THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

THE 1970 U. S. SENATE ELECTION IN VIRGINIA:Independent Voting and Turnout Patterns

By RALPH EISENBERG

VOL. 48, NO.2

The author is Associate Professor ofGovernment and Foreign A ffairs and AssistantProvost at the University of Virginia.

·"irginia reelected Harry F. Byrd, Jr.to the United States Senate in 1970 bya majority of the State's popular votesin a three-way contest for the post. Themost startling feature of Senator Byrd'sresounding reelection was that, runningas an Independent, he so easily defeatedboth major political party candidates.Although these results demonstratedclearly that large numbers of voters haddisregarded party labels to reelect Sena­tor Byrd, it is still uncertain what impli­cations the election has for the future ofpolitical parties in Virginia and whetherByrd's reelection as an Independent wasmerely an aberrant election in Virginia'spolitical history and therefore only amomentary detour from the direction ofrecent pol itical developments.

The significance of the 1970 electionwas the election of an Independent,albeit an incumbent and a Byrd, and themassive rejection of both Democraticand Republican party candidates. Thedimensions of Senator Byrd's triumphwere even more impressive than his lackof a party label, especially in view ofthe record number of votes cast in 1970in a non-Presidential election (see Table1). The total State vote of over 946,000surpassed the totals of all Virginia elec­tions except the Presidential elections of1964 and 1968. About 31,000 morevotes were cast in 1970 than in the1969 gubernatorial general election, anincrease of 3.4 percent, and almost213,000, or 29 percent, more than inthe preceding off-year U.S. Senate

election in 1966; the 1970 total voteeven exceeded the previous record for aU.S. Senate election in the 1964Presidential year.

In contrast, the major parties' propor­tions of the 1970 record vote markedlow points for both. The Republicanpercentage of the Statewide vote inter­rupted that party's string of successesover the past 20 years while the propor­tionate Democratic vote even fell shortof what it was in the 1968 Presidentialelection. Senator Byrd's victory drewheavily from the ranks of supporters ofboth major political parties, andaccentuated the growing propensity ofVirginia voters to disregard party labelsin ball oti ng for particu lar offices. Th isincreasingly independent voting behavioralso was dramatized in 1970 by the easewith which six Republicans and fourDemocrats were elected to Congressionalseats.

Another significant aspect of the1970 election was the small turnout ofless than 129,000 votes in the Ju Iyprimary election for the DemocraticParty's Senate nomination. The numberof votes cast in the Democratic primarywas the smallest since 1948, when anot-very-seriously-contested U.S. Senateprimary attracted only 114,000 voters,while every other Democratic primarysince 1925 drew more voters to thepolls. The low turnout in the 1970Democratic primary raised seriousquestions about how many consistentlyloyal Democrats there now are inVirginia, while the poor Republicanshowing in the general election posedequally important questions about thenumber of solid core Republicans. The

1970 elections revealed how open andunpredictable Virginia politics hasbecome in terms of party allegiances.Previous patterns of independent votingbehavior, traceable to 1952 andreenforced increasingly in almost everyelection since then, reached their zenithin 1970. The 1970 election resu Its,therefore, suggest that the leadersh ip ofboth parties ought to reassess theirstrategies for potential victory and toregauge the posture of Virginia's voters,particularly those in urban areas.

THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY

Senator Byrd announced, well beforethe filing date deadline for the primary,that he would not try to obtain theD em ocratic Party's nomination butwould seek reelection as an Independentcandidate in the November generalelection. Nevertheless, there were threecandidates seeking the U.S. Senatenomination in the Democratic Party'sprimary election on July 14, 1970. Theprincipal conflict involved Democraticmoderates and liberals, with theconservative wing of the Party failingfirst to field a candidate and then evento participate in the primary balloting.

The candidates in the primary wereGeorge C. Rawlings, Jr., a formermember of the House of Delegates fromFredericksburg; Clive L. DuVal II,incumbent Delegate from FairfaxCou nty; and Milton Colvin ofLexington, a faculty member ofWashington and Lee University.Rawlings, backed by the liberalsupporters of State Senator Henry E.Howell, Jr., was principally knownthroughout the State for his defeat of

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT / UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA / CHARLOTTESVILLE / OCTOBER 15, 1971

6

TABLE 1 / VOTING IN THE 1970 U.S. SENATE ELECTION IN VIRGINIA IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRIMARY AND THEGENERAL ELECTION

Democratic Party Primary Election

Number Percent ofCandidate of Votes Total Vote

Milton Colvin 11,911 9.2Clive L. DuVal 58,174 45.1George C. Rawlings, Jr. 58,874 45.7

Totals 128,959 100.0

Candidate

Harry F. Byrd, Jr.Ray GarlandGeorge C. Rawlings, Jr.

ScatteredTotals

General Election

Party

IndependentRepublicanDemocratic

Numberof Votes

506,633145,031295,057

30946,751

Percent ofTotal Vote

53.515.331.2

100.0

THE GENERAL ELECTION

In such a close contest, however, it isimpossible to pinpoint the keyingredient of victory. Rawlings' supportin cities general\y and in the rural areasof Tidewater and Southside clearly wasthe most significant element producing

is narrow victory. Under Irglnla law,however, because his plurality was lessthan one percent, Rawlings could havefaced a run-off primary election ifrunner-up DuVal had requested it. ButDuVal declined in the cause of partyunity to seek a second primary and thusRawlings carried the Democratic labelinto the general election for UnitedStates Senator.

veteran Congressman Howard W. Smithin the 1966 Democratic primary.Rawlings, however, subsequently wasdefeated in the general election in 1966by a Republican, and in 1969 wasdefeated by a Republican in his bid foree\ectron 0 lie ouse 0 -De ega es.

DuVal was the candidate of Democraticmoderates and he too had been defeatedin a quest for a Congressional seat fromthe 10th District in the 1966 generalelection. The liberal-moderate struggleI eft Colvin to seek support fromconservatives. But since fewconservatives participated in theprimary, Colvin never was effectively incontention, although his total State votefar exceeded the difference in thenumber of votes cast for the winner andthe runner-up. The primary result was aRawlings victory by only a plurality.

Rawlings won the July primary byonly 700 of the almost 129,000 votescast. He won 45.7 percent of the State'svote to DuVal's 45.1 percent. Colvinreceived almost 12,000 votes, or a littleover 9 percent of the total. Rawlingscarried 58 of Virginia's 96 counties, 44with a majority of votes, while DuValled in 37 counties, winning 26 with ama1Q+-~ty at -Am-a.ng irgi nias-cities, Raw\\ngs won 20 with majoritiesin 12, and DuVal 16 with majorities in12. Colvin carried only one county witha plurality and two cities withmajorities, but these were his home cityand neighboring localities. Rawlings'strength emerged primarily fromSouthside and Tidewater rural areas,where he swept to majorities in everycounty in the general area, and in citiesdistributed widely across the State butincluding most of the largest cities.DuVal's city support also was widelydispersed but he did especially well inNorthern Virginia localities, in countiesin Southwest Virginia, and in theShenandoah Valley.

In terms of the urban vote inVirginia's then 6 metropolitan areaswhich cast 59.8 percent of the totalvote in the primary, DuVal won over 50

percent while Rawlings won only 40.8percent (see Table 2). Most of theDuVal metropolitan vote came fromsuburban areas where he won almost 57percent of the vote compared to lessthan 34 percent for Rawlings. However,Rawlings carne e centra city vo ewith 47.7 percent to DuVal's 44.7percent, an important dimension ofRawlings' victory because over half ofthe metropolitan votes in the primarywere cast in the central cities. Colvindrew 8.5 percent of the metropolitanvotes, with slightly more in the suburbsthan in the central cities. The urbancorridor, which includes 4 of the State'smetropolitan areas and other developingcounties, cast 63.8 percent of the totalState vote. DuVal also led in thecorridor with 47.3 percent of its vote,again exactly 3 percent more than The November general election forRawlings. However, in the votes cast in U.S. Senate pitted Senator Byrd againstcities alone across the State, Rawlings both Democratic and Republicanran more than four percent ahead of nominees. The Republican candidate wasDuVal. Delegate Ray Garland of Roanoke

