Skip to main content

Full text of "FOCUS Vol. 15 No. 93"

See other formats


MIDWEST 


Support score 

Reagan commands strong support 
from Missouri, Illinois Delegations 

PAC, New Right funds offset recession 

GOP counts on buying 9 82 votes 

Three incumbents eliminated after redistricting 

Illino is: a primary report 

Danforth flushes out 11 Democratic contenders 

Missou ri: a primary report 

Checking up on Missouri and Illinois Congressmen 

104 Congressional votes 
for 1981 and 1982 


Editorials on nuclear freeze, prison reform, and Democratic Party reforms 


out 

focus 


Readers are invited to submit 
items for publication , 
indicating whether 
the sender can be identified . 
Items must be fully documented 
and not require any comment. 



HOT UNDER THE COLLAR Benedictine Sister Ruth Heaney was cited by 

President Reagan as an example of volunteer- 
ism at work. But the good Sister, who manages Agape House, a Jefferson City 
shelter for prisoner’s families, is more angry than grateful for the president’s 
praise. “Using this case of volunteerism to justify budget cuts that affect the 
poor, the disadvantaged, gives me a hollow feeling,” says Heaney, adding, “I’m 
hot under the collar about being used.” St Lou i s Review, April 28, 1982 


INJURY IS MORAL The Moral Majority man in Indiana, Rev. Greg Dixon, 
wants parents to be exempt from that state’s child 
abuse laws. Parents, Dixon argues, “own” their children, and punishment with- 
out injury isn t punishment. San Francisco Bay Guardian (April 28, 1982) 


THE GOODNESS OF MISSILES The McDonnell-Douglas Corporation is tired 

of criticism of its Cruise missile, so it decided 
to promote the goodness and usefulness of the weapon. Ads in Time and News- 
week proclaim the “missile for all seasons.” Copy reminiscent of post office slo- 
gans, tell the reader “neither snow nor rain, no, nor leaves, nor gloom of night 
stays cruise missiles from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.” 


STATE TAXES UP Tax cuts under the Reagan administration turn out to be 
more fiction than fact. What is saved in federal taxes is 
being collected in ever-increasing taxes by the states. The National Conference 
of State Legislatures announced that 30 states were working under deficit 
scenarios for fiscal year 1982. NCSL reports that during their 1982 sessions, 8 
states proposed raising their personal income tax, 1 1 looked at raising corporate 
taxation, 14 proposed increasing the sales tax, 19 considered changing the 
severance tax, 15 proposed raising their motor fuels excise tax, 11 proposed an 
increase in their alcoholic beverage excise tax, and 17 considered raising their 
tobacco excise tax. 


WATCH THAT PTA MEMBER ; ‘The neighbor you might meet at a PTA meet- 
ing could be a foreign diplomat who lives 
down the block,” warns a Counterintelligence Awareness Briefing recently cir- 
culated to employees at McDonnell-Douglas Corp. of St. Louis. Caution must be 
exercised towards “glad-handling strangers,” hostile intelligence collectors who 
“use a honeyed, seemingly guileless approach,” and “wolves in sheep’s cloth- 
ing” who “exploit the American belief in freedom of speech and the free ex- 
change of information.” 

EAT TOBACCO Protein extracted from the tobacco leaf may be commercially 
available within five years. Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), 
whose state is heavily dependent on tobacco revenue, is selling the concept to 
his congressional colleagues. “With widespread use of tobacco proteins in con- 
junction with other food sources, we can literally eradicate hunger in the 
world.” Mother Jones (1982) 


IS AMERICA BROKE? America cannot afford the cost of simply maintaining 
its vast network of public works: highways, bridges, 
prisons, water and sewage systems, mass transit, railroads, and even streets, 
reports a study prepared by the Council of State Planning Agencies (400 N. 
Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001, $9.95). 


NEED A WIFE? For ten dollars, a Hawaiian entrepreneur will mail over 300 
sample photos and descriptions of Oriental ladies according 
to an ad in The Nation magazine. The ladies are advertised as “faithful, affec- 
tionate, and home-loving” and looking for sincere and loving husbands. 


FAMILY CONTRIBUTIONS The average American family will send $19,600 to 

the Pentagon between 1981 and 1985, according 
to the Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy, which keeps tap on the 
average tax costs per family. 



Page Two 


FOCUS VMidwest 





MIDWEST 


FOCUS (ISSN: 0015-508X) Volume 15, Number 
92. Second class postage paid at St. Louis, Mo. 
Published bimonthly by FOCUS/Midwest Pub- 
lishing Co., Inc. Subscription rates: $8/6 issues 
(one year); $14/12 issues (two years); $19.50/18 
issues (three years); $29/30 issues (five years); 
$100 lifetime. Foreign $4.50 per year extra. All 
back issues are available. Allow one month for 
address changes. Advertising rates upon re- 
quest. Enclose stamped, self-addressed envel- 
ope with manuscript. June. 1982. Copyright © 
1982 by FOCUS/Midwest Publishing Co.. Inc. 
No portion of this magazine may be repro- 
duced in any form without the express permis- 
sion of the publisher. Please mail subscrip- 
tions, manuscripts, and Post Office Form 3579 
to FOCUS/Midwest, 8606 Olive Blvd. St. Louis, 
Mo. 63132. 

FOCUS/Midwest is indexed by the Public Af- 
fairs Information Service, Inc. (PAIS), the Amer- 
ican Bibliographical Center, the Annual 
Bibliography of English Language and 
Literature (Leeds, England), and the Index of 
American Periodical Verse, and abstracted and 
indexed in Historical Abstracts and America: 
History and Life. 

Editor and Publisher/Charles L. Klotzer 
Assistant Editor/Roland Klose 
Poetry Editor/Dan Jaffe 
Art Director/Daniel Pearlmutter 
Circulation Manager/George Palmer 

Production/Barbara Roche, Elizabeth Rudy, 
Stacey Scholle, Linda Tate, Irene Westbrook 

EDITORIAL ADVISORS 
(Editorial Advisors are not responsible for 
the editorial policy of FOCUS/Midwest.) Irving 
Achtenberg, Douglas B. Anderson, Irl B. Baris, 
Eugene L. Baum, Lucille H. Bluford, H. T. 
Blumenthal, Leo Bohanon, Eugene Buder, 
David L. Colton, Leon M. Despres, Pierre de 
Vise, Irving Dilliard, Russell C. Doll, Elmer 
Gertz, David M. Grant, Leonard Hall. Harold 
Hartogensis, Robert J. Havighurst, Jack A. 
Kirkland, Herman Kogan, Jr., Curtis D. 
MacDougall, J- Norman McDonough, Ralph 
Mansfield, Abner J. Mikva, Florence Moog, 
Harry T. Moore, Constance Osgood. Alexander 
Polikoff. James D. H. Reefer. Don Rose. 
Anthony Scariano, Sherwin A. Swartz. John M. 
Swomley, Jr., Tyler Thompson. 


OUT OF FOCUS 2 

EDITORIALS/ A new mass movement; American tragedy (cont.) 
Democrats abandon reforms 4 

20 YEARS OF PUBLISHING/Bij Charles L. Klotzer 6 

MISSOURI 

New Missouri districts 7 

A primary report 8 

ILLINOIS 

New Illinois Districts 11 

A primary report 12 

Daley machine dumps Fary IAlanEhrenha.lt 14 

Primary returns 20 

1981 record unequaled in 25 years 

CONGRESSIONAL CONSERVATIVE COALITION 

SWAMPS NORTHERN DEMOCRATS 22 

PAC, New Right funds offset recession 

GOP COUNTS ON BUYING ’82 VOTES 23 

Support Score 

REAGAN COMMANDS STRONG SUPPORT FROM 
MISSOURI, ILLINOIS DELEGATIONS IN 1981 24 

New highs in 1981 

FIGHT OVER ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS 

PUSHES UP ATTENDANCE 25 

Spent $13.3 million 

CONSERVATIVE GROUPS RAISE FOUR TIMES 

AS MUCH AS LIBERALS FOR 1982 ELECTION 25 

VOTING RECORDS 

40 U.S. Senate and 20 U.S. House votes cast 

during the First Session 1982 26 

Key U.S. Senate and U.S. House votes during 1981 29 


= = = = = = = = 1 

To: FOCUS/MIDWEST 8606 Olive Blvd. 

St. Louis, Mo. 63132 

Please enter my subscription for: „ 

Please enter a one-year gift sub- 

( ) 1 Yr. (6 Issues) S8 scription at the reduced rate of 

( ) 2 Yrs. (12 Issues) S14 $7.50 

( ) 3 Yrs. (18 issues) $19.50 Name: 

( ) 5 Yrs. (30 issues) $29 Address: 

Check enclosed □ Bill Me City/State/Zip: 

Nau.e 

Address 

I 

City State Zip I 


Occupation 



Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Three 





EDITORIALS 



A new mass movement 

A new American mass movement is in 
the making. It is likely to be even more 
profound than public revulsion against 
the Vietnam war. Irrespective of political 
dispositions, Americans are being caught 
up in ever-increasing numbers by the 
drive to stop the nuclear arms race. 

The National Nuclear Weapons Freeze 
Campaign is growing. Its acceptance 
rests on the sanity of its message: The 
U.S. and the U.S.S.R. should “adopt a 
mutual freeze on the testing, production, 
and deployment of nuclear weapons” and 
nuclear delivery systems. 

The “freeze” has been endorsed by 69 
city governments, 22 county govern- 
ments, and 11 state houses. The National 
Clearinghouse for the nuclear freeze 
movement, headquartered in St. Louis, 
reports that supportive organizations are 
active in 279 congressional districts, with 
upwards of 20,000 volunteers. 

Indeed, the “freeze” movement is on its 
way to winning the heart and mind of 
mainstream America. It has been en- 
dorsed by 60 national and international 
organizations. The campaign displays a 
professionalism that for once approaches 
the effectiveness of the messages from 
the military and industrial complex. A na- 
tional advertising campaign pushes the 
central message: “With the freeze, the 
United States and Russia would stop 
making nuclear weapons. Period.” 

In spite of growing acceptance and or- 
ganizational sophistication, the time will 
come when it also will have to address the 
fears of all those who depend on a war-like 
economy. 

The campaign must convince the Amer- 
ican worker and industrialist that peace 
can be won, that peace is a viable alterna- 
tive, and that peace will produce more 
jobs than military expenditures. Numer- 
ous studies have shown that every dollar 
spent on non-productive military hard- 
ware actually diminishes jobs. 

During the infancy of the environmen- 
tal movement, it also had to face the fear 
of a shrinking job market caused by strict 
regulations. Today the environmental in- 
dustry is itself big business. The millions 
spent on conserving the environment 
have created thousands of jobs. 

The public must be educated that a 
freeze cannot be enacted without econom- 
ic pain. Anyone who thinks that a sudden 
groundswell of consciousness-raising will 
help solve these problems is mistaken. 



In this issue 

The strength of the Reagan adminis- 
tration is measurable in the Support 
Congress gave to the president’s key 
programs of 1981. Less discernable is 
the waning support Congress is extend- 
ing Reagan’s programs in 1982. The del- 
egations of Missouri and Illinois, with 
some notable exceptions, have rallied be- 
hind the new conservatism, and the vot- 
ing charts outline the depth of their 
retrenchment. 

Will the conservative coalition main- 
tain or increase its grip on Washington? 
FOCUS IMidwest provides some clues 
with a look at conservative fundraising 
and voting strategies. 

No matter how big their financial war 
chest, the Republicans face the glum 
prospect of a 1982 election with unfavor- 
able, court-ordered redistricting plans in 
Illinois and Missouri. FOCUS/ Midwest 
examines redistricting , the primary re- 
sults in Illinois, and the coming primary 
in Missouri. From it all, our readers will 
be able to make some projections for the 
November elections. 


Public awareness, though, is a prerequi- 
site to tackling any economic dislocation. 

To freeze the production of nuclear 
weapons must be a priority. Should the 
campaign be successful, and that possibil- 
ity does exist, it must recognize that the 
issue of survival is not limited to the 
nuclear threat. After all, famine through- 
out the world kills more innocents per 
year than all the nuclear weapons explod- 
ed so far. The wealth liberated by a freeze 
will open up and impose new respon- 
sibilities on America. 


American Tragedy (cont.) 

FOCVSIMidwest applauds the filing of 
a class-action complaint by a group of 
prison inmates to bar officials from 
overcrowding the Missouri Eastern Cor- 
rectional Facility at Pacific. 

Most American prisons are over- 
crowded, antiquated and compound the 
problem of crime rather than solve it. In 
two recent issues (Nos. 90 and 91), 
FOCVSIMidwest detailed at length both 
the indecencies of current institutions 
and the isolated programs which offer a 
potential of rehabilitation. The new facili- 
ty at Pacific is described by Missouri offi- 



Page Four 


FOCUS /Midwest 





EDITORIALS 



cials as “innovative and responsive,” 
and, indeed, it is. But as we also noted, 
“the lofty goals depend on one assump- 
tion: that it will not become overcrowded.” 

Now prison cells designed for one occu- 
pant are being modified so that the prison 
can accomodate an additional 128 prison- 
ers. The pressure is created by over 6,000 
prisoners in 10 correctional institutions— 
a system that was designed to hold only 
half its present population. Admittedly, 
the system is rotten and the conditions 
under which thousands of prisoners must 
live offends “the modern conscience” as 
U.S. District Judge Elmo B. Harper 
ruled. But one of the key elements of a re- 
habilitative program is a degree of priva- 
cy, individual cells, and attention. 

Reducing Missouri Eastern to another 
institution which simply herds people un- 
dercuts the promise of hope and change in 
the life of the inmates. 


Democrats abandon reform 

Last March, the Democratic National 
Committee (DNC) overwhelmingly 
adopted a package of rule changes de- 
signed to increase the power of party reg- 
ulars and give the quadrennial convention 
more leeway to act on its own. Taken to- 
gether, the changes amount to a slap in 
the face to those who believe in greater 
representative government. 

The new rules reserve 14 percent of 
delegate seats for Democrats who hold 
public office or party positions. These 
“superdelegates” will go to the conven- 
tion uncommitted. The DNC also voted to 
jettison the rule that required delegates 
to vote on the first ballot for the candi- 
date they had been elected to support. 
This means, in effect, that all the dele- 
gates to the 1984 convention will be un- 
committed. 

There's more. According to rules man- 
dated by the party in 1980, states were 
obliged to allocate delegates to presiden- 
tial candidates on the basis of proportional 
representation. That is, a candidate re- 
ceived a number of delegates correspond- 
ing to the percentage of a state's primary 
or caucus votes cast for him. 

From now on, states will have the op- 
tion of switching to one of two additional 
ways of choosing delegates: 

• a “winner-take-more” system in 
which a candidate receives the num- 
ber of delegates proportional to the 



number of votes cast for him, but the 
candidate with the most votes state- 
wide gets one extra delegate per dis- 
trict; or, 

• a “loophole” system in which the 
candidate who receives the most 
votes in a district gets all that dis- 
trict’s delegates. 

With the possibility to win large 
clumps of delegates early in the primary 
season, a candidate could have the nomi- 
nation locked up well before the conven- 
tion. On the other hand, a candidate could 
win large blocs of delegates towards the 
end of the season and generate enough 
momentum to sweep the nomination at 
the convention. 

As candidates are attracted to states 
with the possibility of winning delegate 
blocs, they drag the national news media 
in their wake . States will be tempted, 
therefore, to adopt a loophole primary to 
generate some free national publicity. 

This is also seen in states’ propensity 
for scheduling primaries early in the pri- 
mary season when attention is particular- 
ly keen. In 1980, 36 percent of Democrat- 
ic primaries were held before mid-April, 
as opposed to 12 percent in 1968. 

The Democratic party rules changes 
will reinforce the tendency of the national 
press to focus on the contest, the horse 
race, rather than the issues. And releas- 
ing the delegates from their obligation to 
vote on the first ballot for the candidate 
they were elected to support as well as the 
addition of the uncommitted 44 superdele- 
gates” will make for a more unpredictable 
convention and, possibly, a more enter- 
taining one. The rule changes will result 
in better theater but poor representative 
government. 

In support of the changes, a case can be 
made that they will strengthen party 
structure and cohesion, both worthwhile 
goals. Currently, party leaders in Con- 
gress and even on the local level may not 
be involved in the national convention. 
The outcome is a truncated party, say 
some Congressmen, that even in success 
can rarely implement party platform into 
public policy. 

Even if we credit these arguments with 
some validity, Focus/Midwest tends to 
agree with Carrin Patman, member of the 
Texas Democratic executive committee, 
who commented, “Proportional represen- 
tation assures a voice for everyone. If you 
take it away, all the rest of openness and 
fair play are ornaments without a Christ- 
mas tree.” 



Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Five 





20 YEARS OF PUBLISHING 


After a two-year gestation period, FOCUS /Midwest 
xj L saw the light of day in June of 1962. The lifespan 
of investigative and analytical journals rarely are mea- 
sured in terms of decades, especially, if operated at a 
loss. Thus, we should and probably can take some sat- 
isfaction in longevity. But for publications, long life is 
not its own reward. 

The occasion demands more: a review and a projec- 
tion. Habitually and somewhat irrationally, we are 
committed to looking forward first. After all, only cyn- 
ics believe you can do as little about the future as about 
the past. 

What will the morrow bring? 

Times change. Should we? Do we do justice to such a 
huge area (and it is huge) as Illinois and Missouri, our 
primary focus? The frustrating limitations of energy 
and time as well as the perpetual battle with circula- 
tion and distribution have forced us to abort many 
projects and even some of our dreams. Is it time to 
wake up? Or are we awake and is nearly everybody else 
asleep? 

Shall we continue as we are? Shall we drop the “Mid- 
west” and concentrate more on the national scene? 
Shall we replace the “Midwest” with “St. Louis” and 
concern ourselves with only one community? Shall we 
continue the present potpourri of political-social-cultur- 
al fare or drop one or two of these elements? 

You will find no survey form or return envelope en- 
closed, but we invite your comments and your recom- 
mendations. Your responses will be carefully studied. 

D are we ask, what does it all amount to? How effec- 
tive has FOCUS I Midwest been in alerting its 
readers to the realities in our society? We must assume 
that if our readers had not valued what was being pub- 
lished, they would have stopped reading. Apparently, 
FOCUS I Midwest offers information and a perspective 
not available from other sources. 

