WEEK 14: PARTIES IN GOVERNMENT

Congress is the best example. It organizes into party caucuses, elects its leaders and recommends committee chairs. A party-line vote on the first day of congress results in the majority party winning every committee chair, Speaker, and Senate Majority Leader positions. There are clear differences in the ideologies of the parties and party leaders in the Congress. In the House of Representatives and Senate, Democratic institutional leaders vote liberal about 90% or more of the time, while Republican leaders vote conservative about 90% or more of the time. (see Tables 15-1 and 15-2 in unpublished book at https://sds17.pspa.msstate.edu/classes/southern/ch15.htm)

Such legislative organization by party exists in most state legislatures, but not in historically one-party states such as Mississippi. In Mississippi, the House Speaker appoints committee chairs from both parties. Our lieutenant governors does the same for the state senate. The first GOP lieutenant governor, Eddie Briggs in 1992, continued Democrat Brad Dye's bipartisan committee chair appointments. Majority party Democrats in the state senate did not strip subsequent Republican lieutenant governors, Amy Tuck and Phil Bryant, of the committee appointment power. Mississippi House Democrats were the first to form a party caucus, but it only discussed public issues. The only break from this bipartisan tradition was when House Republicans in 2007 joined with a few conservative Democrats to back a conservative Democratic challenger to the House Speaker, who after narrowly winning appointed only Democrats as committee chairs. Republicans gained control of both state legislative chambers in Mississippi in 2011, and the new Republican House Speaker appointed 8 black Democrats and 2 white Democrats along with 30 Republicans as committee chairs. The same year, Republican lieutenant governor Reeves appointed 10 black Democrats and 5 white Democrats along with 23 Republicans as committee chairs. Partisanship arose in chamber leadership positions, however, as floor votes gave Republicans the two top positions of House Speaker and Speaker Pro Tempore, and Democrats elected one white as House Democratic Leader and one black as House Democratic Deputy Leader; and the state senate elected Republican Terry Brown president pro tempore, who joined the GOP lieutenant governor. Bipartisanship suffered even more after the 2015 elections gave the GOP a super majority in both chambers. House Speaker Gunn, seeking to promote a more conservative agenda, reduced Democrats to chairing only two committees (African Americans chaired Energy and Youth and Family Affairs committees), with Republicans chairing the other 42 committees. Lieutenant Governor Reeves preserved a more bipartisan partnership, appointing 8 African American Democrats, 5 white Democrats, and 25 Republicans as chairs. Frustrated House Democrats reacted against the desire of the GOP House leadership to promote more conservative policies by repeatedly resorting to legislative delaying tactics (on a judicial redistricting bill, the transferal of control of an airport from Jackson to a regional board, and over a GOP-led tax cut bill that resulted in budget cuts). Bipartisanship was restored after the 2019 Mississippi elections, as Republican legislative leaders appointed Democrats (especially African Americans) to chair such substantively important committees as “Corrections in both chambers, one of the two Judiciary committees in the House, and the committees of Housing, Labor, and Public Health and Welfare in the Senate” (Shaffer, p. 239, in Bullock and Rozell’s The New Politics of the Old South, our textbook in the upcoming Southern Politics class).

Legislatures often have party differences in voting on roll call bills. In Congress, both parties have become very ideological, with Democrats voting more liberal and Republicans voting more conservative. Democrats especially vote more liberal than Republican on economic regulation and social welfare programs, while Republicans are especially conservative on national defense issues. The Clinton impeachment issue was a near party line vote in the House, but some Senate Republicans bucked their own party. Partisanship is a little less evident in the Senate than the house. Partisanship was quite evident on Obamacare, which passed Congress without any Republican support; efforts to repeal it have received no Democratic support. There was some bipartisanship on the 2021 Trump impeachment vote over insurrection charges, as 10 House Republicans voted for impeachment and 7 GOP Senators voted to convict him. Partisanship has been quite evident over President Biden’s Build Back Better reconciliation plan with Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, being a rare defection from his party.

Party differences in state legislative voting also often occur. In Mississippi, Democrats historically have been more willing to back revenue measures for education at all levels than have Republicans. Democrats have also backed affirmative action and other race issues more than Republicans. Republicans are more conservative on crime measures, though white Democrats historically would often break party ranks with black Democrats on crime issue. Very few ratings of Mississippi state legislators exist, but a business group does rate state legislators, with Republicans tending to receive higher pro-business scores than the Democrats (see their website at: https://www.bipec.org/reportcards/2021/?c=senate).

Chief executives also have the ability to organize part of the executive branch of government through their appointment power, though the upper chamber of legislatures must confirm many of their appointments. The President nominates cabinet positions subject to Senate confirmation. Governors of many states, including Mississippi, lack the ability to appoint many key positions, as they are elected statewide. Chief executives often select appointees from the ideologically dominant wing of their party, as did Reagan and George W. Bush. Chief executives can broaden their appointments to be more inclusive, as seen with George W. Bush choosing dovish African American Colin Powell as Secretary of State, and Governor Barbour reappointing an African American to lead Corrections and initially appointing an African American to lead Medicaid. President Obama was praised for his inclusive appointments, keeping the Bush-appointed Defense Secretary (Robert Gates) and appointing a "hard-liner" as Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton). Recent Presidents Trump and Biden have not appointed members of the other party to important executive branch positions, however (though Trump joked that his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner were New York Democrats).

Chief executives do not always behave in a very partisan manner. Reagan was the most ideologically consistent President, being very conservative. Democrat Carter pioneered deregulation of many industries. Clinton after flirting with gays in the military and "socialized" medicine, backed welfare reform, more police on the streets, and a balanced budget. Republicans George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush presided over massive deficits, as both refused to cut domestic spending. George W. Bush even spent more on education and health, while cutting taxes; he also pioneered an ambitious anti-AIDS program in Africa.

The U.S. Supreme Court and state courts are the least partisan bodies. At the federal level, judges are appointed by the President, but confirmation by the Senate prevents very ideological judges, and lifetime appointments gives them considerable independence. Federal judges appointed by Democrats are nevertheless more liberal in their decisions than are judges appointed by Republicans, and vice versa. The 2000 Florida election dispute decision was especially led by Supreme Court judges appointed by Republican Presidents. These ideological differences in the decisions of Supreme Court justices due to the party of the President have become more evident in recent decades, as Presidents have more fully researched the voting history of lower-court justices. By 1987 President Reagan's appointments of conservatives Scalia, O'Connor, and Kennedy tilted the court to the right, as the court permitted the execution of minors and the mentally retarded, and permitted some restrictions on abortions. By the 1990s President Clinton's appointments of liberals Ginsberg and Breyer tilted the court to the left, as the court outlawed the execution of minors and the mentally retarded, struck down some abortion restrictions, defended the 1st amendment establishment of religion clause, and protected the right of gays to have sex. By the second term of the George W. Bush presidency, after he had appointed conservatives Roberts and Alito, the court tilted back to the right, as it upheld lethal injection, upheld a Congressional partial birth abortion ban, struck down a reverse discrimination practice, and upheld gun ownership rights in the nation's capital. Two of Obama's appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, replacing moderates moved the court back to the center after 2010, as the court outlawed executing the mentally retarded, outlawed life without parole for minors, upheld Obamacare, and struck down the part of the federal anti-gay rights law that barred federal benefits to same-sex marriages; the court nevertheless upheld 1st amendment rights, permitting companies whose owners had religious objections to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage under Obamacare, permitted town boards to start meetings with prayers, and permitted individuals to ignore overall aggregate limitations on their campaign donations to federal candidates. (You can view how each modern U.S. Supreme Court justice has voted on important cases by going to my website for the Honors Government class.

Nominations for the U.S. Supreme Court became especially divisive during the Trump presidency. The Republican-controlled Senate in Obama last year in office refused to even consider Obama's nomination of Merick Garland to the Court, and Trump campaigned promising to only nominate judges who were approved by a conservative legal interest group. When Trump had to fill his second of ultimately three vacancies, the Court had 4 judges appointed by Republican Presidents, and 4 judges appointed by Democratic Presidents. On key issues that I studied, each of those Republican appointed judges had voted in a conservative direction at least 90% of the time. Each of the Democratic appointed judges had voted in a liberal direction at least 92% of the time. So, a lot of political observers viewed Kavanaugh (and probably anyone appointed by Republican Trump) as the deciding vote on many important cases. In Kavanaugh’s first two years as a judge, he appeared as a more neutral judge, but with the addition of Amy Coney Barrett to the court, the 2022 term of the Court saw 5 of the 6 major court cases decided in a conservative direction with the 3 liberal judges appointed by Democratic Presidents losing on all 5. The most recent 2023 court term saw a more evenly-divided court with conservatives winning 3 major cases and liberals 2; the court struck down affirmative action in college admissions, permitted a website business to not serve gays because of her free speech rights and religious beliefs, and struck down Biden's effort to repudiate billions in college student loans without Congressional approval; however, the court also prevented a partisan gerrymander by a GOP-controlled legislature that sought to avoid the state court system, and required a state to redraw its U.S. House district lines to maximize the election of blacks. Liberals won on 2 cases because Roberts and Kavanaugh voted with them (as did Barrett on 1 case). Obviously, even in the federal courts, partisanship and ideology plays an important role.