From the data in Table 3, it is clear whose nomination was clouded by anthat Rawlings' success in cities, and intra-party battle at the Stateespecially in central cities, was in large Republican Convention over whether thepart attributable to his support among Republicans should even field ablack voters. Although Rawlings did not candidate to contest Senator Byrd. Thewj rn o-n00..1; . fdQit -from th-e b I-ack- _decisj f the-.e oruni.natecommunity, he did achieve bloc support a candidate at all was largely the resultof almost 63 percent while the moderate of efforts to this end by GovernorDuVal won 34.4 percent. Linwood Holton. But Garland's

TABLE 2 / VOTI NG IN VIRGINIA METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE 1970 U. S. SENATEELECTIONS

Democratic Party Primary ElectionColvin DuVal Rawlings

Total No. No. of No. of No. ofof Votes Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes Percent

Metropolitan Areas 77,137 6,591 8.5 39,045 50.6 31,501 40.8Central Cities 39,258 3,010 7.7 17,530 44.7 18,718 47.7Suburbs 37,879 3,581 9.5 21,515 56.8 12,783 33.7

General ElectionByrd Garland Rawlings

Total No. No. of No. of No. ofof Votes Votes Percent Votes Percent Votes Percent

Metropolitan Areas 525,496 284,447 54.1 72,986 13.9 168,047 32.0Central Cities 226,108 117,629 52.0 23,437 10.4 85,037 37.6Suburbs 299,388 166,818 55.7 49,549 16.6 83,010 27.7

campaign was handicapped from itsinception by the remnants of theconvention struggle, the failure of theNixon Administration to endorse theRepublican Senate candidate, and theshortage of financial support for thecampaign. And as the campaign woreon, it appeared that the spectre of apossible Rawlings victory hauntedefforts to mobilize even Republicanvoters to Garland's cause.

Senator Byrd won the generalelection easily with 53.5 percent of thepopular vote. Republican Garland wonless than 16 percent of the State's voteand Rawlings less than 32 percent. Thepattern of voting across the Statedemonstrated that Byrd won impressivenumbers of norma"v Republican voters,as well as a large amount of traditionallyDemocratic support. So sweeping was

7

Byrd's triumph that Rawlings carriedonly eight counties, all but two inSouthwest Virginia, and only three ofthese by a majority. Garland won onlyfour counties, all in Southwest Virginia,and only one with a majority. Rawlingscar r i ed 0 n Iy three cities, all bypluralities, and one a normallyRepublican locality, while Garland failedto carry a single city. The rest of theState belonged to Senator Byrd, whowon most of Virginia's localities bymajorities, including those in its mosturban areas. Byrd swept to majorities inall of the State's largest cities andcounties, outside of Northern Virginia,except for Norfolk. And he swept allNorthern Virginia localities by pluralitieswith little difficultV.

Byrd's domination of the electionwas evident in his majority support

am 0 n g urban voters, both inmetropolitan areas, city and suburb, andthroughout the urban corridor. Of theover half million votes cast inmetropolitan areas, Byrd won over 54percent including majorities in centralcities and suburbs alike. In contrast,Democrat Rawlings polled less than athird of the metropolitan vote, includingwell under 30 percent in suburban areas.Republican Garland lost heavily inmetropolitan Virginia, winning less than14 percent of th e vote. In th e urbancorridor, the results were approximatelythe same. Byrd's majority in thecorridor area reached 53.1 percent whileRawlings' share of the popular vote was34 percent and Garland's only 12.9percent.

Viewing the sweep of Byrd's victorymakes it clear that h is majority was the

TABLE 3/ VOTING IN SELECTED PREDOMINANTLY BLACK PRECINCTS IN VIRGINIA CITIES IN THE 1970 DEMOCRATIC PRIMARYAND GENERAL ELECTION FOR U.S. SENATOR

Democratic Primary ElectionJuly 14, 1970

General ElectionNovember 3, 1970

City

CharlottesvilleVirginia BeachNorfolkNorfolkNorfolkNorfolkNorfolkNorfolkNorfolkNorfolkNorfolkNorfolkPortsmouthPortsmouthRichmondRichmondRichmondRichmondRichmondRichmondRichmondRichmondRichmondRichnlondRichmondRichmondRichmondRichmondRichmondLynchburgHamptonHamptonHamptonNewport NewsNewport NewsNewport NewsNewport NewsNewport NewsNewport NewsNewport NewsNewport News

Totals

Precinct

FirehouseSeatack

12456789

17422627

1456

18192446556263646566671-1

PhenixPembroke

Y.H. ThomasDunbar

LeeMarshallChestnutJefferson

HuntingtonWashington

Newsome Park

Total No.of Votes

131125318465637242198353675102431377491303177223

3611034317328136430538914853329535343911116070586380

15814296

1137757

10,202

PercentColvin

5.34.00.90.61.41.71.01.40.60.0

20.28.80.40.71.71.35.62.70.62.90.71.10.70.81.40.61.41.11.16.32.54.33.47.95.03.84.26.32.7

14.33.5

2.7

PercentDuVal

17.64.0

26.146.742.742.641.920.418.765.720.9

5.346.225.137.941.336.138.222.430.137.737.135.437.868.253.746.837.739.088.350.638.660.322.215.017.113.414.615.929.924.6

34.4

PercentRawlings

75.292.073.052.755.955.757.178.280.734.358.985.953.474.360.557.458.359.177.067.161.661.863.961.430.445.851.961.259.9

5.446.957.136.269.880.079.182.479.281.455.871.9

62.9

Total No.of Votes

479440917998

1,498594548733

1 382251714

1,0021,403

873346615132416

1,061507733946716

1,362461

1,372659858

1,193481603376368536369404826720504563372

29,331

PercentByrd,Indep.

19.02.04.63.31.22.02.01.61.86.44.81.21.00.80.92.9

17.414.7

1.66.97.02.61.31.14.10.93.50.91.0

27.22.00.81.90.70.51.22.21.81.21.10.0

3.0

PercentGarland,Repub.

5.88.23.43.14.74.24.74.02.97.64.53.77.88.64.0

10.66.82.94.98.54.69.27.56.48.26.06.44.15.09.86.32.96.34.53.08.46.25.34.86.43.2

5.6

PercentRawlings,Democ.

75.289.892.093.694.193.893.294.495.386.190.895.191.290.695.186.575.882.593.584.688.488.291.292.587.693.190.195.094.063.091.796.391.894.896.590.391.692.994.092.596.8

91.4

result of his support by both Republicanand Democratic voters. In counties andcities of the Valley of Virginia thatnormally produce Republican majoritiesor, at the least, sizeable Republicanvotes, Byrd as an Independent wonsubstantial majorities. Similarly, hispluralities in Northern Virginia suburbsmust be attributed to defections ofRepublican voters. Garland in pollingunder 16 percent of the State vote fellat least 20 percent under the usual coreof Republican State support. ButRawl ings' performance also providedevidence of the normally Democraticvote that Byrd won. By winning inVirginia's cities and generally by amajority of votes, Byrd obviously won

.- su~p-!.port those alities f voters-who \n past elect\ons usually producedDemocratic pluralities or majorities. Thisphenonmenon also was evident in theoutcomes of the voting in rural countiesth rou gh ou t th eState. Raw lingsdepended heavily upon support fromblack voters who, as Table 3 indicates,gave him over 90 percent of th ei r votesin the cities. Even this support, however,proved to be an insufficient base forhim to carry the cities, or the countieswith large proportions of black voters.

RELATIVE TURNOUT

Some of the most interesting aspectsof the 1970 election in Virginia arefound in the relationsh ip of voterparticipation in the Democratic primaryand in the subsequent general election.In terms of the numbers of voters whoparticipated in the electoral process in1970, both elections produced recordtotals, at polar extremes, however; the

SITY ~Fa;VIRGINIA

NEWSLET T E R

Editor I Weldon Cooper

PUbl--ished on the 15th of each monthfrom SeptemBer through August by theI nstitute of Government, University of Vir~

ginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903. Theviews and opinions expressed r herein arethose of tt1e author, and are not to beinterpreted as representing the official posi­tion of the It:lst;tute or the University. ,.

Entered as second-etass matter January 2,1925, at the post office at Charlottesville,Virginia, under the act of August 24,1912.

© 197~· by The Rector and Visitors ofthe University of Virginia.

Print~ by the University Printing 0 fice.

8

primary for its low turnout and thegeneral election for its high turnout. Interms of the relationship of primaryvoting to general election voting, thetotal number of votes cast in theprimary amounted to only 13.6 percentof the number of general election votes,a figure lower than any similarproportion in Virginia elections at leastas far back as 1925. In central citiesonly, the vote in the primary was 17.4percent of the general election totals,while the comparable figure in thesuburbs was only 12.7 percent. Amongvoters in the predominantly blackprecincts in Table 3, however, theprimary to general election votingrelation hip was 34.8 percent, over twicethe Statewide roportlon and tWice thefigure in central cities. As in otherrecent elections, the preponderance ofmetro politan votes in the generalelection was cast in the suburbs,reversing the slight central city edge inthe primary balloting.

Comparing the total votes in the970 and 1969 Democratic primary

elections reveals that only some 29percent of the votes cast in the 1969primary were cast in 1970. Amongcategories of voters, the metropolitanvote in total and in both its central cityand suburban components, exceeded theStatewide relationship of the twoprirrlaries by only one to three percent.V otes in the predominantly blackprecincts in 1970, however, amountedto 40.8 percent of the total cast inthose same precincts in 1969 (see Table3). The comparison suggests that in thelow turnout of 1970, black votersparticipated proportionately more thanwhite voters, and thus contributed to

Rawlings' win. However, even blackvoter participation in the Democraticprimary sl ipped substantially from 1969and was consistent with the general lowparticipation in the primary.

CONCLUSION

The 1970 reelection of Senator Byrdresulted from a coalition of conservativeand moderate Republican andDemocratic voters who rejected theirparties' nominees. The scope of SenatorByrd's triumph in winning conservativeareas of the State normally carried byeither party's candidates and in winninghandily in urban areas of both city andsuburban character normally carried bymoderate to liberal candidates of b:o..;::;o~t~__parties indicates that the election was apersonal triumph for the Senator. But italso suggests that the relatively liberalthrust of the major party candidates wasdecisively rejected by Virginians. Themass ive sit-out of the Democraticprimary in comparison to the largegeneral election turnout demonstratedvoter ind ifference to the Democraticchoices from almost all groups ofDemocrats. The wholesale abandonmentby the electorate of their past partyvoting habits to reelect Senator Byrd sohandily raised the possibility that partyallegiance grows increasingly fragile inVirginia. Whether another independentcandidacy in Virginia can succeed in1971 will determine whether the primeingredient of Senator Byrd's triumphwas personal, or ideological in the senseof a rejection of too Iiberal candidates.Solely on the evidence of 1970's events,it appeared that both factors were atplay in the U.S. Senate contest.

Entered as second-class matter

Charlottesville, Virginia