How effective has FOCUS I Midwest been in chang- 
ing the course of events? This is a fair question. While 
many magazines value the elegant phrase and chiseled 
word picture, FOCUS ! Midwest was also determined to 
deal with the whole spectrum of social and political 
forces which shape the life we lead or are forced to lead. 

Directly, or more often indirectly, FOCUS /Midwest 
did indeed participate in shaping laws and institutions 
within its circumscribed area of circulation. For exam- 
ple, early in the sixties we worked with Irving Achten- 
berg of Kansas City on articles exposing the unequal 
apportionment of legislative districts (Remember: 
3,936 equalled 53,015?). As a result of this involve- 
ment, Achtenberg initiated court action which— after 
joining with Paul Preisler of St. Louis — resulted in 
changes in how America elects its public officials, both 
state and national. One (wo)man one vote became a re- 
ality. 

On a less imposing scale, several editorial barbs 
moved the heads of Washington and St. Louis Univer- 
sities to pressure the University Club of St. Louis— an 
academic hangout — to remove its whites-only policy. 
(Another campaign on the admission policies of the 
Missouri Athletic Club was less effective and caused 
President Harry Truman to comment that, after all, it 
was a private club.) 


In the mid-sixties, FOCUS l Midwest exposed the con 
job which Motorola perpetrated on the then- fledgling 
Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission. The 
falsehoods and half-truths detailed were so incriminat- 
ing that all available issues of FOCUS ! Midwest in the 
Chicago area were bought up (by Motorola, we think)— 
to the delight of Mike Roy ko whose follow-up caused 
another buying spree. 

As we leaf through the back copies, we find more, 
much more. Poking fun at the Veiled Prophet ball . . . 
memorial issues for Kennedy and Stevenson . . . warn- 
ing of a powder-keg mood at Lincoln University which 
erupted barely a month later . . . reminiscing about a 
suspect vote in the 1930s without which the St. Louis 
Gateway Arch could not have been built . . . revealing 
the nefarious practices of the Chicago police which 
were tamed only after a federal court decision last year 
. . the involvement of the German consul of Chicago in 
the 1964 Goldwater election . . . publishing world press 
clippings on the tumultous 1968 Democratic conven- 
tion . . . delighting voters with an “unvarnished voter's 
guide” after which Missouri and Illinois General As- 
semblies were renamed “the naked legislatures” ... re- 
vealing confrontation politics in Cairo, Illinois, which 
inspired a similar report by the U.S. Civil Right Com- 
mission . . . special issues on women, housing, the arts, 
education, prisons, grassroots organizing, neighbor- 
hood power . . . intensive studies of the workings of the 
Missouri and Illinois Arts Councils . . . exposing the 
corporate payola practiced by 41 major Illinois and 

• • • indeed - fo C us/m«w 

(Robert F n r K ° r Water ^te's “Deep Throat” 
f in i I ennett ) which became part of the media 

t° ° course without credit, see Newsweek , 

June 14). 

T^To recital is complete without a mention of the edi- 
f rS aiK * linkers who have contributed 

f«n?Swi J/ ldu '!f 1 From Arthur Goldberg in the first 
. . p'^i; 3 '' 103 Williams, whose last poem ap- 

EYVntcmLr OCUS/M'durest. They are just too many. 

, . Ub/ Midwest is not the project of a few. The origi- 
na investors, the editorial advisors, writers and con- 
tributors, personal and business friends, editors and 
co-workers and, most important, the patience of my 
family have created this magazine. 

As a footnote it should be mentioned that FOCUS/ 
Midwest has been accused of leading a double life. 
Largely concerned with societal problems, it has faith- 
fully published poems in almost every issue by some of 
the best writers not only in the Midwest but in the 
country. In the rarified air which poets breathe, 
FOCUS /Midwest enjoys its own reputation. As an ad- 
vocate of facts and figures, FOCUS /Midwest published 
indices of fallout in its early years and then and today 
regularly reports on the voting records and political be- 
havior of area legislators. 

On balance, and though the final product will never 
match the intention, we can point to a past of limited 
accomplishments and to a future of further good inten- 
tions. 

Your advice, we hope, will point the way. 

Charles L. Klotzer 


Page Six 


FOCUS /Midwest 







New Missouri Districts 

(Effective 1982 congressional elections) 


SCOUANO 


NOOAWA1 


MERC£R 


SCMUY 


SULUVAN 




LCWtS 


OAVltSS 


MACON 


JVINGSTON 


ST. JOSEPH 


SHCLBY 


CALDWELL 


aiNTON 


CHARITON 


RAILS 


Randolph 


Platte 


KANSAS 

Mcity 


SAL INC 


audrain 


LAf AYETIC 


MONT - 

gomcry 


INDEPENDENCE 


ST.CHARLES 


COLUMBIA 


ST. LOUIS 


MONITEAU 


BENTON 


JEFFERSONSCITY 


BATtS 


MAR1CS 


>ST£ ^ 

'CCNtVlCVt 


V£ RNON 


DALLAS 


ccoarI 


l ACL cot 


TEXAS 


CAPE GIRARDEAU 


wriGmt 


GREENE 


7 • SPRINGFIELD 

_ 1_T_ I L 


JASPER 


LAWRENCE 


SCOTT 


f OPLIN 


SIOOOARO 


CARTER 


CHRISTIAN 


OOUGCAS 


MlSSiS 

SiPPi 


HOWtll 


NEWTON 


STON£ 


butler 


OREGON 


OZARK 


McOONALO 


Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Seven 




A PRIMARY REPORT 


I 


MISSOURI 

Redistricting and the recession 

are key factors in boosting 

the number of primary candidates 




Incumbent. John C. Danforth (R.), 
45, of Flat, will seek re-election. He 
was elected to a first term in 1976 
with 56.9 percent of the vote. 

Democrats. Tom Ryan, 31, of St. 
Louis, past co-director of the Mis- 
souri Public Interest Research 
Group; State Sen. Harriett Woods, 
54, of University City; Thomas Zych, 
42, of St. Louis, president of the St. 
Louis Board of Aldermen; Burleigh 
Arnold, Jefferson City lawyer- 
banker; Larry D. Hurt, 39, Poplar 
Bluff, president of the clients council 
of Southeast Missouri Legal Services; 
Herb Fillmore, 55, of Independence, 
minister; Judith L. Soignet, 42, Web- 
ster Groves, insurance broker; Lee C. 
Sutton, 76, of Columbia, former mem- 
ber of Missouri house; Sidney L. Phil- 
lips, 65, of Sumner, retired contrac- 
tor; Theodis Brown, 32, of St. Louis, 
former St. Louis police officer; Betty 
Jane Jackson, 56, of Steele, member 
of Delta C-7 School Board in Pemis- 
cot County. 

Republicans. Vernon Riehl, 71, 
Chesterfield, retired administrative 
law judge and former 17th Ward al- 
derman from St. Louis (1945-49); 
Gregory Hansman, 53, University Ci- 
ty, candidate for GOP Senate nomi- 
nation in 1974, 1976, and 1980; Mel 
Hancock, 52, Springfield, founder of 
Taxpayers Survival Association. 

Ryan is running a vigorous, issue- 
oriented campaign, trying to pull to- 
gether the traditional Democratic 
coalition of labor, minorities and rural 
conservatives with a philosophy he 
calls “not anti-business, but pro- 
people.” Party officials praise Ryan’s 
effort, but they are convinced that his 


background with MOPIRG a con- 
sumer advocacy group affiliated w 
Ralph Nader, will be less help than 

hindrance. , c, 

Woods represents a libera I ■ 
Louis County district in th £ 
ture and has worked to imp ^consum- 
ing home conditions, pus snorted 
er protection measures and supported 
the Equal Right Amendment. 

Zych spent six y^ocifywide^lec- 
ture, then won the 1980 ' c ? g g op . 
tion for Board presiden • derate on 
ponent of abortion, he is modera 

prominent Jefferson City la y 
banker and Democratic national <0 

mitt eeman, Arnold v/as the concen- 
sus" candidate of party leaders and 
fundraisers. While Arnold is well 
known by the Democratic leadership, 
he suffers a significant lack of name 
recognition unlike, for example, State 
Sen. Woods. 

Whoever wins the Democratic nom- 
ination will be a long shot to defeat 
Danforth, who has good ties with a 


broad spectrum of groups in the 
state, from the St. Louis business 
community, which usually finance 
GOP statewide candidates, to Demo- 
cratic union officials. Danforth scored 
a major coup last summer when 30 
labor leaders from the St. Louis ar 
endorsed his re-election candidacy b^ 
cause he opposed right-to-work laws 
Lately, some of these leaders ha 
withdrawn their endorsement of r> 6 
forth and are supporting Democrats' 
Republicans who dislike Danfort' 
centrist politics searched last year f nl 

/ * $ Springfield is mentioned 

OtttiBfsiorifftly. In 1980, Hancock suc- 
cessfully pushed an amendment lim- 
iting state spending. Neither Han- 
cock, who has filed for the Republican 
nomination, nor the two other Repub- 
lican candidates, have any prospects 
of unseating Danforth. 

Danforth raised more than 
$500,000 in 1981 and is campaigning 
actively to avoid creating the impres- 
sion that he is overconfident. 



Harriett Woods 


Page Eight 


John C. Danforth 


Burleigh Arnold 

FOCUS/Midu>es£ 




mm mmrmcY^ gompoumd mmiE mam 


HOUSE 


Missouri’s redistricting plan, 
drawn by a three-judge federal panel, 
was announced Dec. 28 and success- 
fully withstood court challenges. 

The remap dismembers Rep. Wen- 
dell Bailey’s 8th District and cuts off 
Rep. Bill Emerson’s home from the 
rest of his southeast Missouri consti- 
tuency. Democratic Rep. William 
Clay, whose St. Louis-based 1st Dis- 
trict lost more than one-fourth of its 
population during the last decade, 
receives new territory to compensate 
for the decline. Clay was able to stave 
off efforts to eliminate his constitu- 
ency to make the required statewide 
reduction from 10 districts to nine. 
The federal judges acted after the 
state Legislature failed to produce a 
new district map in two attempts dur- 
ing 1981— once during the regular 
session and again in a special redis- 
tricting session that adjourned Dec. 
17. 

1 (North St. Louis , northeast St 
Louis County) 

The redrawn 1st is divided nearly 
evenly between white and black resi- 
dents. Clay, Missouri’s only black 
congressman, faces serious opposi- 
tion from State Sen. Allan G. Muel- 
ler, of St. Louis. 

Clay is supported by most blacks 
and liberal whites. 

Mueller launched his candidacy ear- 
ly in order to scare away competition 
and get a one-on-one match-up with 
the incumbent. He was influenced to 
run in part by state legislative reap- 
portionment, which eliminated his St. 
Louis senate district. 

Mueller has served in the legisla- 
ture more than a decade, compiling a 
generally liberal record that could ap- 
peal to voters who like Clay’s pro- 
labor stand but are uncomfortable 
with his penchant for confrontation. 

If re-elected, Clay will become the 
dean of the Missouri Congressional 
districts. Clay’s activist stance on 
many national issues is expected to 
generate strong support among his 
supporters. 

Other candidates for the Democrat- 
ic nomination are Felix J. Panlasigui 
of St. Louis, Elsa Debra Hill of St. 
Louis and Thomas R. Colyer of St. 
Louis. 

Although the primary promises to 
be hotly contested, the 1st District is 
the most strongly Democratic in Mis- 


souri, favoring the party nominee in 
the general election. Republican can- 
didates who are vying for the chance 
to represent a weak party organiza- 
tion are Jonathon M. Harris, Hugh V. 
Murray, William E. White, and Nor- 
bert D. Collins. White, who owns a 
local radio station, has run against 
Clay several times as the Republican 
standard-bearer. 

2 (St. Louis County— southeast St. 
Charles County) 

Democratic incumbent Robert 
Young picked up 70,000 constituents 
when part of St. Charles County was 
added to the remapped 2nd District. 
Young lost some of his strongest sup- 
port when the St. Ferdinand Town- 
ship was included in the remapped 
1st District. Although that township 
was staunchly Democratic, it is also 
vocal in its opposition to busing- 
making it less a boon to Clay than it 
was to Young. 

Young is being challenged by Ed- 
ward Phelan Roche in the Democratic 
primary. Only one candidate has filed 
for the Republican nomination. He is 
Harold Dielmann, mayor of St. Ann. 

^ (South St. Louis, St. Louis Coun- 
3 ty, Jefferson County) 

The addition of Democratic Jeffer- 
son County in the redistricting vir- 
tually assures incumbent Democratic 
Richard A. Gephardt of reelection. A 
relative newcomer to Congress, Gep- 
hardt has quickly risen in stature in 
the Democratic Party. He is running 
alone in the Democratic party. Three 
candidates are running for the Re- 
publican nomation: Roy Amelung, 
Richard Foristel and Doris M. Bass 
Landfather. 

jm (West Central— Jefferson City) 

^«P Redistricting has set up a battle 


between two incumbents: Democrat 
Ike Skelton of the 4th District and 
Republican Rep. Wendell Bailey, 
whose old 8th was cut up and dis- 
tributed among four districts. 

Bailey decided to run in the 4th 
because one-third of his current con- 
stituents are included in Skelton’s re- 
drawn territory. The district consists 
primarily of farms and small towns 
with some Kansas City suburbs in its 
northwestern corner. 

Freshman Bailey, 41, will have an 
uphill fight for political survival. In 
his 1980 campaign, he offered himself 
as the conservative alternative to a 
moderate Democrat, but Skelton, 50, 
votes a conservative line in Congress 
and is far less vulnerable to a chal- 
lenge from the right. 

The Republican should run well in 
the seven counties that come into the 
4th from his old 8th District. Skelton 
will be favored in the Jackson County 
portion of the district, which lies east 
of Kansas City. The general election 
will be won and lost in the 12 mostly 
rural counties southeast of Kansas 
City that remain in the district. 
Bailey showed considerable rural 
strength in his 1980 campaign, but 
Skelton, a small-town lawyer before 
his election to the House, has careful- 
ly cultivated this constituency over 
three terms in office. 

Skelton is running unopposed in 
the Democratic primary. Bailey faces 
one challenger. He is Dale L. Parvin 
of Eldon. 

« (Kansas City and eastern suburbs) 
5 During the 17 -term reign of Dem- 
ocratic Rep. Richard Bolling, most 
elections in the 5th were dull affairs. 
With Bolling’s retirement, an- 
nounced last August, pent-up politi- 
cal energy is being released. 

Candidates to file in the Democrat- 





William Clay 


Bill Emerson 


Wendell Bailey 

Page Nine 


Volume 15, Number 92 


15 FILE FOR BOLLING’S SEAT 


ic party are John Carnes, a city coun- 
cilman in Independence, lawyer 
James Kenworthy, Andrew Me- 
Canse, a Kansas City surgeon and 
former Jackson County coroner, state 
Rep. Jack Campbell, who could draw 
business support, and state Rep. 
Alan Wheat, who could draw upon 
the support of black voters who 
make up about one fourth of the 5th. 
Other candidates vying for the Demo- 
cratic nomination are John Master- 
man of Kansas City, John Price of 
Kansas City, and William C. Paxton 
of Independence. 

Republican contenders include 
state Rep. Mike Ethington of In- 
dependence, Barry Seward, a member 
of the Raytown Board of Alderman, 
Emmet Roach of Kansas City, Stella 
Sollars of Kansas City, Joanne M. 
Collins of Kansas City, John A. 
Sharp of Kansas City, and Jim Lyd- 
don, of Kansas City. 

While redistricting created a better 
balance between the parties by add- 
ing Independence and other suburbs 
east of the city, the district is still 
predominately urban and likely to re- 
main in the Democratic camp. 


6 (Northwestern Missouri) 

Incumbent Republican Tom 
Coleman is being challenged by 
Robert L. Buck. Candidates vying for 
the Democratic nomination are Jim 
Russell, Rex S. Taylor, David C. 
Christian, and J. Herbert Francisco. 

Remapping left Coleman’s district 
virtually intact. A conservative 
Reagan supporter, he is not likely to 
suffer any serious repercussions due 
to redistricting. 

7 (Southwestern Missouri) 

The 7th District, held by Repub- 
lian Gene Taylor, lost little with re- 
districting, only two counties. Taylor 
faces no Republican challengers for 
his seat. 

Democrats who have filed for their 
party’s nomination include Bill 
Dailey, David A. Geisler, and James 
W. Roberts. 


8 (Southeast — Cape Girardeau) 
Democratic state Rep. Jerry 
Ford of Cape Girardeau has been 
building a campaign since this dis- 
trict went Republican in 1980, and 
his efforts seem to have pre-empted 
other Democrats from running. 

Although Ford is running against 
two other candidates— Frank X. 
Hastings of Bloomsdale and John L. 
Woodward of Cuba— he has already 


mapped out a fall election strategy. 
He is confident, some say too confi- 
dent, that he will defeat Republican 
Rep. Bill Emerson. Emerson, whose 
Jefferson County home was placed in 
the mostly urban 3rd District by the 
remap, is running in the 8th, which 
contains most of the territory he cur- 
rently represents. 

Ford, 39, will try to pin a carpet- 
bagger label on Emerson, claiming 
that the 44-year-old incumbent habit- 
ually changes his residence for politi- 
cal purposes. A Washington lobbyist 
in the 1970s, Emerson moved back to 
his home state when he began prepar- 
ing his 1980 campaign against Demo- 
cratic Rep. Bill Burlison. Now he is 


moving again. 

Emerson is running unopposed tor 
the Republican nomination. 

The poor state of the economy was 
a key theme in Emerson’s successfu 
challenge to Burlison, and Ford plans 
to turn the tables this year. He faults 
President Reagan’s program for hurt- 
incr the rural ck**" 4 hv ^ • * 

At the center of Ford’s campaign 1$ 

an appeal to the traditionally Demo- 
cratic voters of southeast Missouri to 
return to the party fold. Many of 
them deserted in 1908, drawn by 
Reagan’s conservatism and driven 
away by Burlison ’s national Demo- 
cratic loyalty and personal problems. 


Emerson, who serves on the House 
Agriculture Committee, endeared 
himself to farmers by sponsoring 
legislation to revise federal bank- 
ruptcy laws to allow prompt grain re- 
moval rights. A storage company in 
the district went bankrupt in 1981, 
and farmers were barred from remov- 
ing their perishable stocks from the 
company’s elevators. 

The largest block of votes in the 
redrawn 8th will be cast in Cape 
Girardeau County, which has been 
voting Republican in congressional 
elections. But Ford’s home is there, 
and he hopes to split the county’s 
vote with Emerson. On the western 
border of the 8th are seven counties 
containing more than 130,000 people 
currently represented by Republican 
Wendell Bailey. Bailey carried six of 
the seven counties in his 1980 race, 
and Emerson needs to match that 
success this year. 

(Northeastern Mi?M!if\J 

) ^ Demerit Harold 

Volkmer gained some of St. Charles 
County (from the 2nd District) when 
the 9th was remapped. Volkmer is 
not being challenged in his party, al- 
though two Republicans, Nandor 
(Fred) Hettig and Larry E. Mead, are 
vying to challenge Volkmer in No- 
vember. 


THE 


INN 

QQmim 


SHOP DOWNTOWN 
MICHIGAN AVENUE 

TAKE OUR COURTESY CAR 
to all downtown attractions and 
the nation's greatest shopping • 
Marshall Field's. Carsons, 

Water Tower Place, 
all nearby 


IT 


© 


M 

InJ 


Just a short stroll 
to great new State 
Street Shopping 


Mall . and the Art Institute, galleries, the Chicago 
Symphony. Broadway musicals, big name entertainment, 
the zoo. museums, major league sports, lakefront festivals 
and just informal fun. All so convenient to our famed 
Michigan location across from the Conrad Hilton and 
beautiful Grant Park in DOWNTOWN CHICAGO 

Near all expressways, convention 
centers and points of interest. Coloi 
,TV. Major credit cards honored. 




HEATED SWIMMING POOL 

Summer . winter , in between . . 

something's always happening in 
Downtown Chicago! Families, 
singles, couples-be a part of it all, 
while you stay in downtown con- 
venience with motor inn informality. 


DINE AT OUR DELMONICO'S 

Fine dining here starts your Chicago 
evenina. succulent steaks, prime ribs, 
seafood, super sandwiches. The perfect 
choice before the theatre . . and 
afterwards return to our Wenchmakers 
Pub for merrymaking to the wee hours. 


Toll FREE reservation service 

In Illinois only, call collect 312/79M901 

• 800 - 621-6909 


Another fine Aristocrat Inn 
ESSEX INN, Michigan Ave. at 
8th Street. CHICAGO, ILL 60606 
Hotel phone: 312/939 2800 


Page Ten 


FOCUS VMidwest 


New Illinois Districts 

(Effective 1982 congressional elections) 



Volume 15y Number 92 


Page Eleven 



A PRIMARY REPORT 


ILLINOIS 

Demos sophisticated, court-approved 
redistricting plan cuts into GOP districts 



The surprise ending of the Illinois 
redistricting saga was the approval of 
a partisan Democratic congressional 
map despite the presence of a Repub- 
lican governor, a GOP-controlled 
state House and a three- judge federal 
panel with two Nixon appointees. The 
map eliminates two suburban Repub- 
lican districts even though most of 
the state’s population decline was in 
Chicago’s inner city. 

A major realignment was necessary 
because reapportionment cost Illinois 
two districts, forcing a reduction 
from 24 seats to 22. Since control of 
the Legislature is split between the 
parties, it was obvious early in 1981 
that no compromise could be reached. 
As a result, the court took responsi- 
bility for selecting a redistricting 
plan. 

Its ruling came Nov. 23, on a 2-1 
vote that chose the map drawn up by 
Democrats in the Legislature over a 
Republican proposal. 

The Democratic victory was due in 
part to a sophisticated computer pro- 
gram that made possible the creation 
of districts having almost exactly 
equal population. The court did com- 
mend the Democratic plan for pre- 
serving three black-majority districts 
in Chicago. 

Another explicit factor in the court 
decision was the overall strength of 
each party in the state. The court said 
Illinois appeared to be about evenly 
divided between Democrats and Re- 
publicans, based on recent election 
returns, and that the Democratic map 
would come closest to that split. 

Page Twelve 


Democrats drew their map for the 
express purpose of protecting as 
many of their incumbents as possible. 
Led by Michael Madigan, the state 
House minority leader, they concen- 
trated their cartographic ingenuity 
on the Chicago area. To retain the 
eight Democratic seats based in 
Chicago, which all but one lost popu- 
lation, Madigan extended them into 
the Republican suburbs, adding 
enough population to reach the ideal 
district size but leaving the city resi- 
dents with the voting majority. Sev- 
eral districts reached outside the city 
limits for the first time. Only one dis- 
trict is now entirely within Chicago. 

The Democratic victory provides a 
form of revenge for the redistricting 
that took place a decade ago, when a 
different federal panel accepted a 
Republican map that cost the Demo- 
cratic Party two seats. 

m (Chicago— South Side) 

I The 1st contains the heart of Chi- 
cago’s black South Side. During the 
1970s, it lost 20 percent of its popula- 
tion. In order to keep it in existence 
for the 1980s, map makers extended 
its boundaries in virtually every 
direction, bringing in voters from 
other urban districts, which in turn 
were stretched into the suburbs to 
gain back the population they gave 
up. 

Like the old 1st, the new one is 
overwhelmingly Democratic. About 
92 percent of its residents are black, 
and its small white population, cen- 
tered around the University of Chica- 
go in Hyde Park, is as Democratic as 
the black majority. 

Many of the district’s poorer black 
residents live in public housing proj- 


ects. One of them, the Robert Taylor 
Homes, is the largest such project in 
the country. It extends for 25 blocks 
and houses 75,000 people. 

A generation ago, these compact 
projects made the black vote easier 
for the city’s Democratic organiza- 
tion to control. But the South Side, 
long the fiefdom of veteran U.S. Rep. 
William L. Dawson (D 1943-70), has 
been rebellious in recent years. 
Voters here backed the late Rep. 
Ralph H. Metcalfe (D 1971-78) when 
the veteran Democrat broke with the 
machine in 1976. In 1980 they turned 
out Metcalfe’s machine-backed suc- 
cessor and replaced him with the in- 
dependent Washington. 

2 (South Side Chicago , Harvey) 
Democratic Rep. Gus Savage, 
famous for his high rate of absentee- 
ism from Congress in 1981, narrowly 
escaped defeat in the 2nd District on 
Chicago's Far South Side. Savage 
faced two strong challengers, former 
Chicago Transit Authority Chairman 
Eugene M. Barnes and Rep. Monica 
F. Stewart. 

In spite of Chicago Mayor Byrne’s 
endorsement of Barnes, Savage, a 
30-year activist in South Side poli- 
tics, lured to his side'a number of pre- 
cinct captains. Some of them have 
been his friends for years; others were 
dissatisfied with Barnes's delivery of 
patronage jobs when he was CTA 
chairman. A few party leaders who 
backed Savage are pondering a future 
run for the House themselves and op- 
posed Barnes to prevent the mayor's 
organization from planting its man in 
the 2nd District seat. 

Before Barnes ran the CTA, he 
made a name for himself during nine 


FOCUS /Midwest 



2ND Am 3RD DIVIDE BLACK Am WHITE 


years in the Illinois House, where he 
was appropriations committee chair- 
man. 

A number of anti-Savage voters 
chose Stewart, an articulate first-term 
legislator who said the incumbent’s 
performance in the House reduced 
him to the level of a comic figure. 
Stewart’s candidacy received finan- 
cial support from the Americans for 
Democratic Action and the National 
Committee for an Effective Congress. 
Stewart received one-fifth of the vote, 
running well behind the closely 
grouped Savage and Barnes. The Re- 
publican nominee, Kevin Walter 
Sparks, has no chance to win in 
November. 

For the first time, the 2nd District 
has crept beyond the city limits, into 
the southern suburbs formerly in- 
cluded in the 3rd. But the politics of 
the district will not change dramati- 
cally. 

The new lines of the 2nd were care- 
fully drawn to take in communities 
with black majorities. As a result, 
blacks still comprise 70 percent of the 
population. 

But the new 2nd also takes in some 
white suburban territory, including 
Dolton, Riverdale, and part of Calu- 
met City, all blue-collar in their orien- 
tation and less than 10 percent black. 
Many of the people here moved out 
from the far South Side of the city in 
the past two decades. 

The district still includes the vast 
industrial area around the Calumet 
River, where the sky, trees and grass 
have long been blackened with soot, 
but where factory workers have been 
able to count on steady work and de- 
cent pay. These days the grass is still 
gray, but the mills are in decline or 
closed. Fewer freighters are coming 
to the Chicago ports, reducing the 
number of jobs. A Ford Motor Com- 
pany plant in the district is still oper- 
ating, though layoffs are frequent. 

(Southwest Chicago and suburbs) 
3 The line between the 2nd and 3rd 
districts is also the line between black 
and white Chicago. Russo’s district, 
concentrated on the west side of 
Western Avenue and in the suburbs 
just beyond the city, is 91 percent 
white. 

About 40 percent of the population 
is new to Russo. The new territory 
comes primarily from the old 4th Dis- 
trict, a suburban constituency that 
Democratic map makers divided up 
and used to fill out underpopulated 
city-based districts. 


The remaining city portions of the 
district are dominated by blue-collar 
ethnics, many of Polish and Lithua- 
nian origin. But Beverly, traditional 
home for Chicago’s well to do Irish 
Catholics, is also included. 

The area’s voting patterns have 
been erratic in the past decade. Many 
of the people here are ethnics who 
emerged into prosperity in the 1960s, 
left the city, and began to vote Re- 
publican in some contests. When the 
old 3rd was drawn in 1972, it was ex- 
pected to send a Republican to the 
House. But it turned out GOP Rep. 
Robert Hanrahan for Democrat 
Russo in 1974 and returned Russo. 
Many of these communities swing 
back and forth between the parties. 

- (Southern Chicago suburbs , 

Joliet, Aurora ) 

The remap was the sole determi- 
nant in the 4th District contest be- 
tween Reps. George M. O’Brien and 
Edward J. Derwinski, two philosophi- 
cally compatible Republicans paired 
by redistricting. O’Brien finished 
first chiefly because 60 percent of the 
electorate in the reshaped 4th had 
been part of his old 17th District for 
the past decade. 

O’Brien and Derwinski are friends 
and allies in the House, and their 
campaign was a gentlemanly affair 
throughout. Derwinski stressed that 
he is younger and has more seniority 
than O’Brien. Derwinski, 55, has 
served in Congress for 23 years. 
O’Brien, 64, was first elected to the 
House in 1972. 

Both of Chicago’s major newspa- 
pers endorsed Derwinski. 

The incumbents’ attempts to draw 
distinction between themselves had 
less influence on the outcome than re- 
districting, which gave a clear advan- 
tage to O’Brien that Derwinski could 
not overcome. O’Brien finished about 
3,000 votes ahead and is a heavy fa- 
vorite to win in November in this 
strongly Republican district. 

The 4 th is a new animal, built from 
remnants of the old 4th, 15th, and 
17th. It includes the southern end of 
Cook County, the section of Will 
County around the city of Joliet, and 
portions of Kane and Kendall coun- 
ties around the city of Aurora. 

Derwinski’s old 4th District, a sub- 
urban area that ran along the western 
edge of the city and then spread out 
to the southwest, was completely dis- 
mantled. Only Rich Township, an af- 
fluent suburban area that includes 
Derwinski’s home of Flossmoor, was 


left in the new 4th. The rest of the old 
district was a casualty of the geo- 
graphic realignment designed to pre- 
serve the Democratic districts in 
Chicago. 

The map makers were far kinder to 
O’Brien. Although forced to give up 
Iroquois and Kankakee counties and 
the southern half of Will County, 
O’Brien retains in the new 4th his po- 
litical base of Joliet, a largely blue- 
collar city of 78,000 with several oil 
refineries. 



Edward J. Derwinski 


_ (South central Chicago 
O and suburbs) 

In the Democratic primary, the de- 
feat of Rep. John G. Fary in south- 
west Chicago’s 5th district had little 
to do with either issues or district 
boundaries. Fary lost because the 
bulk of the party organization that in- 
stalled him in office and sustained his 
career scuttled him in favor of a 
younger man, Alderman William O. 
Lipinski. 

The challenger relied on strong sup- 
port from his own heavily Democratic 
23rd Ward and on the 11th Ward net- 
work of Richard M. Daley, state’s at- 
torney for Cook County. The 11th 
always traditionally turns out a 
massive vote and is loyal to the Daley 
family. 

Richard M. Daley’s father, the late 
Mayor Richard J. Daley, tapped Fary 
for the 5th District House seat in 
1975 as a reward for dutiful service to 
the mayor’s organization in the state 
legislature. But the younger Daley, 
who is trying to expand his influence 
in preparation for a mayoral bid next 
year, directed his lieutenants to 
choose Lipinski over Fary when 
Democratic officials named the party 
slate for 1982. 

In the final days of the campaign, 
Fary called on federal authorities to 
continued on page 15 


Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Thirteen 



LIFETIME LOYALTY FOR NAUGHT 


Daley machine dumps Fary 

"Fo r 21 years I represented the mayor in 
the legislature, and he was always right. ” 



John G. Fary 


By Alan Ehrenhalt 

Washington — Sitting quietly in the 
back row is no more fashionable in 
Congress these days than it is in the 
rest of society. So it is no surprise 
that John G. Fary drew some bad 
press last month as he struggled in 
vain for renomination to the House. 

John Fary is a follower par excel- 
lence. He not only accepts direction, 
he prides himself on accepting it. 
When he made it to Congress nearly 
seven years ago at age 64, after a life- 
time of uncomplaining service to the 
Democratic machine on Chicago’s 
South Side, he made his platform 
clear. 

“I will go to Washington to help 
represent Mayor Daley,” Fary de- 
clared on Election Day. “For 21 years 
I represented the mayor in the Legis- 
lature, and he was always right.” 

In the years since then, Fary has 
found that his party leaders, even if 
he might think they are slightly more 
flawed in their political judgment 
than Mayor Daley, are also right 
most of the time. 

“He’s never come up as a problem 
on any vote where we needed him,” 
says one Democratic leadership aide. 
“You always have a list of undecideds 
to keep track of, but John is never on 
it. He’s an automatic yes.” 

On the “leadership loyalty index” 
that Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill Jr. 
keeps in his desk drawer, Fary has a 
lifetime score of 100 percent. 

His is not a very conspicuous form 
of loyalty. One can sit in the gallery 
for months without hearing Fary ad- 
dress the House, although he is usual- 
ly nearby, reading at the back of the 
chamber or lingering in the dining 
room over lunch with friends in the Il- 
linois delegation. 

His few entries in the Congression- 
al Record are nearly all inserted with- 
out him delivering them in person, 
and they deal with Lithuanian inde- 
pendence celebrations or tributes to 
Polish patriots of earlier centuries. 


It all adds up to something less 
than vigorous independence. But is it 
an inappropriate role for someone to 
play in the House? The newspapers 
that covered Fary’s recent losing pri- 
mary campaign against William O. 
Lipinski all seemed to think so. 

“John G. Fary’s lackluster record 
forfeits his claim to a House seat,” a 
Chicago Sun-Times editorial said. 
“Lipinski clearly outclasses the color- 
less incumbent,” editorialized the 
Chicago Tribune. 

John Fary is a man who believes in 
doing what he is told and staying out 
of trouble. It would be foolish to con- 
fuse that quality with statesmanship. 
But it seems odd, at a time when 
House Democrats are criticized for 
providing weak leadership, to ridicule 
those few members remaining who 
are prepared to accept it. 

Congress needs statesmen, activ- 
ists and leaders. But leaders need fol- 
lowers. They are unlikely to have 
many followers if members who prac- 
tice pure party loyalty know they can 
look forward to newspaper editorials 
claiming they have forfeited their 
right to serve in the institution. 

It is impossible to separate the ar- 
gument over party loyalty in the 
House from the problems of political 
parties all over the country. 

Ironically, Fary lost his seat in one 
of the few parts of the country where 
party organizations still exist in 
something like their traditional form. 
He lived off the Daley organization, 
and he was a victim of it— the rem- 
nants of the late mayor’s South Side 
machine decided Fary’s time was up 
this year and gave the official party 
slating to Lipinski, a Chicago aider- 
man. 

Lipinski is a friend of Richard M. 
Daley, the late mayor’s son, who is 
expected to run for mayor in 1983, 
and young Daley felt Lipinski would 
be more help to him in that effort 
than the aging incumbent. 


Fary, as a creature of the machine, 
had no personal organization to draw 
on. He had some support in the fac- 
tion of the old Daley machine current- 
ly loyal to Mayor Jane Byrne, and he 
had some old friends in the Polish Na- 
tional Alliance. But that did not 
amount to much in the end. The 35 
percent of the vote that Fary received 
in the March 16 primary was as re- 
spectable a showing as he could ex- 
pect. 

In most places in the country, no- 
b°dy gets dumped by “the party” be- 
cause nobody owes his success to it in 
the first place. Chicago is about the 
only place in the United States where 
a member of Congress can still find 
himself in that position. 

Candidates generally win election 
to Congress by building their own 
organizations and raising their own 
money, and they are free to vote as 
they please when they arrive. The is- 
sues they work on are the ones they 
know will build constituencies for 
them back home. 

A House full of activists and entre- 
preneurs is more interesting and 
probably more competent than one 
whose members spend the afternoon 
reading the newspaper and occasion- 
ally napping in the back row. But it is 
not very easy to lead. 

Democratic countries elsewhere in 
the world are not inclined the way we 
are to laugh at backbench legislators. 
It is commonly accepted in other 
countries that most people in a legis- 
lative body will support a party pro- 
gram, accept party support as their 
campaign “reward” and live or die at 
home by the party’s reputation. 

The House of Representatives, 
which never came very close to that 
model, is moving further away from it 
every year. The forced departure of 
John Fary next year will take the pol- 
itics of absolute loyalty one step 
closer to its ultimate extinction. 

— Congressional Quarterly 


Page Fourteen 


FOCUS VMidwest 


THE 1982 ILLINOIS PRIMARY 


continued from page 13 
monitor the polls on election day. He 
said he did not trust Daley’s office to 
act impartially in carrying out its re- 
sponsibility to prevent vote fraud. 

Lipinski ’s campaign-closing salvo, 
delivered in an appearance with 
Daley, was a charge that Chicago 
Mayor Jane Byrne was quietly ma- 
neuvering to line up support for Fary. 
Byrne is not widely popular in south- 
west Chicago, and she played no pub- 
lic role in the primary. But it is an 
open secret that she hoped for a F ary 
victory, which would have seriously 
damaged Daley’s prestige in his own 
political back yard. 

Fary received some help from 
Byrne supporters in the district, but 
bereft of the slatemakers' endorse- 
ment for the first time in his Cflroor, 
Fary could not put together a net- 
work of his own. He received just 
over one-third of the vote. 

Nearly twice the geographic size of 
the old 5th District, the new version 
begins about a mile from Lake Michi- 
gan and extends west to the split- 
levels of suburban Willow Springs, 
following the route of the Adlai Stev- 
enson Expressway. The 5th had to 
expand because it lost 15 percent of 
its population during the 1970s. But 
despite the realignment, it remains 
firmly Democratic territory; it keeps 
not only the home territory of the late 
Mayor Richard J. Daley, but also the 
political organization he dominated. 
The Daley machine has stayed intact 
in most of the city parts of the new 
5th, even though it has decayed else- 
where in Chicago. 

Daley lived his entire life in Bridge- 
port, an almost exclusively Irish 
neighborhood, but Eastern Europe- 
ans, especially Poles, dominate the 
broader territory within the congres- 
sional district. 

Some of the additions will increase 
the district’s Republican vote. The 
new 5th picks up the Czech and Bohe- 
mian enclaves of Cicero and Berwyn, 
which have been voting Republican 
in most contests, and the white-collar 
suburbs of Bridgeview and Hickory 
Hills, which lean to the GOP. 

But the inner suburban communi- 
ties of McCook, Countryside, Hodg- 
kins and Summit, all industrial, echo 
the Democratic tendencies of the Chi- 
cago part of the district. * 

The racial makeup of the 5th 
changes dramatically. By 1980, the 
old 5th had become 30 percent black, 
reflecting the movement of blacks in- 
to the southeastern part of the dis- 


trict, despite some white resistance. 
But redistricting transferred these 
neighborhoods to the overwhelming- 
ly black 1st District, and the suburbs 
brought into the 5th are virtually all 
white. 

The new 5th does retain a signifi- 
cant Hispanic population. About a 
quarter of its people are Hispanic, up 
from 17 percent in the old 5th. 

^ (Far West Chicago Suburbs— 

® Wheaton) 

Henry J. Hyde trades his old GOP 
constituency for one equally Republi- 
can but almost entirely unfamiliar to 
him. Fewer than 5 percent of his new 
constituents were in the district he 
represented in the 1970s. 

Like the neighboring 4th. the old 
6th was chopped up and grafted in 
pieces onto the western ends of inner- 
city Chicago districts that, needed to 
gain population. Only a small area 
around Itasca and Wood Dale was 
carried over to the new 6th. 

If Hyde feels disoriented, however, 
he has little to complain about politi- 
cally. The old 6th, while it re-elected 
him comfortably, had pockets of 
Democratic strength in Maywood 
and other moderate-income suburbs 
with significant black populations. 
There are no such enclaves apparent 
in the new district, whose suburban 
territory is nearly all while-collar and 
Republican. The only political change 
necessary for Hyde may be a shift in 
attention from ethnic holidays and 
festivals to sessions with the Rotary 
and Jaycess. 

_ (Chicago— Downtown, West Side) 

7 Only a few blocks west of Chica- 
go’s lakefront, with its elegant high- 
rises and nearby shops, the rank pov- 
erty of the West Side begins, with 
burned-out buildings and abandoned 
factories that stretch for miles. The 
West Side has traditionally been a 
port of entry for migrants to the city: 
Jews and Italians early in this cen- 
tury, and blacks in the past genera- 
tion. Roosevelt Road, running west 
from downtown out to the city limits, 
was the urban riot corridor in the 
1960s. 

The old 7th lost a fifth of its popula- 
tion in the past decade, but both par- 
ties wanted to preserve a black-ma- 
jority district for Cardiss Collins, the 
senior black member of the Illinois 
delegation. So the 7 th was redrawn to 
stretch twice its previous length, 
from Lake Michigan more than a 
dozen miles west to suburban Bell- 


wood. Mixed in among the residential 
areas are industrial zones, with a ma- 
jor A&P warehouse and Sears truck- 
ing facilities. The campus of the Uni- 
versity of Illinois at Chicago Circle is 
in the district, along with the West 
Side medical center complex. 

Much of the new territory is made 
up of areas such as Austin along the 
city’s western border, traditionally 
Eastern European in ethnic makeup 
but increasingly black during the 
1970s. Collins picks up these commu- 
nities from Democrat Dan Rosten- 
kowski’s 8th District. Because of 
these moves, the 7th actually in- 
creases its black population from 50 
percent to nearly 70 percent, despite 
the suburban additions. 


0 (Chicago North and 

O Northwest Sides) 

Redistricting has given Dan Ros- 
tenkowski just the constituency he 
wanted, and he should be able to hold 
it with little strain. The 8th District 
expands northwest along Milwaukee 
Avenue, Chicago’s traditional “Podsh 
corridor,” to take in such symbolic 
places as St. Hyacinth Parish, still a 
first-stop for Polish immigrants and a 
ennt whprp p mipstinn asked in Polish 


The changes were probably neces- 
sary to preserve Rostenkowski s po- 
litical control through the 1980s. In 
the past decade his old 8th lost much 
of its ethnic Polish flavor as blacks 
and Hispanics moved into its south- 
ern and eastern portions, nearest to 
downtown Chicago. By 1980, only 49 
percent of Rostenkowski s constitu- 
ents were white. 

The new 8th essentially follows 
Rostenkowski ’s old loyalists in their 
movement northwest from the inner 
city. It is more than 70 percent white, 
thanks to the addition not only o 
Polish neighborhoods within the ci y 
but of suburbs to the west, including 
River Grove and Elmwood Park. 1 e 
new suburban constituents have 
voted Republican in the past, bu 
they are largely ethnic, recently 
transplanted from the city an 
should respond well to Rostenkowski. 

The new 8th is just 4 percent black. 
Rostenkowski will, however, be repre- 
senting a substantial Hispanic popu- 
lation, increased to more than 30 per- 
cent from the 27 percent in the old 
8th. 

q (Chicago — North Side lakefront , 
M* northern suburbs) 

In the 9th District, Democrat Sid- 


Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Fifteen 


LIFETIME LOYALTY FOR NAUGHT 


Daley machine dumps Fary 

“For 21 years I represented the mayor in 
the legislature, and he was always right. ” 


By Alan Ehrenhalt 

Washington— Sitting quietly in the 
back row is no more fashionable in 
Congress these days than it is in the 
rest of society. So it is no surprise 
that John G. Fary drew some bad 
press last month as he struggled in 
vain for renomination to the House. 

John Fary is a follower par excel- 
lence. He not only accepts direction, 
he prides himself on accepting it. 
When he made it to Congress nearly 
seven years ago at age 64, after a life- 
time of uncomplaining service to the 
Democratic machine on Chicago’s 
South Side, he made his platform 
clear. 

“I will go to Washington to help 
represent Mayor Daley,’' Fary de- 
clared on Election Day. “For 21 years 
I represented the mayor in the Legis- 
lature, and he was always right.” 

In the years since then, Fary has 
found that his party leaders, even if 
he might think they are slightly more 
flawed in their political judgment 
than Mayor Daley, are also right 
most of the time. 

“He’s never come up as a problem 
on any vote where we needed him,” 
says one Democratic leadership aide. 
“You always have a list of undecideds 
to keep track of, but John is never on 
it. He’s an automatic yes.” 

On the “leadership loyalty index” 
that Speaker Thomas P. O’Neill Jr. 
keeps in his desk drawer, Fary has a 
lifetime score of 100 percent. 

His is not a very conspicuous form 
of loyalty. One can sit in the gallery 
for months without hearing Fary ad- 
dress the House, although he is usual- 
ly nearby, reading at the back of the 
chamber or lingering in the dining 
room over lunch with friends in the Il- 
linois delegation. 

His few entries in the Congression- 
al Record are nearly all inserted with- 
out him delivering them in person, 
and they deal with Lithuanian inde- 
pendence celebrations or tributes to 
Polish patriots of earlier centuries. 


It all adds up to something less 
than vigorous independence. But is it 
an inappropriate role for someone to 
play in the House? The newspapers 
that covered Fary’s recent losing pri- 
mary campaign against William O. 
Lipinski all seemed to think so. 

“John G. Fary’s lackluster record 
forfeits his claim to a House seat,” a 
Chicago Sun-Times editorial said. 
“Lipinski clearly outclasses the color- 
less incumbent,” editorialized the 
Chicago Tribune. 

John Fary is a man who believes in 
doing what he is told and staying out 
of trouble. It would be foolish to con- 
fuse that quality with statesmanship. 
But it seems odd, at a time when 
House Democrats are criticized for 
providing weak leadership, to ridicule 
those few members remaining who 
are prepared to accept it. 

Congress needs statesmen, activ- 
ists and leaders. But leaders need fol- 
lowers. They are unlikely to have 
many followers if members who prac- 
tice pure party loyalty know they can 
look forward to newspaper editorials 
claiming they have forfeited their 
right to serve in the institution. 

It is impossible to separate the ar- 
gument over party loyalty in the 
House from the problems of political 
parties all over the country. 

Ironically, Fary lost his seat in one 
of the few parts of the country where 
party organizations still exist in 
something like their traditional form. 
He lived off the Daley organization, 
and he was a victim of it— the rem- 
nants of the late mayor’s South Side 
machine decided Fary’s time was up 
this year and gave the official party 
slating to Lipinski, a Chicago aider- 
man. 

Lipinski is a friend of Richard M. 
Daley, the late mayor’s son, who is 
expected to run for mayor in 1983, 
and young Daley felt Lipinski would 
be more help to him in that effort 
than the aging incumbent. 



John G. Fary 


Fary, as a creature of the machine, 
had no personal organization to draw 
on. He had some support in the fac- 
tion of the old Daley machine current- 
ly loyal to Mayor Jane Byrne, and he 
had some old friends in the Polish Na- 
tional Alliance. But that did not 
amount to much in the end. The 35 
percent of the vote that Fary received 
in the March 16 primary was as re- 
spectable a showing as he could ex- 
pect. 

In most places in the country, no- 
body gets dumped by “the party” be- 
cause nobody owes his success to it in 
the first place. Chicago is about the 
only place in the United States where 
a member of Congress can still find 
himself in that position. 

Candidates generally win election 
to Congress by building their own 
organizations and raising their own 
money, and they are free to vote as 
they please when they arrive. The is- 
sues they work on are the ones they 
know will build constituencies for 
them back home. 

A House full of activists and entre- 
preneurs is more interesting and 
probably more competent than one 
whose members spend the afternoon 
reading the newspaper and occasion- 
ally napping in the back row. But it is 
not very easy to lead. 

Democratic countries elsewhere in 
the world are not inclined the way we 
are to laugh at backbench legislators. 
It is commonly accepted in other 
countries that most people in a legis- 
lative body will support a party pro- 
gram, accept party support as their 
campaign “reward” and live or die at 
home by the party’s reputation. 

The House of Representatives, 
which never came very close to that 
model, is moving further away from it 
every year. The forced departure of 
John Fary next year will take the pol- 
itics of absolute loyalty one step 
closer to its ultimate extinction. 

—Congressional Quarterly 


Page Fourteen 


YOCXJS/Midwest 


THE 1982 ILLINOIS PRIMARY 


continued from page 13 
monitor the polls on election day. He 
said he did not trust Daley’s office to 
act impartially in carrying out its re- 
sponsibility to prevent vote fraud. 

Lipinski’s campaign-closing salvo, 
delivered in an appearance with 
Daley, was a charge that Chicago 
Mayor Jane Byrne was quietly ma- 
neuvering to line up support for Fary. 
Byrne is not widely popular in south- 
west Chicago, and she played no pub- 
lic role in the primary. But it is an 
open secret that she hoped for a Fary 
victory, which would have seriously 
damaged Daley’s prestige in his own 
political back yard. 

Fary received some help from 
Byrne supporters in the district, but 
bereft of the slatemakers’ endorse- 
ment for the first time in his career, 
Fary could not put together a net- 
work of his own. He received just 
over one-third of the vote. 

Nearly twice the geographic size of 
the old 5th District, the new version 
begins about a mile from Lake Michi- 
gan and extends west to the split- 
levels of suburban Willow Springs, 
following the route of the Adlai Stev- 
enson Expressway. The 5th had to 
expand because it lost 15 percent of 
its population during the 1970s. But 
despite the realignment, it remains 
firmly Democratic territory; it keeps 
not only the home territory of the late 
Mayor Richard J. Daley, but also the 
political organization he dominated. 
The Daley machine has stayed intact 
in most of the city parts of the new 
5th, even though it has decayed else- 
where in Chicago. 

Daley lived his entire life in Bridge- 
port, an almost exclusively Irish 
neighborhood, but Eastern Europe- 
ans, especially Poles, dominate the 
broader territory within the congres- 
sional district. 

Some of the additions will increase 
the district’s Republican vote. The 
new 5th picks up the Czech and Bohe- 
mian enclaves of Cicero and Berwyn, 
which have been voting Republican 
in most contests, and the white-collar 
suburbs of Bridgeview and Hickory 
Hills, which lean to the GOP. 

But the inner suburban communi- 
ties of McCook, Countryside, Hodg- 
kins and Summit, all industrial, echo 
the Democratic tendencies of the Chi- 
cago part of the district. * 

The racial makeup of the 5th 
changes dramatically. By 1980, the 
old 5th had become 30 percent black, 
reflecting the movement of blacks in- 
to the southeastern part of the dis- 

VolumelS, Number 92 


trict, despite some white resistance. 
But redistricting transferred these 
neighborhoods to the overwhelming- 
ly black 1st District, and the suburbs I 
brought into the 5th are virtually all 
white. 

The new 5 th does retain a signifi- 
cant Hispanic population. About a 
quarter of its people are Hispanic, up 
from 17 percent in the old 5 th. 

6 (Far West Chicago Suburbs— 
Wheaton) 

Henry J. Hyde trades his old GOP 
constituency for one equally Republi- 
can but almost entirely unfamiliar to 
him. Fewer than 5 percent of his new 
constituents were in the district he 
represented in the 1970s. 

Like the neighboring 4th, the old 
6th was chopped up and grafted in 
pieces onto the western ends of inner- 
city Chicago districts that needed to 
gain population. Only a small area 
around Itasca and Wood Dale was 
carried over to the new 6th. 

If Hyde feels disoriented, however, 
he has little to complain about politi- 
cally. The old 6th, while it re-elected 
him comfortably, had pockets of 
Democratic strength in Maywood 
and other moderate-income suburbs 
with significant black populations. 
There are no such enclaves apparent 
in the new district, whose suburban 
territory is nearly all while-collar and 
Republican. The only political change 
necessary for Hyde may be a shift in 
attention from ethnic holidays and 
festivals to sessions with the Rotary 
and Jaycess. 

7 (Chicago— Downtown, West Side) 

Only a few blocks west of Chica- 
go’s lakefront, with its elegant high- 
rises and nearby shops, the rank pov- 
erty of the West Side begins, with 
bumed-out buildings and abandoned 
factories that stretch for miles. The 
West Side has traditionally been a 
port of entry for migrants to the city: 
Jews and Italians early in this cen- 
tury, and blacks in the past genera- 
tion. Roosevelt Road, running west 
from downtown out to the city limits, 
was the urban riot corridor in the 
1960s. 

The old 7 th lost a fifth of its popula- 
tion in the past decade, but both par- 
ties wanted to preserve a black-ma- 
jority district for Cardies Collins, the 
senior black member of the Illinois 
delegation. So the 7th was redrawn to 
stretch twice its previous length, 
from Lake Michigan more than a 
dozen miles west to suburban Bell- 


wood. Mixed in among the residential 
areas are industrial zones, with a ma- 
jor A&P warehouse and Sears truck- 
ing facilities. The campus of the Uni- 
versity of Illinois at Chicago Circle is 
in the district, along with the West 
Side medical center complex. 

Much of the new territory is made 
up of areas such as Austin along the 
city’s western border, traditionally 
Eastern European in ethnic makeup 
but increasingly black during the 
1970s. Collins picks up these commu- 
nities from Democrat Dan Rosten- 
kowski’s 8th District. Because of 
these moves, the 7 th actually in- 
creases its black population from 50 
percent to nearly 70 percent, despite 
the suburban additions. 


8 (Chicago'— North and 
Northwest Sides) 

Redistricting has given Dan Ros- 
tenkowski just the constituency he 
wanted, and he should be able to hold 
it with little strain. The 8th District 
expands northwest along Milwaukee 
Avenue, Chicago’s traditional “Polish 
corridor,” to take in such symbolic 
places as St. Hyacinth Parish, still a 
first-stop for Polish immigrants and a 
spot where a question asked in Polish 
will draw a ready response. 

The changes were probably neces- 
sary to preserve Rostenkowski’s po- 
litical control through the 1980s. In 
the past decade his old 8th lost much 
of its ethnic Polish flavor as blacks 
and Hispanics moved into its south- 
ern and eastern portions, nearest to 
downtown Chicago. By 1980, only 49 
percent of Rostenkowski’s constitu- 
ents were white. 

The new 8th essentially follows 
Rostenkowski’s old loyalists in their 
movement northwest from the inner 
city. It is more than 70 percent white, 
thanks to the addition not only ot 
Polish neighborhoods within the city 
but of suburbs to the west, including 
River Grove and Elmwood Park. The 
new suburban constituents have 
voted Republican in the past, bu 
they are largely ethnic, recently 
transplanted from the city and 
should respond well to Rostenkowski. 

The new 8th is just 4 percent black. 
Rostenkowski will, however, be repre- 
senting a substantial Hispanic popu- 
lation, increased to more than 30 per- 
cent from the 27 percent in the old 
8th. 

9 (Chicago— North Side lakefront , 
northern suburbs) 

In the 9th District, Democrat Sid- 
Page Fifteen 


THE 1932 ILLINOIS PRIMARY 


ney R. Yates crushed his primary 
competition. But the 72-year-old vet- 
eran will be tested in the fall by Re- 
publican Catherine Bertini, 31, a cor- 
porate affairs executive who was the 
consensus nominee of her party and 
should be able to run a well-financed 
campaign. 

The most striking characteristic of 
the new 9th is its shape. Narrow at its 
base along Lake Michigan, it widens 
and turns westward once it reaches 
the city’s northern limits, ending in a 
hook around the suburbs of Glenview 
and Northbrook. The purpose of the 
elaborate cartography was to create a 
secure district for Yates by including 
liberal areas within the city and 
heavily Jewish suburban communi- 
ties where he should run well. 

The old 9th was confined to the 
city but it lost 10 percent of its popu- 
lation in the 1970s, forcing an expan- 
sion into the suburbs. The new 9th is 
still anchored on the North Side of 
Chicago, but it now runs north along 
the Kail the way to Evanston, and 
the laxe* tion takes in Skokie, 

its western p Q rove and a chunk 

d Thfcity portion of the new 9th in- 
,, h ® » mixture of neighborhoods, 
chides a ^ althy lake front high-rises 

- U and three-story walkups 
t0 few blocks to the west. These 
jUSt tments house many of the pros- 

apartm and chi j dless coup i e s 

P< L r work g in professional jobs in 
downtown Chicago. There is also an 
h«n restoration contingent living m 
older homes in the area. The city por- 
• f the 9th contains some of Chi- 
t,0n / few remaining Republican 
wards, but even here voters have 

been ,0 J J fj C g° C omprise about 10 per- 
nt of the overall population of the 
<l? nt °[ The new 9th is also about 10 
nercent black. Minorities should also 
be Sid Yates supporters. 


/North and Northwest 
4 O Suburbs-Waukegan) 

ffby' Si ftrict/ng. he an r „ced he 
9th m0ve north to challenge Rob- 

TweSery in the 10th. where Re- 
er t McUoiry es ^ golid Bufc the 

pub l ^wi Sever took place. The 
showdo jvicClory, after announc- 
7 4 -year- foj . an llt h term, said in 

ianuafy !ha fc he was stepping down 


to make room for his younger col- 
league. 

The communities along Lake Mich- 
igan of Chicago are the city’s oldest 
suburbs, and generally its most afflu- 
ent. Fully developed long ago, they 
declined in population in the 1970s as 
the younger residents grew up and 
moved away. To erase the resulting 
population deficit in Porter’s old 10th 
District, centered on these communi- 
ties, map makers moved it north to 
merge with portions of Republican 
Philip M. Crane's 13th District and 
McClory’s old 12th, based in Wauke- 
gan. The new 10th extends north to 
the Wisconsin border, including Mc- 
Clory’s old lakefront towns but shed- 
ding most of the newer suburban ter- 
ritory further west. 

The hybrid district is firmly Repub- 
lican. The only major Democratic en- 
clave is the port city of Waukegan. 

Much of the district’s vote will be 
cast in affluent Lake County towns 
like Highland Park, Lake Forest and 
Deerfield, where most voters tend to 
prefer moderate Republicans but 
rarely cross over to the Democratic 
side. Porter fits this area well. 

Almost 80 percent of the popula- 
tion is new to Porter. But the 20 per- 
cent that Porter keeps generally in- 
cludes the most loyal Republicans in 
his old constituency. As a whole, the 
district gave Reagan 60 percent of its 
vote in 1980. 

(Northwest Chicago and 
■ suburbs) 

Concentrated entirely within Chica- 
go during the past decade, the llth 
takes on new Republican territory in 
the suburbs but still seems likely to 
provide a base for Frank Annunzio. 
The veteran Democrat successfully 
transplanted himself a decade ago, 
when his old West Side district was 
eliminated, and he is already working 
on a similar effort. Many of his new 
suburban constituents moved out in 
the 1970s from the old West Side 7th; 
like other Chicago Democrats, An- 
nunzio is simply following them to 
the suburbs. 

“These are my people,” he said re- 
cently. “Lincolnwood? My daughter 
lives in Lincolnwood. Stone Park? 
There’s a seminary there for Italian 
priests, and an Italian-American cul- 
tural center. Northlake? That’s where 
we have an Italian old folks’ home.” 

The redrawn llth stretches north 
to Niles and west to O’Hare Airport, 
taking in a collection of middle-class 
suburban developments built in the 


1950s and early 1960s. Its residents 
are largely ethnic in background, but 
they have moved beyond their blue- 
collar roots; many of them voted for 
Republican candidates in statewide 
elections during the past decade. 

Like the old llth, the new district is 
overwhelmingly white. About 6 per- 
cent of the population is Hispanic; 
less than 1 percent is black. The sub- 
stantial Jewish community in Rogers 
Park, within the city limits, will be 
joined by a large Jewish population in 
part of Skokie, which has been split 
between the llth and the 9th. 

1 0% < Far Northwest Suburbs — 

™ Palatine) 

Philip M. Crane’s new district con- 

wkfr 0n l y - 4 ? P ercent of the people 
: h0 ^ l «n his old 12th. but the vet- 
eran OOP conservative can take his 
line getting to know his new consti- 
tuents. Crane faces no opposition 
ei ™ } or renomination or re-election. 

I he lack of competition is a clue to 
the political makeup of the district. 
^ r f.? e S new *2th is even more Re- 
publican than the old one, which cast 

QOft 6rCen *' v °tes for Reagan in 
1980. 

The population center of the new 
district will still be the outer subur- 
ban area of Chicago, including Pala- 
tine and Hoffman Estates, which 
have grown dramatically in the past 
20 years. But the geography of the 
district has been totally revised. In 
the past decade, Crane represented 
the populous southern portion of 
Lake County, including wealthy lake- 
front suburbs such as Highland Park 
and Deerfield. For the 1980s, he has 
been moved north and west, taking 
on semi-rural McHenry County and 
only the western two-thirds of Lake. 

The new alignment all but removes 
the district from the metropolitan 
Chicago political orbit. When Crane 
won his first term in 1969, his district 
took in most of northern Cook Coun- 
ty. But population increases forced 
that constituency to be split in two, 
and Crane chose to run in 1972 in the 
newer suburban area to the north- 
west, which was more Republican. 
Now the lines move again, and not an 
inch of Crane’s original territory re- 
mains in the new district. 


1 a (Southwest Chicago Suburbs — 
w Downers Grove) 

In a Republican primary in the sub- 
urbs west of Chicago, GOP incum- 
bent John N. Erlenborn turned what 
was thought to be a close contest into 


Page Sixteen 


FOCUS /Midwest 


THE 1932 ILLINOIS PRIMARY 


a rout. Like Tom Railsback in the 
17th District, Erlenborn had won re- 
election easily for many years, and 
this time faced a conservative chal- 
lenge in a district considerably al- 
tered by the remap. 

But state Sen. Mark Q. Rhoads was 
unable to make the situation work for 
him as Kenneth G. McMillan did 
against Railsback. While he attacked 
Erlenborn as too liberal, the majority 
of voters were not impressed with his 
criticisms, and Rhoads’s own base of 
support was undercut by another con- 
servative challenger, former state 
Sen. Terrel E. Clarke. Because the 
13th is heavily Republican, Erlen- 
born is now assured of re-election. 

The new 13th moves out of Du 
Page County to concentrate much of 
its vote in Cook County suburbs 
nearer to Chicago, but it keeps its po- 
litical and economic character. It is 
one of the most affluent districts in 
the country. 

Because it grew during the 1970s 
by 34.8 percent, more than any other 
district in the state, Erlenborn’s old 
14th had to be redrawn. In the past 
decade, its lines were virtually identi- 
cal with those of Du Page County. 
Now Du Page will cast barely 50 per- 
cent of the vote. About 40 percent 
will be cast within Cook County. 

The most densely populated areas 
of the new district cluster along the 
old Burlington Northern tracks that 
extend west from the city to River- 
side, Western Springs, Hinsdale, 
Clarendown and Downers Grove. 

I jm (North Central — 

4 De Kalb , Elgin) 

The new 14th stretches from Nap- 
erville, whose commuters hop the 
train for Chicago, south to Wenona, a 
crossroads farm town that serves the 
surrounding agricultural community 
in Marshall County. 

The semi-industrial character of the 
district does not interfere with its 
Republican loyalties; the four coun- 
ties that will cast most of the vote— 
Kane, De Kalb, Kendall, and La Salle 
—all went for Reagan easily in 1980. 
All but La Salle even went for the 
badly beaten GOP Senate nominee, 
Dave O’Neal. 

Unlike Tom Corcoran’s old 15th, 
which was predominantly rural and 
extended further downstate, the 14 th 
is a mixture of suburban and agricul- 
tural interests. Corn and soybeans re- 
main important to the economy in De 
Kalb and La Salle counties, where the 
farm land is among the richest in the 


country. But there is a new orienta- 
tion toward Chicago with the added 
territory in Du Page and Kane coun- 
ties. 

Redistricting has complicated the 
geography of the district. Up to now, 
Corcoran has represented nine full 
counties and part of a tenth. But his 
new 14th has only one complete coun- 
ty and parts of eight others. The dis- 
trict line cuts right through Aurora 
and Elgin; about 2,000 Elgin resident 
were placed in in Crane’s 12th Dis- 
trict. 

m mm (Central— Bloomington, 

I O Kankakee) 

Edward R. Madigan, whose old 
21st District was a compact area in 
the heart of the state, will find him- 
self campaigning this year in a consti- 
tuency that sprawls north from his 
hometown of Lincoln in the center of 
the state all the way to the edge of 
Chicago’s suburbs. 

Redistricting essentially disman- 
tled the old 21st. After carving away 
the population centers of Decatur and 
Champaign/Urbana, the map makers 
combined the remainder of the dis- 
trict with the southern sections of the 
old 17th and 15th districts, most of 
them sparsely populated. About 57 
percent of the constituents are new to 
Madigan. 

Like the old district, however, Mad- 
igan ’s new one is traditional Republi- 
can farm country. Corn and soybean 
counties such as Iroquois and Ford 
are among the most Republican in the 
state; both gave Reagan more than 
two thirds of their 1980 vote. 

Bloomington, with about 44,000 
residents, and nearby Normal, with 
about 36,000, comprise the major 
population centers in the new dis- 
trict. They are linked by Illinois State 
University and Illinois Wesleyan 
University. 

Madigan will find it prudent to take 
an interest in nuclear power. Al- 
though the old 21st had no operating 
nuclear plants and just one under 
construction, the new 15th includes 
three operating plants in Grundy 
County, two under construction in 
southeast LaSalle County, and a ma- 
jor nuclear- waste storage facility in 
Morris. 

_ ^ (Northwest— Rockford) 

1 O Even though it includes the 
industrial city of Rockford, the 16th 
has not elected a Democrat to the 
House in this century, and redistrict- 
ing changes it very little. While dis- 


tricts all around it were undergoing 
major surgery, the 16th was pre- 
served virtually intact, which is 
represented by Lynn Martin. 

The district does take in two coun- 
ties, Carroll and Whiteside, which 
border the Mississippi River. They re- 
place Boone and part of McHenry 
County, which were pared away. But 
about 90 percent of the population is 
carried over from the old 16th. 

There is substantial industry in the 
district. Rockford has a large blue- 
collar population that is unionized in 
plants making machine tools, auto- 
motive parts, agricultural imple- 
ments and defense-related aviation 
equipment. 

The rest of the district is largely 
rural, settled by Germans, Swedes 
and Yankees transplanted from New 
England. It ranks first in the state in 
dairy farming. 

John B. Anderson, who is from 
Rockford, represented the 16 th as a 
Republican in Congress for 20 years 
until he ran for president in 1980. An- 
derson’s neighbors in Winnebago 
County gave him about 22 percent of 
their presidential vote— his second- 
best countywide showing in the 
country. 


m b (West — Rock Island, 

1 f Moline, Galesburg) 

Republican Rep. Tom RailsbacK 
uccumbed to an articulate conserva- 
ive challenger, state Sen. Kenneth u. 
IcMillan, whose agricultural bac 
round and conservative vie ^ s 
rought him strong support in tne 
ural areas of the new 17 th Distric. 
tut Railsback’s campaign weaK- 
esses and an unfavorable set oi cns 
rict lines contributed as much to his 
efeat as did ideology. 

McMillan, whose stands on gun 
ontrol, abortion, school prayer an a 
ost of other issues make him a a 
ite of new right groups, repea ey 
harged that Railsback was too hber- 

1 for the district. Weaknesses m 

Railsback ’s speaking style, the res 
f an injury to his throat nearly 
ecade ago, probably hurt him m 
i the new territory than m the 
istrict, where he is familiar. 

Despite his problems, the 
ent would almost certainly 
ro n within the old boundaries. Kecus- 
ricting removed areas where 
ack had performed well in the p 
nd brought in several counties on 
he eastern side of the 17th w 
either candidate was well-known at 


Page Seventeen 


Volume 15, Number 92 


THE 1982 ILLINOIS PRIMARY 


In rural Putnam and Stark coun- 
ties, for example, McMillan received 
about two-thirds of the vote, un- 
doubtedly benefiting from his back- 
ground as a livestock farmer and his 
work for the Illinois Farm Bureau be- 
fore he became a state legislator. 

Railsback’s only strong showing 
came in industrialized Rock Island 
County, which he carried by more 
than 2-to-l. The veteran Republican 
has traditionally received general 
election support from labor in the ad- 
joining cities of Rock Island and 
Moline; his large margin there indi- 
cated that more than a few Democrat- 
ic blue-collar workers crossed over to 
the GOP primary to vote for him. 

In his old district, such an impres- 
sive margin in Rock Island County 
would have brought Railsback vic- 
tory. But in his more rurally oriented 
redrawn territory, the Rock Island 
vote was not enough, and he lost 
overall by about 1000 votes. 

Unopposed in the Democratic pri- 
mary was lawyer Lane Evans of Rock 
Island Evans, who has solid support 
from labor, will offer a sharp philo- 
sophical contrast to McMillan m the 
general election campaign. Unem- 
ployment in the district’s important 
agricultural implement industry ' is 
high, and it is not clear whether Mc- 
Millan’s rightward bent wiU play as 
well among a broader electorate in 
November as it did in the GOP 

pr Sed between the Mississippi 
and Illinois rivers, the 17th is prime 
farm land where most corn and soy 
bean growers can survive even bad 
veate In the northern part of the dis- 
K in Bureau and Henry counties, 
billboards proclaim the area the og 

C The al urba t n e cente r r of the district is 

Sd Motors* up the Illinois half 
f the “Quad Cities. 

>2* 'istrss rfts 

t Imd and n Moiine is one of the conn- 
IS - most intensive concentrations 
‘ffarm Shipment manufactunng. 

But times are bad for the agrieul- 
B i irnnlement industry, and unem- 
tural imp d Cities in early 

P lo r en !mo« than 15 percent. Also 
l9 fouble is Galesburg, shifted back 
m Payback's territory after a 
t0 5? absence. A city of 35,000, 
l°'Sirg recently lost its second 
Ga i employer, a lawn mower 
manufacturer who moved south. A 

Page Eighteen 



Tom Railsback 

machine tool plant there has also 
closed, helping to push the unemploy- 
ment rate to 20 percent. 

Like Railsback’s old 19th District, 
the new 17th tilts Republican, al- 
though it is more competitive be- 
tween the parties than other down- 
state districts. Labor in Rock Island 
county provides a substantial Demo- 
cratic base, but the rural areas usual- 
ly outvote the cities of Rock Island, 
Moline and Galesburg. Railsback s 
moderate House voting record had al- 
lowed him to carry portions of these 
cities that prefer Democrats in state- 
wide contests. 

This year, however, the lines were 
somewhat less favorable for the in- 
cumbent. While the district is no less 
Republican, about 30 percent of the 
population is new, nearly all of it in the 
rural counties at the eastern end. 

- « (Central— Peoria) 

1 8 In the 18th District, held by 
House Republican leader Robert H. 
Michel, labor lawyer G. Douglas 
Stephens was the easy winner of a 
write-in Democratic primary. He and 
state Rep. Gerald Bradley decided to 
try for the Democratic nomination 
after the candidates’ filing deadline 
passed in early January. Stephens 
will say in the fall that Michel and 
GOP economic policies have created 
the high unemployment that plagues 
the industrial areas of the 18th. But 
the district as redrawn still favors the 
GOP, and Michel is personally pop- 
ular. 

The 18th zigs and zags from Peoria 
south to the outskirts of Decatur and 
Springfield, and west to Hancock 
County on the Mississippi. A mostly 
rural area, it is linked by the broad Il- 
linois Rover basin, ideal for growing 
corn. The only major urban area is 


Peoria, with 124,000 residents, and 
neighboring Pekin, with 34,000. 

Robert H. Michel, the House Re- 
publican leader, follows a long line of 
Republican representatives that in- 
cludes Everett M. Dirksen, later GOP 
leader in the Senate. The GOP may 
even be a bit stronger within the new 
district lines than in the old ones; 
Reagan’s 1980 vote was 60 percent in 
the old 18th, and 61.2 percent in the 
new one. 

Michel’s hometown of Peoria, how- 
ever, is a troubled industrial city. It is 
dominated by the Caterpillar Tractor 
Company, which makes its interna- 
tional headquarters there and em- 
ploys more than 30,000 people in the 
district at five different plants. But 
Peoria has lost much of its other in- 
dustry in the past decade, including a 
once-thriving brewery. Pekin is a 
grain processing and shipping center; 
it produces ethanol, both for fuel and 
for drink. 

Peoria and Tazewell counties are 
the only territory remaining from the 
district that elected Michel in 1970 
As a result, the Republican leader 
faces a constituency about 45 percent 
new to him. Michel once represented 
eight counties and most of a ninth, 
but now he is responsible not only for 
eight complete counties but parts of 
eight more. It is still a Republican 
district— seven of the eight full coun- 
ties gave Reagan at least 60 percent 
of the vote in 1980-but it will not be 
an easy one to represent, especially at 
a time when it is hit hard by reces- 
sion. 

I Q (S° u theas t~Dan ville, 

3 Champaign-Urbana) 

Incumbent Republican Daniel B. 
Crane ran unopposed in the 19th Dis- 
trict. Champaign attorney John 
Gwinn easily defeated two oppo- 
nents, securing the Democratic nom- 
mation. 

The new 19th is part of the Mid- 
west Corn Belt in the north and 
strictly southern Illinois in the south. 
I he corn-growing areas are fertile 
and the farms profitable. The south- 
ern counties are less prosperous and 
devoted more to general farming. 

Politically, the district tends to 
divide along the same lines. Yankee 
Republicans settled the northern por- 
tion of the district, while conserva- 
tive Democrats migrating from below 
the Mason-Dixon Line settled the 
southern part. 

Before Crane’s emergence in 1978, 
the old 22nd District, similar to the 

FOCU S/Midwes t 


THE 1982 ILLINOIS PRIMARY 


new 19th, elected Democrat George 
Shipley be comfortable margins. But 
Crane has done well even in the 
southern counties, where his conser- 
vative views have appealed to both 
parties. He outpolled Reagan in 1980 
in the old 22nd. 

Crane has been given a constitu- 
ency in which 28 percent of the people 
are new to him. He loses four counties 
in the center of the state— -Christian, 
Fayette, Shelvy, and Moultrie— all 
traditionally Democratic. Christian, a 
coal-mining county, has a strong 
Democratic organization. To make up 
for the loss of population. Crane 
picked up Hamilton and White coun- 
ties in the south and the urban por- 
tion of Champaign County around 
the University of Illinois. 

Champaign and Urbana together 
have about 95,000 people, and the 
university influence leads them into 
the Democratic column in most con- 
tests. They could cause Crane some 
problems in the long run. Remaining 
in the district is Danville, an indus- 
trial farm market center. Danville has 
significant Democratic strength, but 
it is Crane’s home and he has done 
well there. General Motors is a major 
employer in Danville. 


A A (Central— Springfield, 

20 Decatur ; Quincy) 

The 20th is a politically marginal 
district with unemployment prob- 
lems that could cause trouble for Re- 
publican incumbent Paul Findley. He 
faces a capable Democratic challeng- 
er in Springfield lawyer Richard Dur- 
bin, who pushed aside a former state 
senator in the primary by a 3-to-l 
margin. 

Redistricting has complicated 
Findley’s life and threatens his career 
in the House. By design, his new 20th 
District is considerably more Demo- 
cratic than the one he has been repre- 
senting. 

The new map drawn up by Demo- 
crats weakens him by expanding the 
district east to Christian, Shelby and 
Moultrie counties— traditional Demo- 
cratic territory where southern folksi- 
ness has traditionally played better 
than Findley’s Yankee politics of is- 
sues and moral principle. It also in- 
cludes Decatur, an industrial city of 
nearly 100,000 that often votes 
Democratic. 

Meanwhile, the 20th loses the reli- 
ably Republican suburbs of Spring- 
field, and nearby Scott and Morgan 
counties, also good Findley territory. 


The result is a marginal district that 
the incumbent will have to work to 
hold, although he does carry over 
about 65 percent of the constituents 
in his old 20th. Findley keeps the 
town of Quincy, on the Mississippi 
River, and the inner-city part of 
Springfield, with the state capitol and 
a substantial block of white-collar 
workers in state government. Spring- 
field is the district’s largest city, and 
altogether the portion of Sangamon 
County included in the district will 
cast more than a quarter of the vote. 


A 4 (Southwest— East St Louis , 
Z 1 Alton) 

Melvin Price, the 77-year-old dean 
of the state delegation, had no trouble 
with two primary challengers in his 
21st District, and the Republican 
nominee is not strong. 

Like Price’s old 23rd District, the 
new 21st is dominated by the indus- 
trial region across the river from St. 
Louis. Steel, petroleum refining and 
glass are the dominant industries, al- 
though they are in serious decline. 

East St. Louis is still the largest 
city in the district, but it is a shell of 
its former self. Abandoned by manu- 
facturing firms, the city is also losing 
most of its remaining retail stores. 
About 21 percent of its population 
has left in the past 10 years, leaving 
the city about the size it was in 1910. 

East St. Louis is overwhelmingly 
black, while neighboring Belleville to 
the south and Granite City to the 
north are predominantly white. Of 
the three blue-collar communities, 
Belleville is the most viable; many of 
its residents commute to work in St. 
Louis. Further north is the old river 
port of Alton, now an industrial com- 
munity producing steel. 

Previously composed only of St. 
Clair County and half of neighboring 
Madison, the 21st had to expand sig- 
nificantly to make up its population 
deficit. It now includes all of Madison 
and Bond, all but two townships in 
St. Clair, and sections of Montgom- 
ery and Clinton counties. 

This poses no immediate problem 
for the 77-year-old Price. At some 
point in his 37-year congressional 
career, Price has represented most of 
the area added to the 21st. And 
thanks largely to St. Clair County, 
the 21st remains the only rock-solid 
Democratic district outside the Chi- 
cago area. St. Clair was one of only 
three Illinois counties that voted for 
Carter in 1980. 


A A (South—Carbondale) 

Z Z Democratic Rep. Paul Simon, 
a narrow winner in 1980, is in a much 
better position this year in the 22nd 
District. The remap has made his con- 
stituency more Democratic, and the 
nominee of the RepubUcan Party is 
Peter G. Prineas, who received only 
one-third of the vote as the candidate 
against Simon in 1978. John T. An- 
derson, who waged an exceptional 
campaign that nearly unseated 
Simon in 1980, chose not to run this 
time. 

At the southern tip of Illinois the 
prairies give way to hilly countryside, 
and coal replaces large-scale farming 
as a dominant economic activity. 
About 15,000 miners work in the Illi- 
nois Basin, a coal vein that runs 
under Franklin, Williamson, Saline, 
Pery and Jefferson counties. The peo- 
ple here are descendants of 19th cen- 
tury settlers from Kentucky, Tennes- 
see and other parts of the South; they 
are traditional Democrats, although 
those loyalties are gradually chang- 
ing. 

The new 22nd is similar in outline 
to the old 24th, but is has been re- 
drawn for the benefit of Simon, its lib- 
eral Democratic incumbent, who 
escaped defeat by fewer than 2,000 
votes in 1980. The most important 
change is the addition of heavily 
democratic territory in St. Clair 
County. Simon takes on Centreville 
and Sugar Loaf townships, on the 
southern outskirts of East St. Louis, 
urbanized blue-collar areas which had 
been in Price’s old 23rd District. 

Simon also loses two counties— 
Hamilton and White— that are histor- 
ically Democratic but turned against 
him in 1980. Oil royalty holders there 
were disappointed in Simon’s vote for 
the oil windfall profits tax, which re- 
duced their income from the area s 
productive stripper wells. 

Carbondale and the other small 
cities of the 22nd lie along the Main 
Street of the district: state Route 13. 
Carbondale is dominated by Southern 
Illinois University, with 23,000 
students. 

At the southern tip of the district is 
Alexander County, in the region 
called “Little Egypt.’’ The depressed 
river town of Cairo is its county seat. 
Alexander gave Jimmy Carter 51 P er “ 
cent of its vote in 1980, making it sec- 
ond only to Cook County in its Demo- 
cratic presidential showing. 


Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Nineteen 


THE 1982 ILLINOIS PRIMARY 


GOVERNOR 



Candidate 

Residence 

Age 

Occupation 

Vote Percent 



‘Adlai E. Stevenson III (D) 

Hanover 

51 

Former U.S. senator 

Unopposed 



* James R. Thompson (R) 

Chicago 

45 

Incumbent 

515.797 85.4 



V. A. Kelley (R) 

Beecher 

67 

Retired carpenter 

39.630 6.6 



John E. Roche (R) 

Palos Park 

57 

Physician 

48.708 8.1 

HOUSE 






District 

Location 

Candidate 

Residence 

Age 

Occupation 

Vote Percent 

1 

Chicago — South Side 

•Harold Washington (D) 

Chicago 

59 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 



No Republican Candidate 





2 

Chicago — Far South Side 

*Gus Savage (D) 

Chicago 

56 

Incumbent 

24.414 38.3 


and suburbs. 

Eugene M. Barnes (D) 

Chicago 

50 

Transit official 

22,136 35.1 



Monica Faith Stewart (D) 

Chicago 

29 

State representative 

12.756 20.2 



Bruce Crosby (D) 

Chicago 

31 

Civil rights activist 

3.801 6.0 



•Kevin Walker Sparks (R) 

Harvey 



Unopposed 

3 

Southwest Chicago and 

*Marty Russo (D) 

South Holland 

38 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 


suburbs 

•Richard D. Murphy (R) 

Chicago 

53 

Real estate consultant 

Unopposed 

4 

Southern Chicago suburbs 

Dennis E. Marlow (D) 

Calumet City 

34 

Teacher 

3.578 27.6 


— Joliet, Aurora 

•Michoel A. Murer (D) 

Joliet 

38 

lawyer 

7.611 58.6 



Bernard Vazquez (D) 

Steger 

53 

Trucking company manager 

1.794 13.8 



Edward J. Derwinski (R) 

Flossmoor 

55 

Incumbent 

17,226 46.0 



George M. O'Brien (R) 

Joliet 

64 

Incumbent 

20.210 54.0 

5 

South central Chicago 

John G. Fary (D) 

Chicago 

70 

Incumbent 

21,007 35.6 


and suburbs 

•William O. Lipinski (D) 

Chicago 

44 

City alderman 

35,695 60.6 



John J. Holowinski (D) 

Chicago 

25 

City health official 

2,248 3.8 



•Daniel J. Partyka (R) 

Chicago 

29 

Former legislative aide 

Unopposed 

6 

Far west Chicago 

•Leroy €. Kennel (D) 

Lombard 

51 

Seminary instructor 

Unopposed 


suburbs — Wheaton 

•Henry J. Hyde (R) 

Benscnville 

57 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 

7 

Chicago — Downtown, 

•Cardiss Collins (D) 

Chicago 

50 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 


West Side 

•Dansby .Cheeks (R) 

Oak Park 

38 

Lawyer 

Unopposed 

8 

Chicago — North and 

* Dan Rostenkowski (D) 

Chicago 

54 

Incumbent 

52,455 91 .0 


northwest sides 

Carl C. lodico (D) 

Chicago 

58 

Chemical company president 

5,175 9.0 



No Republican Candidate 





9 

Chicago — North Side 

•Sidney R. Yates (D) 

Chicago 

72 

Incumbent 

21,997 83.0 


lakefront, northern suburbs 

John B. McCauley (D) 

Chicago 

34 

Former city attorney 

4,499 17.0 



•Catherine Bertini (R) 

Chicago 

31 

Corporate public affairs 







manager 

Unopposed 

10 

North and northwest 

•Eugenia S. Chapman (D) 

Arlington Heights 

59 

State representative 

Unopposed 


suburbs — Waukegan 

•John Edward Porter (R) 

Evanston 

46 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 

11 

Northwest Chicago 

•Frank Annunzio (D) 

Chicago 

67 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 


and suburbs 

•James F. Moynihan (R) 

Chicago 

29 

State transportation official 

Unopposed 

12 

Far northwest suburbs — 

No Democratic Candidate 






Palatine 

•Philip M. Crane (R) 

Mount Prospect 

51 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 

13 

Southwest Chicago 
suburb — Downers Grove 

•Robert Bily (D) 

Lemont 

47 

Auto recycling company owner 

Unopposed 



•John N. Erlenborn (R) 

Glen Ellyn 

55 

Incumbent 

25,353 62.4 



Mark Q. Rhoads (R) 

Western Springs 

35 

State senator 

9,888 24.3 



Terrel E. Clarke (R) 

Western Springs 

62 

Former state senator 

3,765 9.3 



Williqm P. Vlach Jr. (R) 

LaGrange Park 

39 

Film maker 

1,614 4.0 


Page Twenty 


FOC\JS/Midwe8t 






THE 1982 ILLINOIS PRIMARY 


District 

Location 

Candidate 

Residence 

Age 

Occupation 

Vote 

Percent 

14 

North Central — 

* Dan McGrath (D) 

Ottawa 

43 

Former congressional aide 

1,789 

67.0 


DeKalb, Elgin 

John Quillin (D) 

Seneca 

56 

Chiropractic society official 

882 

33.0 



•Tom Corcoran (R) 

Ottawa 

42 

Incumbent 

16,003 

72.4 



Karl l. Reinke Jr. (R) 

Dundee 

53 

Energy conservation specialist 

3,788 

17.2 



Lawrence M. Secrest (R) 

Elgin 

35 

Nuclear physicist 

2,291 

10.4 

15 

Central — Bloomington, 

•Tim L. Hall (D) 

Dwight 

56 

Former U.S. representative 

Unopposed 


Kankakee 

•Edward R. Madigan (R) 

Lincoln 

46 

Incumbent 

56,389 

89.3 



James J. O'Connell (R) 

Joliet 

49 

Will County recorder of deeds 

6,738 

10.7 

16 

Northwest — Rockford 

•Carl R. Schwerdtfeger (D) 

Elizabeth 

41 

Farmer, teacher 

Unopposed 



*Lynn M. Martin (R) 

Rockford 

42 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 

17 

West — Moline, Rock 

•Lane Evans (D) 

Rock Island 

30 

Lawyer 

Unopposed 


Island, Galesburg 

Tom Railsback (R) 

Moline 

50 

Incumbent 

23,063 

48.9 



•Kenneth G. McMillan (R) 

Bushnell 

39 

State senator 

24,134 

51.1 

18 

Central — Peoria 

Gerald Bradley (D)t 

Bloomington 

55 

State representative 

576 

22.9 



*G. Douglas Stephens (D)t 

Peoria 

30 

Lawyer 

1,936 

77.1 



•Robert H. Michel (R) 

Peoria 

59 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 

19 

Southeast — Champaign- 

Jon W. Linfield (D) 

Champaign 

54 

Former federal farm official 

8.208 

33.0 


Urbana, Danville 

•John Gwinn (D) 

Champaign 

39 

Lawyer 

11,231 

45.1 



David Lee Weir (D) 

Mottoon 


University counselor 

5.463 

22.0 



•Daniel B. Crane (R) 

Danville 

46 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 

20 

Central — Springfield, 

•Richard J. Durbin (D) 

Springfield 

37 

State senate parliamentarian 

32.480 

75.5 


Decatur, Quincy 

John L. Knuppel (D) 

Springfield 

58 

Former state senator 

10.530 

24.5 



•Paul Findley (R) 

Pittsfield 

60 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 

21 

Southwest — East 

•Melvin Price (D) 

East St. Louis 

77 

Incumbent 

35,908 

82.2 


St. Louis, Alton 

Floyd E. Fessler (D) 

Alton 

30 

Oil company engineer 

4,043 

9.3 



Sandra Climaco (D) 

Belleville 

29 

Homemaker 

3,740 

8.6 



•Robert H. Gaffner (R) 

Greenville 

49 

College administrator 

Unopposed 

22 

South — Carbondale 

•Paul Simon (D) 

Makanda 

53 

Incumbent 

Unopposed 



Ronald E. Ledford (R) 

Eldorado 

30 

Clerk of Saline County Court 

12,303 

49.1 



•Peter G. Princas (R) 

Carbondale 

54 

Energy consulting engineer 

12,752 

50.9 


• Nominee, 
t Write-in. 


An Incomparable 
Offer 

1962-1980 

VOTING 

RECORDS 

Since 1962 FOCUS/Midwest has of- 
fered its subscribers a unique service: 
Descriptions and votes on bills before 
the General Assemblies of Illinois 
and Missouri as well as key congres- 
sional votes by legislators from these 
two states. 


T 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

R 

>lii 


To: FOCUS /MIDWEST 8606 Olive Blvd. 

St. Louis, Mo. 63132 

Please enter my subscription for: 
( ) 1 Yr. (6 issues) $8 


YES, SEND ME ALL 
° 16 Issues of 

Voting Records 
only $2.00 each. 
All 16 only $20. 


( ) 2 Yrs. (12 issues) $14 

( ) 3 Yrs. (18 issues) $19.50 

( ) 5 Yrs. (30 issues) $29 


! Check enclosed □ Bill Me City /State/Zip: 


Name 

Address 


City State Zip:. 
Occupation - .. 


I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

i 

I 

l 

l 

l 

I 

l 

l 

l 

i 

8 

8 

I 

.1 


Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Twenty-One 



1981 RECORD UNEQUALED IN 25 YEARS 


Congressional conservative 
coalition swamps 
Northern Democrats 



- ' T J/Jt r » turrrr**-' 


The conservative coalition of Re- 
publicans and Southern Democrats— 
the backbone of President Reagan's 
support in both House and Senate 
during the 97th Congress— in 1981 
showed a strength unequaled in the 
25 years Congressional Quarterly has 
measured the coalition's muscle. 

Overall, the voting alliance of Re- 
publicans and Southern Democrats 
outpolled Northern Democrats on 92 
percent of the recorded votes in both 
houses in which the two groups faced 
off. 

As defined by CQ in analyzing 
House and Senate votes, the conser- 
vative coalition refers to a voting 
alliance of a majority of Republicans 
and Southern Democrats against a 
majority of Northern Democrats. 

The 1981 success rate represents a 
jump of 20 percentage points over the 
coalition's 1980 score of 72 percent, 
and marks the third straight year the 
coalition has gained in strength over 
the previous year. The coalition’s 
1981 score is even more striking when 
compared to the average of its annual 
success scores of the previous 10 
years, which was 64.2 percent. 

The sole year studied by CQ during 
which the coalition enjoyed com- 
parable success was in 1957, when it 
won 100 percent of the Senate votes 
in which it emerged and 81 percent of 
the House votes, for a total of 89 per- 
cent. 

Support for the coalition increased 
in 1981 in both House and Senate, 
among both Republicans and Demo- 
crats and in every region of the coun- 
try compared with 1980, except for 
Eastern Senate Democrats and 
Southern House Republicans, whose 
composite support scores remained 
about the same. 

Throughout the year in both 
chambers, numerous votes occurred 
on the Reagan program and most of 


them went the president's— and the 
conservatives'— way. This was parti- 
cularly true in the Senate, where the 
Republicans were in the majority. 
Voting as a bloc on Reagan’s key pro- 
posals ensued a victory for the White 
House, with or without the votes of 
Southern Democrats. 

Representative Emerson (R., Mo.) 
was among those who voted most 
consistently with the coalition, agree- 
ing with the group 99 percent of the 
time. Also among coalition support- 
ers were Skelton (D., Mo.), with a 91 
percent voting agreement record, and 
Young (D„ Mo.), who went along with 
the coalition in 76 percent of his 
votes. Opposing the coalition 95 per- 
cent of the time was Yates (D., III). 


U.S. SENATE 

(1) Conservative Coalition Support, 1981. 
Percentage of 104 conservative coalition votes 
in 1981 on which senator voted “yea" or “nay” 
in agreement with the position of the conserva- 
tive coalition. Failures to vote lower both sup- 
port and opposition scores. 

(2) Conservative Coalition Opposition, 1981. 
Percentage of 104 conservative coalition votes 
in 1981 on which senator voted “yea” or “nay” 
in disagreement with the position of the con- 
servative coalition. Failures to vote lower both 
support and opposition scores. 

SENATORS 

ILLINOIS 1 2 

Percy (R.) 72 25 

Dixon (D.) 57 38 

MISSOURI 

Danforth (R.) 83 16 

Eagleton (D.) 10 86 


U.S. HOUSE 

(1) Conservative Coalition Support, 1981. Per- 
centage of 75 conservative coalition recorded 
votes in 1981 on which representative votes 
“yea” or “nay” in agreement with the position 
of the conservative coalition. Failures to vote 
lower both support and opposition scores. 

(2) Conservative Coalition Opposition, 1981. 
Percentage of 75 conservative coalition re- 
corded votes in 1981 on which representative 
voted “yea" or "nay” in disagreement with the 



Conservative Coalition. The 
term “conservative coalition” 
means a voting alliance of Re- 
publicans and Southern Demo- 
crats against the Northern 
Democrats in Congress. This 
meaning, rather than any philo- 
sophic definition of the “con- 
servative” position, provides 
the basis for selection of coali- 
tion votes. 

Southern States. The South- 
ern states are Alabama, Arkan- 
sas, Florida, Georgia, Ken- 
tucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
North Carolina, Oklahoma, 
South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Texas and Virginia. 



position of the conservative coalition. Failures 
to vote lower both support and opposition 


scores. 

REPRESENTATIVES 

ILLINOIS 

Washington (D- 1) 
Savage (D-2) 

Russo (D-3) 

Derwinski (R-4) 

Fary (D-5) 

Hyde (R-6) 

Collins (D-7) 
Rostenkowski (D-8) 
Yates {D— 9) 

Porter (R-10) 

Annunzio (D- 11) 

Crane. P. (R- 1 2) 
McClory (R-13) 
Erlenborn (R- 14) 
Corcoran (R-15) 

Martin (R-16) 

O’Brien (R-17) 

Michel (R-18) 

Railsback (R- 19) 

Findley (R-20) 

Madigan (R-21) 

Crane, D. (R-22) 

Price (D-23) 

Simon (D-24) 

MISSOURI 

Clay (D-1) 

Young (D-2) 

Gephardt (D-3) 

Skelton (D-4) 

Bolling (D-5) 

Coleman (R-6) 

Taylor (R-7) 

Bailey (R-8) 

Volkmer (D-9) 

Emerson (R-10) 


1 

2 

3 

77 

5 

49 

39 

57 

64 

27 

55 

39 

81 

16 

4 

85 

44 

52 

5 

95 

61 

36 

59 

41 

80 

13 

72 

28 

65 

27 

75 

15 

72 

24 

71 

21 

83 

13 

55 

37 

63 

36 

71 

12 

81 

16 

53 

41 

28 

64 

4 

89 

76 

15 

69 

27 

91 

5 

12 

47 

85 

12 

91 

4 

89 

8 

67 

29 

99 

1 


Page Twenty-Two 


FOCUS/Midwest 



RAC, NEW RIGHT FUNDS OFFSET RECESSION 


GOP counts on buying ’82 votes 


Republicans will find out this year 
whether massive financial superiority 
is as helpful to the party in power as 
it is to the party in opposition. 

Their dollar advantage is easy to 
document. In 1981, Republican Party 
groups raised nearly 7.5 times as 
much money as their Democratic 
counterparts ($73.6 million to $9.9 
million) and they seem certain to 
maintain that lead through this year. 
The Republican National Committee 
boasts 1.5 million names on its direct 
mailing list. The Democratic National 


Committee list contains just 130,000. 

The Democratic Congressional 
Campaign Committee hopes to over- 
come its relative lack of resources by 
concentrating on 80 House elections 
in 1982, spending $25,000 in each and 
very little in the rest. Before, this 
election unit scattered smaller 
amounts among many more Demo- 
crats. 

To some extent, at least. Republi- 
cans will be able to use money to off- 
set the liability of hard economic 
times. Political action committee 


(PAC) strategists often friendly to 
the GOP believe Republicans in com- 
petitive districts may need a substan- 
tial edge in money if they expect to 
win amid recession. 

“The movement of money to the 
Republicans is going to accelerate/* 
observed Herbert E. Alexander, di- 
rector of the Citizens Research Foun- 
dation, a campaign finance study 
group. “You see party, PAC and New 
Right money converging on the same 
candidates, and they’re Republi- 
cans/* 


Campaign Receipts and Expenditures for 1980 House and Senate Contests 


ILLINOIS 

% of 
Primary 

% of Gen- 
oral Election 


Expendi- 


Voto 

Vote 

Receipts 

tures 

Senator 





Alcn J. Dixon (D) 

66.7 

56.0 

2,396,908 

2,346,897 

David C. O'Neal (R) 

41.5 

42.5 

1,316.635 

1,293,991 

Bruce Green (LIBERT) 

House 

t 

0.6 

22,686 

22,014 

1 Harold Washington (D) 

47.5 

95.5 

93,338 

87,345 

2 Gus Savage (D) 

45.0 

88.1 

81,473 

80,213 

Marsha A. Harris (R) 

— 

11.8 

3,874 

11,033 

3 Martin Russo (D)* 

— 

68.9 

214,096 

211,989 

Lawrence C. Sarsoun (R) 

— 

31.1 

NA 

NA 

4 Richard S. Jalovec (D) 

— 

32.0 

66,988 

66,899 

Edward J. Derwinski (R)* 

84.1 

68.0 

130,462 

108,597 

5 John G. Fary (D)* 

72.4 

79.6 

69,252 

65,952 

Robert V. Kotowski (R) 

61.8 

20.4 

6,927 

6,925 

6 Mario Raymond Redo (D) 

— 

33.0 

30,558 

30,147 

Henry J. Hyde (R)* 

— 

67.0 

209,818 

144,469 

7 Cardiss Collins (D)* 

78.0 

85.1 

30,175 

21,773 

Ruth R. Hooper (R) 

t 

14.9 

7,255 

7,255 

8 Dan Rostenkowski (D)* 

89.4 

84.7 

303,336 

170,056 

Walter F. Zilke (R) 

— 

15.3 

NA 

NA 

9 Sidney R. Yates (D)* 

86.9 

73.1 

74,981 

64,625 

John D. Andrica (R) 

— 

26.9 

9,359 

12.212 

10 Robert A. Weinberger (D) 

71.9 

39.3 

161,623 

161,037 

John E. Porter (R)* 

— 

60.7 

277,477 

277,699 

11 Frank Annunzio (D)* 

— 

69.8 

108,074 

59,436 

MkhocI R. Zanillo (R) 

— 

30.2 

NA 

NA 

12 David McCartney (D) 

— 

25.9 

9,426 

9,424 

Philip M. Crane (R)* 

— 

74.1 

326.509 

191,160 

13 Mkhaol Reese (D) 

6 6.5 

28.4 

NA 

NA 

Robert McClory (R) # 

60.2 

71.6 

112,760 

96,605 

14 LoRoy E. Kennel (D) 

— 

23.2 

NA 

NA 

John N. Erlenborn (R)“ 

81.3 

76.8 

79,041 

66,340 

15 John P. Quillin (D) 



23.3 

0 

0 

Tom Corcoran (R)* 



76.7 

146,086 

97,859 

16 Douglas R. Aurand (D) 

44.8 

32.6 

41,537 

41,535 

Lynn M. Martin (R) 

47.3 

67.4 

333,759 

318,791 

17 Michael A, Murer (D) 



34.2 

31,260 

29,724 

George M. O'Brien (R)* 



65.8 

122,443 

132,147 

18 John L. Knuppel (D) 

t 

37.9 

34,894 

34,483 

Robert H. Michel (R)* 


62.1 

168,667 

134,540 

19 Thomas J. Hand (D) 



26.6 

NA 

NA 

Tom Railsback (R)* 

— 

73.4 

69,282 

74,031 

20 David l. Robinson (D) 

88.4 

44.0 

676,127 

674,974 

Paul Findley (R)* 

55.6 

56.0 

557,582 

530,568 

21 Penny L. Severns (D) 

— 

32.4 

33,277 

27,577 

Edward R. Madigan (R)* 

— 

67.6 

147,512 

148,147 

22 Peter M. Voelz (D) 

t 

31.2 

21,387 

20,875 

Daniel B. Crane (R)* 


68.8 

193,698 

165,236 


ILLINOIS 

% of 
Primary 

% of Gen- 
eral Election 


Expendi- 


Vote 

Vote 

Receipts 

tures 

23 Melvin Price (D)* 

80.1 

64.4 

19,669 

21,747 

Ronald L. Davtnroy (R) 

52.5 

35.6 

24,056 

23,683 

94 Paul Simon (D)* 

72.5 

49.1 

212,088 

217,098 

John T. Anderson (R) 

— 

48.3 

43,412 

42,494 

James H. Barrett (CST) 

t 

2.6 

20,094 

18,759 

MISSOURI 





Senator 





Thomas F. Eogleton (D)* 

85.6 

52.0 

1,272,272 

1,390,560 

Gene McNary (R) 

61.2 

47.7 

1,180,342 

1,173,161 

House 





1 William Clay (D)* 

70.6 

70.2 

91,202 

90,658 

Bill White (R) 

84.8 

29.8 

NA 

NA 

2 Robert A. Young (D) # 

86.3 

64.4 

152,823 

149,633 

John O. Shields (R) 

33.1 

35.6 

94,812 

94,811 

3 Richard A. Gephardt (D)* 

— 

77.6 

198,696 

198,485 

Robert A. Cedarburg (R) 

— 

22.4 

NA 

NA 

4 ike Skelton (D)‘ 

88.5 

67.8 

131,957 

115,981 

Bill Baker (R) 

62.0 

32.2 

2,600 

1,921 

5 Richard Boiling (D)* 

81.7 

70.1 

173,017 

113,299 

Vincent E. Baker (R) 

71.6 

29.9 

5,826 

9,080 

6 Vernon King (D) 

39.5 

29.4 

22,750 

22,751 

E. Thomas Coleman (R)* 

— 

70.6 

203,912 

156,655 

7 Ken Young (D) 

46.8 

32.2 

NA 

NA 

Gene Taylor (R)* 

— 

67.8 

177,363 

99,889 

8 Steve Gardner (D) 

22.6 

42.9 

139,596 

138,074 

Wendell Bailey (R) 

33.8 

57.1 

341,281 

337,248 

9 Harold L. Voikmer (D)* 

86.4 

56.5 

172,159 

177,635 

John W. Turner (R) 

55.0 

43.5 

199,013 

196,790 

10 Biil D. Burtison (D)* 

57.6 

44.8 

# 168,064 

215,455 

Bill Emerson (R) 

77.5 

55.2 

283,937 

282,494 


KEY: 

* Incumbent 

— unopposed, in primary 

t did not participate in primary 

(LIBERT) Libertarian Party 
(CST) Constitution Party 


NOTE: These figures are compiled by the Federal Election 
Commission and are for 1980 House and Senate contests dur- 
ing the period from Jan. 1, 1979, through Dec. 31, 1980. Amend- 
ments to reports up to Dec. 18, 1981 are included. 


Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Twenty-Three 


SUPPORT SCORE 


Reagan commands 
strong support from 
Missouri, Illinois 
delegations in 1981 


The blush of President Reagan's 
honeymoon with Congress shines 
brightly from an annual study of 
presidential support— a measure of 
how often congressional votes 
matched the president's announced 
positions in 1981. 

On roll-call votes where the presi- 
dent declared an opinion, he and the 
House agreed 72.4 percent of the 
time, he and the Senate 87.5 percent 
of the time. 

Thanks to the fact that the Repub- 
lican-run Senate staged many more 
roll calls than the House in 1981, 
Reagan’s overall score was 81.9 
percent— the highest since the admin- 
istration of Lyndon B. Johnson (who 
had a 93 percent score in 1965). 

But while the study reflects 
Reagan’s first-year success on 
Capitol Hill, it is not a measure of 
how much of his program was ap- 
proved. And as a measure of an in- 
dividual lawmaker's loyalty to the 
White House, the study should be 
used with caution. 

First, the study counts only issues 
that reach a roll-call vote on the 
House or Senate floor. Elements of 
the White House agenda that are 
abandoned or defeated before they 
reach the floor, that are quietly com- 
promised, or that breeze through on a 
voice vote are not counted. 

Second, the study counts only 
votes where the president has in- 
dicated clear, personal support or op- 


P Third, all votes are given equal 
weight. The study does not distin- 
guish major votes from minor ones, 
close calls from lopsided decisions, or 
administration initiatives from pro- 
nosals born on Capitol Hill. 

F Finally, issues that Congress took 
any roll calls to resolve may in- 
fluence the study more than issues 
1 oti led bv a single vote. The classic 
recent example was in 1978, when 
President Carter’s Senate support 
,.nre was dramatically enhanced by 
inning 55 roll calls-mostly pro- 
rinraL- related to ratification of the 
Panama Canal treaties. 

The presidential support score is a 
rough measure of the comity between 


Page Twenty- Four 


Congress and the president— how 
often Congress voted the way the 
president wanted or, conversely, how 
often he endorsed what Congress did. 

Over a period of time, the score 
reflects numerically the rises and 
dips in relations between the two 
branches of government, and in- 
dividual scores show how members of 
Congress generally fit the trends. 

In his maiden year, Reagan and 
Congress were in agreement on 55 of 
76 votes in the House and 112 of 128 
votes in the Senate. 

In 1981, the study was heavily 
weighted toward budget votes— an 
indicator of the year's legislative 
obsession. 

The process of reconciliation alone, 
just one crucial step in Reagan’s at- 
tempt to force budgetary discipline, 
accounted for 33 of the 204 votes. 
Reagan’s position prevailed on all but 
four of them. 

Republicans, predictably, agreed 
with Reagan more often than 
Democrats did. What was unusual, 
however, was the degree of fealty to 
Reagan in the GOP-led Senate. 

Senate Republicans, on average, 
voted with Reagan on 80 percent of 
the roll calls counted. No other presi- 
dent has commanded such loyalty 
from members of his own party in ei- 
ther house since CQ began its study 
29 years ago. 

Even Democrat Lyndon Johnson, 
renowned for his command of Con- 
gress in the early years of his presi- 
dency, never had more than 77 per- 
cent support from House Democrats 
or 63 percent from Senate Democrats. 

With 2-to-l majorities in both 
houses, Johnson could be more toler- 
ant of stragglers than Reagan, with 
his scant 53-47 Senate majority. 

The Republican discipline in 1981 
was even more evident among the 
crew of senators elected in 1980. The 
average support score for the 16 new 
Republicans in the Senate was 82 per- 
cent. 

Broken down by region, the presi- 
dential support scores illustrate the 
widely reported growth of two intra- 
party factions, the conservative 
Southern ‘‘Boll Weevils," and the Re- 
publican moderate "Gypsy Moths" 
of the Northeast and Midwest. 

Reagan drew his strongest Demo- 
cratic support from the Boll Weevils. 
Of the 10 Senate Democrats most 
often in agreement with the presi- 
dent, eight came from the South (the 
other two from Nebraska). In the 
House, 21 of the 22 most supportive 
Democrats came from the South. 
Reagan’s Republican opponents 


tended to be from the ranks of the 
Gypsy Moths. The 21 House Republi- 
cans and the 12 Senate Republicans 
who most often voted in opposition to 
him all came from the Northeast or 
Midwest. 

Michel (R., 111.) was one of the high- 
est individual scorers in presidential 
support, voting for the president's 
position 80 percent of the time. 
Among the strongest opponents were 
Eagleton (D., Mo.) with 64 percent of 
his votes, and Yates (D., 111.), who 
voted against the president 71 per- 
cent of the time. 


(1) Reagan Support Score, 1981. Percentage 
of 76 Reagan-issue recorded votes in 1981 on 
which representative voted ‘‘yea’* or “nay” in 
agreement with the president’s position. 
Failures to vote lower both Support and Op- 
position scores. 

(2) Reagan Opposition Score, 1981. Percent- 
age of 76 Reagan-issue recorded votes in 1981 
on which representative voted ‘‘yea”or “nay” 
in disagreement with the president’s position. 
Failures to vote lower both Support and Op- 
position scores. 


U.S. SENATE 

ILLINOIS 



Percy (R.) 

84 

9 

Dixon (D.) 

56 

41 

MISSOURI 



Danforth (R.) 

84 

14 

Eagleton (D.) 

34 

62 

U.S. HOUSE 

ILLINOIS 

1 

2 

Washington <D-1) 

24 

63 

Savage (D-2) 

14 

49 

Russo (D-3) 

38 

54 

Derwinski (R-4) 

68 

24 

Fary (D-5) 

47 

37 

Hyde (R-6) 

79 

20 

Collins (D-7) 

28 

70 

Rostenkowski (D-8) 

50 

49 

Yates (D-9) 

26 

71 

Porter (R-10) 

68 

32 

Annunzio (D-11) 

55 

45 

Crane, P. (R-12) 

64 

28 

McClory (R-13) 

66 

30 

Erlenborn (R-14) 

71 

22 

Corcoran (R-15) 

70 

22 

Martin (R-16) 

57 

41 

O'Brien (R-17) 

63 

24 

Michel <R-18) 

80 

17 

Railsback (R-19) 

55 

41 

Findley (R-20) 

70 

29 

Madigan (R-21) 

68 

20 

Crane, D. (R-22) 

66 

29 

Price (D-23) 

51 

37 

Simon (D-24) 

36 

59 

MISSOURI 



Clay (D-1) 

22 

68 

Young (D-2) 

54 

42 

Gephardt (D-3) 

54 

43 

Skelton (D-4) 

58 

39 

Bolling (D-5) 

20 

38 

Coleman (R-6) 

70 

28 

Taylor (R-7) 

71 

25 

Bailey (R-8) 

75 

22 

' Volkmer (D-9) 

43 

51 

Emerson (R-10) 

78 

22 


FOCU S ZMidwes t 


NEW HIGHS IN 19S1 


Fight over 
Administration 
programs pushes 
up attendance 

Conservatives trying to adopt Pres- 
ident Reagan’s economic program, 
liberals attempting to stave off deep 
cuts in social programs and a sharp 
drop in the number of votes taken 
combined to push participation in 
recorded floor votes in Congress to 
new highs in 1981. 

Congressional Quarterly’s study of 
1981 voting participation showed 
that members of Congress on average 
voted on 92 percent of the votes 
taken, the highest score since CQ 
began keeping such records in 1951. 

The voting participation study is 
the closest approach to an attendance 
record for Congress, but it is only an 
approximation. 

Among representatives with high 
participation records were Annunzio, 
D.-Ill., Findley, R.-Ill., and Yates, 
D.-IU., who all had voting participa- 
tion records of 99 percent. Savage, 
D.-Ill., and Bolling, D.-Mo., had rec- 
ords of 50 percent and 53 percent re- 
spectively, putting them among the 
lowest scorers in participation. 

The following representatives 
should be included in the list of 
members absent for a day or more in 
1981 because they were sick or be- 
cause of illness or death in their 
families: Bolling, D-Mo., Derwinski, 
R-I1L, Madigan, R-Ill., Martin, R- 
I1L, and Russo, D-Ill. 


Voting Participation. Per- 
centage of recorded votes on 
which a member voted “yea” or 
“nay.” Failures to vote “yea” 
or “nay” lower scores— even if 
the member votes “present,” 
enters a live pair or announces 
his stand. Only votes of “yea” 
or “nay” directly affect the out- 
come of a vote. Voting partici- 
pation is the closest approach 
to an attendance record, but it 
is only an approximation. A 
member may be present and 
nevertheless decline to vote 
“yea” or “nay”— usually be- 
cause he has entered a live pair 
with an absent member. 



U.S. SENATE 

Voting Participation, 1981. Percentage of 483 

roll calls in 1981 on which senator voted “yea” 

or , ‘nay. M 


ILLINOIS 


Percy (R.) 

95 

Dixon (D.) 

97 

MISSOURI 


Danforth (R.) 

98 

Eagleton (D.) 

94 

U.S. HOUSE 

Voting Participation, 1981. Percentage of 353 

recorded votes in 1981 on which representative 

voted “yea” or “nay.” 


ILLINOIS 


Washington (D-1) 

78 

Savage (D-2) 

50 

Russo (D-3) 

92 

Derwinski (R-4) 

91 

Fary (D-5) 

87 

Hyde (R-6) 

95 

Collins (D-7) 

88 

Rostenkowski (D-8) 

94 

Yates (D-9) 

99 

Porter (R-10) 

95 

Annunzio (D— 1 1) 

99 

Crane, P. (R-12) 

86 

McClory (R-13) 

97 

Erlenborn (R-14) 

91 

Corcoran (R-15) 

92 

Martin (R-16) 

93 

O’Brien (R-17) 

87 f 

Michel (R-18) 

91 t 

Railsback (R-19) 

89 

Findley (R-20) 

99 

Madigan (R-21) 

82 

Crane, D. (R-22) 

93 

Price (D-23) 

93 

Simon (D-24) 

85 

MISSOURI 


Clay (D-1) 

76 

Young (D-2) 

92 

Gephardt (D-3) 

94 

Skelton (D-4) 

93 

Bolling (D-5) 

53 

Coleman (R-6) 

93 

Taylor (R-7) 

93 

Bailey (R-8) 

95 

Volkmer (D-9) 

91 

Emerson (R-10) 

98 

t Not eligible for all recorded votes 

in 1981 (sworn in after Jan. 5, died 

or resigned during session, 

or 

voted “present” to avoid possible 

conflict of interest). 



SPENT $13 MILLION 


Conservatives 
raise four times as 
much as liberals 
for 1982 election 

Conservative groups are outspend- 
ing their liberal counterparts by a 
ratio of more than 4-to-l in prepara- 
tions for the 1982 election. 

The Federal Election Commission s 
disclosure reports for 1981 show that 
the six largest conservative political 
action committees (PACs) raised a 
combined total of $12.8 million dur- 
ing the year and spent just under 
$13.3 million. The fund-raising figure 
represented more than twice the 
amount raised by the same organiza- 
tions in 1979, a comparable non- 
election year. 

First on the list was the National 
Congressional Club, which raised 
more than the top six liberal groups 
combined. The North Carolina-based 
organization, whose honorary chair- 
man and central asset is Sen. Jesse 
Helms, R-N.C., raised more than $5.3 
million in 1981. It spent just over 
$5.8 million, the deficit being made 
up by money carried over from 1980. 
The amount raised was only SI. 7 
million less than the group’ s total for 

1980, an election year in which the 
Congressional Club broke all previous 
PAC fund-raising records. 

Second among the conservative 
groups for 1981 was the National 
Conservative Political Action Com- 
mittee (NCPAC) which raised $4.1 
million. 

Although NCPAC is best-known 
for its negative independent cam- 
paign tactics— advertising against 
such liberal Senate Democrats as 
Maryland’s Paul S. Sarbanes— the 
group spends about 15 percent of its 
money helping conservative can- 
didates directly. 

Compared to the conservatives, lib- 
eral fund-raising groups did poorly in 

1981. But in comparison with the re- 
cent past, the liberal record is less 
gloomy. Of the six major groups sup- 
porting liberal Democratic candi- 
dates in 1982, five did not even exist 
two years ago. Although the liberal 
“big six” raised a modest $4 million 
in 1981, that was nearly $3.6 million 
more than the comparable liberal fig- 

continued on page 31 


Volume 25, Number 92 


Page Twenty-Five 



Checklist: How is your 
Congressman voting in 1982? 



The following U.S. Senate and U.S. House Votes were cast during the 98th Con- 
gress, First Session (1982). 

KEY TO SYMBOLS USED IN 
VOTING COLUMNS 


KEY TO SYMBOLS USED IN 
DESCRIPTION OF BILLS 

D: Democrat 

R: Republican 

HR: House Bill 

S: Senate Bill 

H Res: House Resolution 

ND: Northern Democrats 

SD: Southern Democrats 

HJ Res: House Joint Resolution 


(1) S 951 Anti-Busing (Department of Justice 
Authorization.) Heims, R-N.C., -Johnston, D- 
La., amendment to prevent the Department of 
Justice from bringing any legal action that 
could lead directly or indirectly to court- 
ordered busing; bar federal courts from order- 
ing busing except in narrowly defined cir- 
cumstances; and allow the attorney general to 
reopen existing busing orders imposed in vio- 
lation of the standards set out in the amend- 
ment. After an on-again-off -again seven-month 
fight, the Senate voted to add the above sweep- 
ing amendment busing language to this bill. 
Key House members oppose all the anti-bus- 
ing riders, and they may try to keep the bill bot- 
tled up in conference if it ever gets that far. 
Adopted 58-38: R 36-14; D 22-24 (ND 9-22, SD 
13-2), Feb. 4, 1982. 

(2) S 951. Cloture Department of Justice Au- 
thorization. Johnston, D-La., motion to invoke 
cloture (thus limiting debate on anti-busing 
amendment) on the bill to authorize fiscal 1982 
funds for the Department of Justice. Motion 
agreed to 63-33: R 36-15; D 27-18 (ND 13-17, 
SD 14-1), Feb. 9, 1982. A three-fifths majority 
vote (60) of the total Senate is required to in- 
voke cloture. 

(3) S 951. School Assignment by Race. Gor- 
ton, R-Wash., amendment to bar any state or 
federal court, agency or department from im- 
plementing any student assignment plan 
based on race. Rejected 42-49: R 35-14; D 7-35 
(NO 5-22, SD 2-13), Feb. 24, 1982. 

(4) S 951. Department of Justice Authoriza- 
tion, Fiscal 1982. Passage of the bill to autho- 
rize funds for Department of Justice programs; 
to bar federal courts from ordering students 
bused more than five miles or 15 minutes from 
their homes; and to bar the Department of 
justice from participating in busing litigation 
unless it is to reduce or remove busing require- 
ments from existing orders. Passed 57-37: R 
34-13; D 23-24 (ND 9-23, SD 14-1), March 2, 
1982. 

(5) S 391- Intelligence Identities Protection 
Act. Chafee, R-R.l., amendment to provide that 
private persons can be convicted of criminally 
exposing U.S. secret agents if they had “rea- 
son to believe” their acts would harm U.S. in- 
telligence, as opposed to having an “intent” to 
harm U.S. intelligence. Adopted 55-39: R 


Y: Voted for (yea) 

#: Paired for 

+: Announced for 

N: Voted against (nay) 

X: Paired against 

?: Did not vote or otherwise 

make a position known 
C: Voted “present" to avoid possible 

conflict-of-interest 


41-10; D 14-29 (ND 4-25, SD 10-4), March 17, 
1982. A “yea” supports the president. 

(6) S 391. Intelligence identities Protection 
Act. Bradley, D-N.J., amendment to narrow the 
definition of “pattern of activities” intended to 
identify and expose covert intelligence agents, 
for which a person could be prosecuted under 
the bill. The amendment would have required 
that “the main direction” of the pattern of ac- 
tivities “must be to identify and expose covert 
agents." Rejected 37-59: R 10-42; D 27-17 (ND 
23-7, SD 4-10), March 18, 1982. 

(7) HR 4. Intelligence Identities Protection 
Act. Passage of the bill to make it a felony to 
publicly expose the identities of U.S. covert in- 
telligence officers, agents, informants and 
sources. Passed 90-6: R 51-1; D 39-5 (ND 25- 
5, SD 14-0), March 18, 1982. A “yea” supports 
the president. 

(8) S 1080. Congressional Veto Over Agen- 
cies. Danforth, R-Mo., motion to table (kill) the 
Schmitt, R-N.M., amendment to give Congress 
a two-house legislative veto over federal agen- 
cy regulations. Motion rejected 23-70: R 9-43; 
D 14-27 (ND 11-17, SD 3-10), March 23, 1982. A 
“yea” was a vote supporting the president’s 
position. 

(9) S 1080. Adopt Veto Regulatory Reform 
Act. Schmitt, R-N.M., amendment to give Con- 
gress a two-house legislative veto over federal 
agency regulations. Adopted 69-25: R 42-11; D 
27-14 (ND 17-11, SD 10-3), March 23, 1982. A 
“nay” vote supports the president. 


(10) S 1080. Limits Veto Regulatory Reform 
Act. Eagleton, D-Mo., amendment to prevent 
judicial review of an agency’s designation of 
whether a rule is “major" under the test that it 
must have a $100 million annual impact on the 
economy. Rejected 27-65: R 6-44; D 21-21 (ND 
17-11, SD 4-10), March 23, 1982. A “nay” was a 
vote supporting the president’s position. 

(11) S 1207. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
Authorization. Hart, D-Colo., amendment to 
prohibit the government from making nuclear 
weapons from fuel that has been burned by 
civilian nuclear power plants. Adopted 88-9: R 
44-8; D 44-1 (ND 31-0, SD 13-1), March 30, 
1982. A “nay” vote supports the president. 

(12) H J Res 409. Congressional Tax Benefits. 
Baker, R-Tenn., motion to table (kill) the Arm- 
strong, R-Colo., amendment to restore the pre- 
vious $3,000 limit on federal income tax deduc- 
tions members of Congress may take for 
Washington, D.C., living expenses, repealing 
provisions allowing greater deductions that 
Congress had passed in 1981. Motion rejected 
20-77: R 15-37; D 5-40 (ND 4-26, SD 1-14), 
March 30, 1982. 

(13) H J Res 409. Congressional Tax Benefits. 
Specter, R-Pa., amendment, to the Armstrong, 
R-Colo., amendment, to eliminate tax code 
provisions that allow members of Congress to 
deduct living expenses without substantiation 
of such expenses. Rejected 37-60: R 28-24; D 
9-36 (ND 7-23, SD 2-13), March 30, 1982. 

(14) H J Res 409. State Legislators* Tax 
Benefits. Stevens, R-Aiaska, amendment (of- 
fered on behalf of Dole, R-Kan.), to the Arm- 
strong, R-Colo., amendment to repeal tax code 
provisions that allow state legislators to 
deduct travel expenses away from home. Re- 
jected 17-79: R 15-36; D 2-43 (ND 2-28, SD 0- 
15), March 30, 1982. 

(15) H J Res 409. Congressional Tax Benefits. 
Stevens, R-Alaska, amendment, to the Arm- 
strong, R-Colo., amendment, to limit any tax 
reduction due to deductions for Washington, 
D.C., living expenses in any taxable year to no 
more than $5,000 per member of Congress, and 
to require each member to insert copies of his 
federal tax returns in the Congressional Rec- 
ord each year. Rejected 24-74: R 16-36; D 8-38 
(ND 7-24, SD 1-14), March 30, 1982. 

(16) H J Res 409. Continuing Appropriations, 
Fiscal 1982.Tsongas, D-Mass., amendment, to 
the Armstrong, R-Colo., amendment, to re- 
quire each member of Congress to insert 
copies of his federal tax returns in the Con- 
gressional Record each year. Adopted 55-43: R 
24-28; D 31-15 (ND 24-7, SD 7-8), March 30, 
1982. 


SENATORS 


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 


ILLINOIS 

Dixon (D) 
Percy (R) 

MISSOURI 

Danforth (R) 
Eagleton (D) 


NYNNNNYNYNYNNNNYNNNY 

NNNNYNYYNNYNNNNNNNNY 


YYYYYNYYNYYNNNNNNYNY 

NNNNNYYYNYYNNNNNNYNN 


SENATORS 


21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 


ILLINOIS 

Dixon (D) 
Percy (R) 

MISSOURI 

Danforth (R) 
Eagleton (D) 


YYYYYNNYYNYNY + YYNNYY 
YYYYNNNYYNNNYY ?NYNY + 


YY7YYYYYYYNNYYNNYNYN 
NYNYYNNY? 7NNYYYYNYNY 


SENATE 


Page Twenty-Six 


FOCU S/Midwes t 


A 




CHECKLIST s 1982 VOTING RECORD 


(17) H J Res 409. Congressional Tax Benefits, 
Fiscal 1982. Hatfield, R-Ore.. motion to table 
(Kill) the Armstrong, R-Colo., amendment to re- 
store previous S3000 limit on federal income 
tax deductions for Washington living ex- 
penses. Motion rejected 32-65: R 23-29: D 
9-36 (ND 6-25, SD 3-11), March 31, 1982. 

(18) H J Res 409. Reduce Congressional Sala- 
ries. Stevens, R-Alaska, amendment, to the 
Armstrong, R-Colo., amendment, to reduce the 
salaries of members of Congress by 10 per- 
cent. Adopted 63-36: R 34-19: D 29-17 (ND 18- 
13, SD 11-4), March 31. 1982. 

(19) H J Res 409. Congressional Tax Benefits, 
Fiscal 1982. Hatfield, R-Ore.. motion to table 
(kill) the Armstrong, R-Colo., amendment as 
amended. Motion rejected 31-68: R 22-31; D 
9-37 (ND 6-25, SD 3-12), March 31, 1982. 

(20) H J Res 409. Continuing Appropriations, 
Fiscal 1982. Judgment of the Senate affirming 
the chair’s ruling that the Armstrong, R-Colo., 
amendment to reform Congressional tax bene- 
fits was out of order because it constituted 
legislation on an appropriations bill. Ruling of 
the chair upheld 51-48: R 34-19; D 17-29 (ND 
11-20, SD 6-9), March 31, 1982. 

(21) H J Res 409. Continuing Appropriations, 
Fiscal 1982. Passage of the joint resolution to 
provide funding through Sept. 30. 1982, for gov- 
ernment agencies whose regular fiscal 1982 
appropriations bills had not been enacted. 
Passed (thus cleared for the president) 81-18: 
R 43-10; D 38-8 (ND 24-7, SD 14-1), March 31, 
1982. 

(22) S Res 20. Force Against Cuba, (Broad- 
cast of Senate Proceedings.) Percy, R-lll., mo- 
tion to table (kill) the Symms, R-ldaho, amend- 
ment stating the sense of the Senate that the 
United States is determined to use force if nec- 
essary to stop Cuba from aggression or subver- 
sion in the Western Hemisphere or from ac- 
quiring or using external military support to 
endanger the United States, and will support 
“the aspirations of the Cuban people for self- 
determination." Motion agreed to 41-39: R 
15-29; D 26-10 (ND 19-4, SD 7-6), April 14, 
1982. A "yea" vote supports the president. 

(23) S 1630. Criminal Code Reform Act of 
1981. Thurmond, R-S.C., motion to invoke 
cloture (thus limiting debate) on the motion to 
proceed to consideration of S 1630, a bill to re- 
vise federal criminal laws. Motion rejected 45- 
46: R 30-18; D 15-28 (ND 8-20, SD 7-8), April 
27, 1982. A three-fifths majority vote (60) of the 
total Senate is required to invoke cloture. 

(24) S 1662. National Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. McClure, R-ldaho, motion to table (kill) 
the Proxmire, D-Wis., amendment to allow 
stages to veto a decision by the federal govern- 
ment to put a nuclear waste repository in a 
state. Motion agreed to 70-19: R 41-7; D 29-12 
(ND 17-10, SD 12-2), April 29, 1982. 

(25) S 1662. National Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. McClure, R-ldaho, motion to table (kill) 
the Cannon, D-Nev., amendment to allow 
states to block a decision by the federal gov- 
ernment to put a nuclear waste repository in a 
state unless both the House and Senate 
passed a resolution overriding the state. Mo- 
tion agreed to 52-40: R 34-15; D 18-25 (ND 
9-19, SD 9-6), April 29, 1982. 

(26) S 1662. National Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. Johnston, D-La., motion to table (kill) the 
Thurmond, R-S.C., amendment to delete the 
section of the bill that would allow the federal 
government to provide temporary storage for 
burned fuel from nuclear power plants. Motion 
agreed to 47-43: R 28-20; D 19-23 (ND 10-18, 


SD 9-5), April 29, 1982. 

(27) S 1662. National Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. Johnston, D-La., motion to table (kill) the 
Moynihan, D-N.Y., motion to reconsider the 
vote by which the Thurmond, R-S.C., amend- 
ment was tabled. Motion agreed to 46-43; R 
28-19; D 18-24 (ND 10-19, SD 8-5), April 29, 
1982. 

(28) S 1662. National Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. McClure, R-ldaho, motion to table (kill) 
the Stennis, D-Miss., amendment to delay the 
initial selection of a site for a nuclear waste 
repository until after a national survey of 
potential sites was completed. Motion agreed 
to 63-27: R 39-8; D 24-19 (ND 17-13, SD 7-6), 
April 29, 1982. A "yea" vote supports the presi- 
dent. 

(29) S 1662. National Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. McClure, R-ldaho, motion to table (kill) 
the Cochran, R-Miss„ amendment to require 
that of the first three sites initially considered 
for a waste repository, one must be in a granite 
formation. The effect of the amendment would 
have been to delay the selection of the first 
three sites. Motion agreed to 83-5: R 46-1; D 
37-4 (ND 28-1, SD 9-3), April 29, 1982. A "yea" 
vote supports the president. 

(30) S 1662. National Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act. