Civil Rights Events

1966 Civil Rights Bill Defeated

… the mood of the nation in 1966 remained essentially one of sympathy toward the desire of Negroes to improve their lives, tempered by growing concern at the violence fostered by a few spokesmen and slum-dwellers. Negro and white leaders, including the President, unqualifiedly condemned the violence, but the lawlessness of a relatively few thousand Negro rioters generated resentment in a large portion of the nation.

In the South, resentment built up against the efforts of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring schools and hospitals to desegregate. In the North, resentment built up against efforts of civil rights leaders to bus children to different school districts in order to break down “de facto” segregation and against their efforts to break down the pattern of segregated housing generally. Those activities produced counter-pressures in the white community and resulted in a discernible stiffening of resistance to rapid change. Then, too, the year lacked the kinds of events–a march on Washington, police clubbing Negro marchers to the ground before nationwide television, nightrider slayings, the bombing and burning of churches, a massive march for voting rights–which had galvanized the nation into action in 1964 and 1965 (1966 3).

A Gallup Poll in 1966 reveals that nationwide more than half of all whites think that the Freedom Movement and President Johnson are forcing racial integration too fast —particularly regarding housing and schools. This is the highest anti-Movement percentage since early 1962. A Louis Harris Poll is even more negative, claiming that 75% of whites believe Blacks are going too far and going too fast, compared with 50% in 1964. "Where housing is concerned," observes social psychologist Thomas Pettigre, "much of the subtlety which clothes racial prejudice in the North is lost."

But Movement leaders are pushing for critical new legislation in 1966, and LBJ is determined to pass a new bill. Late in 1965, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission issues a report on biased law enforcement in the South. Blacks still face police repression and incarcerations, terrorist murders, beatings, bombings, and rapes for asserting their basic human rights. As the law now stands, racists accused of criminal violence against Black voters are tried under state laws in biased state courts. The commission recommends new federal laws protecting voters and civil rights workers — something long sought in previous acts, but not won. This is the most urgent necessity.

All-white, all-male juries are another problem. Most southern states use various schemes and tactics to ensure all-white juries — either across the board or in cases where race is a factor. Many states, including Alabama, Mississippi & South Carolina forbid women from serving on juries while others such as Florida, Louisiana & New Hampshire require that women volunteer for jury service rather than being summoned as is the case with men. Other states have other jury selection inequalities; New York for example, requires all jurors to be property-owners, if you don't own real estate you can't serve on a jury. President Johnson announces that provisions barring discrimination in jury selection will also be included in the new bill.

A section authorizing the Attorney General to initiate desegregation suits is then added to strengthen the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Under the 1964 law, the Justice Department could not intervene until someone filed a formal complaint and asked for assistance. But anyone who did that faced retaliation from the local sheriff, Ku Klux Klan, and White Citizen Council.)

Civil rights leaders also want action against discrimination in housing. But they know that including open-housing legislation in the bill will be hugely controversial and could well doom the entire package. Rather than risk defeat of the crucial voter-protection and jury-reform provisions, they urge Johnson to expand coverage of Kennedy's Executive Order 11063 which prohibited discrimination in federally-assisted housing. Kennedy's order covered about 3% of total housing units, but LBJ can use his executive power to significantly expand it without going through Congress — or risking the new bill.

Johnson disregards their advice. He believes he has the political power to enact whatever legislation he desires, and he is certain he knows best. In his State of the Union Message on January 12, 1966, he adds Fair Housing legislation to the new bill. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) — whose support was crucial to passage of both the Civil Rights Act in '64 and the Voting Rights Act in '65 — immediately declares adamant opposition to open housing legislation as an unconstitutional limitation on the sacred rights of private property.

Identical bills are introduced in the Senate and House. Led by Emanuel Celler (D-NY), the House acts first, holding hearings in May of 1966. The bill as a whole is named "Civil Rights Act of 1966," but its housing provisions are separately named the "Fair Housing Act" (FHA). Opposition to the FHA is fierce both North and South. And Southern Democrats oppose all the other provisions as well. Complex political battles are waged in public and behind the scenes the various sides maneuver against each other. (Civil 1-4).

Civil rights leaders desired a fair-housing executive order but Johnson’s legal aides doubted its constitutionality. Many administration officials felt housing legislation was unwise at the time because it would not pass due to the social unrest in urban areas. Attorney General Katzenbach was not confident in its passage because there were many in Congress that felt they would lose their seats if they voted for open housing. (Miles 108).

The sections (titles of the initial bill) were as follows.

Titles I and II … sought to guarantee non-discriminatory selection of federal and state jurors, respectively. …

Title III … authorized the Attorney General to initiate desegregation suits with regard to public schools and accommodations. …

Title IV. The open housing proposal came as a genuine surprise to Congress. No President in recent years had proposed such a law (1966 12). The Administration's Title IV, as introduced, prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental of all housing.

Title V. A law protecting civil rights workers was one urgently sought by civil rights advocates in late 1965 and early 1966. It was perhaps the one provision they considered essential for enactment in 1966. While efforts to pass a federal anti-lynching law dated back to the 1930s, a proposal for a general civil rights law to protect security of the person first appeared in the Democratic party platform of 1948. The Civil Rights Commission as early as 1961 and as late as its Nov. 14, 1965, report urged enactment of such a statute. No Administration proposed such a law until 1966, however (1966 14).

The chief opponent to the open housing title was the real estate industry. The National Association of Real Estate Boards mobilized a thousand local real estate boards to attack the housing clause. Estimates indicated that congressional mail was running one hundred to one against open housing. Arthur Mohl of the Illinois Association of Real Estate Brokers testified against the bill in front of the House Judiciary Committee and said Title IV would not have positive effects on the ghetto. He argued that New York City had an open housing law that enabled riots and a sixty-five percent increase in substandard housing over a ten-year period, while Chicago did not have an open housing law, had no major riots, and experienced a thirty-three percent reduction in substandard housing. He concluded, “We submit that any law which attempts to regulate a personal relationship between two individual citizens, where the public interest is not involved, is un-American and un-democratic. (Miles 112-113).

Lobbying for and against the bill is intense. The NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and progressives within the AFL-CIO, lobby hard for the bill. The National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB) and banking lobbyists fight furiously against the housing provisions, while law enforcement organizations and southern segregationists oppose ending jury discrimination or creating new laws to protect civil rights "troublemakers."

House floor debate begins on July 25. Conservative Republicans reject restrictions or limitations of any kind on property rights. GOP moderates disagree. Southern Democrats continue their traditional opposition to any legislation that favors Blacks. Northern Democrats, particularly those whose reelection chances rely on coalitions of labor, Blacks, and "ethnic-whites," are split. Some fear that open-housing legislation will transform working-class whites into Republicans and they therefore waffle, trying to please everyone while offending no one. Others hold fast in support of the bill.

Some 77 different amendments are fought out on the House floor. Of the accepted amendments, some weaken the bill, a few strengthen it.

Republicans and Southern Democrats join together to win a close 214-201 vote gutting the Justice Department's ability to file lawsuits against segregated schools and public accommodations by requiring a written complaint of discrimination by victims. Southern Blacks will still have to expose themselves to economic and physical retaliation from sheriffs, Klan, and Citizens Councils before the federal government is allowed to bestir itself to enforce the Constitution and the law (Civil 5).

On July 13 The Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) declared that there were 60 million existing housing units in the nation. Of those, 34.9 million were owner-occupied one-family homes, 1,520,000 were units in owner-occupied two-family houses and another 509,000 were units in owner-occupied three- and four-family houses, the Department said. Under terms of Title IV as amended by the House, all of those units–totaling 36,933,000–would be exempt from the law, leaving only about 23 million covered by it. For new housing, however, the picture was different; the House-passed bill exempted only the first two housing transactions by any individual or business in any 12-month period, and major housing developers had many more transactions per year than that. Of the total of about 1.5 million new housing units on which construction was started each year, the vast bulk was built by developers and builders for sale or rental. The initial sales or rentals by the developers would be covered by the bill, but if a family bought a house, subsequent resale of the house would be exempt (1966 17).

By a vote of 237-176, an amendment is added to the Fair Housing Act allowing real estate brokers to discriminate against nonwhites if that's what the property-owner wants. Another amendment is added allowing brokers and developers to racially discriminate in two transactions per year.

Progressive members of Congress propose an amendment to prohibit gender-discrimination in housing. It's defeated (Civil 5-6).

Violence erupted in many cities across the nation during the summer; it generally took the form of crowds of Negroes roaming the streets, hurling bottles and other missiles and taunting police. Rioting broke out between July 12 and 20 in Negro sections of Chicago, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Fla., New York City and South Bend, Ind. It was at its worst in Chicago and Cleveland, where the National Guard was called out and where two persons were killed in each city. Riots subsequently broke out in Atlanta, Ga., which had a history of stable race relations, and in San Francisco. In many instances, the crowds chanted “black power” and “burn, baby, burn” (1966 8).

Believing that the Black urban uprisings now spreading across the nation are caused by "outside agitators" and fiery speeches by militants like Stokely Carmichael and H. Rap Brown, a huge majority in the House add an "anti-riot" amendment making it a federal felony to cross state lines to engage in violence, looting, or arson, or inciting or encouraging others to do so.

On the positive side, an amendment prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the number or age of children is added, as is an anti-blockbusting amendment. ("Blockbusting" is the practice of deliberately inciting racist fear among whites immediately after a nonwhite moves into a neighborhood so that white owners will sell their homes at panic prices to industry speculators who then resell the properties to Blacks and Latinos at a tidy profit.)

In the end, the House bill as amended, bars segregation and discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin and the number or age of children in the sale or rental of roughly 38% of existing housing. (Johnson's original proposal barred discrimination in all housing.) However, for new housing (most of which is built by developers), the great bulk of initial sales or rentals are covered by the bill — yet most subsequent sales or rentals by individual owners are not covered.

On August 9, the House passes the amended bill by a roll-call vote of 259-157.

…

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee is also considering LBJ's proposed bill. Subcommittee Chairman Sam Ervin (D-NC), a determined southern segregationist, opposes just about everything in it. He's in no hurry to report it out of his committee — ever.

Senator Philip Hart (D-MI) is the bill's floor leader. In an effort to circumvent Ervin's obstruction, he and Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) attempt a parliamentary maneuver to place the House bill as passed directly on the Senate floor for debate and vote. Opponents filibuster their motion. For 12 days, from September 7 to 19, the Senate debates what is technically a procedural motion — but is in fact the pros and cons of the House bill itself. If the motion passes, the bill will inevitably pass, if it fails, the bill dies (Civil 6-8).

The tool used to defeat a Senate filibuster is called cloture. A minimum of two-thirds of the entire membership of the Senate is required to close a filibuster debate.

By now,… the fervor President Johnson expressed back in January for new civil rights legislation has dramatically waned. He and Democratic Party leaders have been shocked by the ferocious opposition of northern whites to residential integration, most visibly by white-ethnics in Chicago attacking Dr. King's open housing marches. The mid-term elections are now just two months away and Republicans are making gains by whipping-up the "white backlash" vote. LBJ's first priority is maintaining political support for his war in Vietnam, and as he would later write in his memoirs, "Open housing had become a Democratic liability." Administration efforts to round up votes for breaking the filibuster are feeble, half-hearted, and ineffective.

Johnson's abdication leaves Senator [Everett] Dirksen (R-IL) in the driver's seat (Civil 9).

Dirksen was critical in delivering the Republican votes necessary to pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, … Dirksen was a fundamental conservative that abided by the Constitution and the Supreme Court … (Miles 87).

If he were to support the bill, he'd bring along enough Republicans to end the filibuster. But he opposes it. First, because of the fair housing provisions which, in his view, are an unconstitutional assault on private property rights. And second, upholding "law and order" at all costs is the bedrock foundation of his political creed; ending racial and gender discrimination in jury selection might make it harder to convict and jail those accused of crimes. "For all practical purposes, the civil rights bill is dead," he tells reporters.

On September 14, and then again on the 19th, supporters in the Senate try to break the filibuster. They need 66 votes. They don't get them. The closest they come is 54 "Aye" vs 42 "Nay" — a majority, but not a two-thirds majority.

Senator James Eastland (D-MS), an ardent segregationist, crows, "The civil rights advocates who hope to force an interracial society have been completely routed. The old-time coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans were united and effective. ... [Soon] we can start the fight to repeal those vicious measures," (meaning the 1964 Civil Rights and 1965 Voting Rights Acts).

Representative Emanuel Celler (D-NY) tells reporters that it failed because Republicans were searching for votes in the South. "It is a tragic thing that the majority of the [Republican] party which claims the heritage of the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, should join in the familiar 'Southern strategy'" (Civil 9-11).

On… Sept. 19, knowing the game was up, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D Mont.) moved to adjourn the Senate and thus to kill the bill.

Defeat of the Act was a stunning setback for the Administration of President Johnson and for the civil rights movement. It marked a signal change in the attitude of the same Congress which had passed the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. … said the Senate vote “surely heralds darker days for this social era of discontent” (1966 1-2).

Works cited:

“1966 Civil Rights Act Dies in Senate.” CQ Almanac 1966. Web. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal66-1301767

“Civil Rights Act of 1966 Killed by Senate Fillibuster (Sept).” Civil Rights Movement History 1966 (July-December) Web. https://www.crmvet.org/tim/tim66b.htm#1966cra66

Miles, Darren. “The Art of the Possible: Everett Dirksen’s Role in Civil Rights Legislation of the 1950s and 1960s.” Western Illinois Historical Review. Vol. One, Spring 2009. Web. http://www.wiu.edu/cas/history/wihr/pdfs/MilesWIHRSp09.pdf