducing turnout as well as Republican vote share in Southern elections—than has been traditionally understood. Finally, we unpack the “South” and unsurprisingly find that racial politics drove these results: the disenfranchising institutions were more impactful in states with a larger Black population share. Our results show the powerful effects of disenfranchising policies on electorates and electoral outcomes. We discuss these results in both their historical context as well as with a mind to the continuing use of disenfranchising provisions in law today.

show abstract

The Federal Elections Bill of 1890: Postscripts and Prelude

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Supermajority Rule in the U.S. Senate

Supermajority Rule in the U.S. Senate

Going Nuclear, Senate Style

Estimating Disenfranchisement in US Elections, 1870–1970

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About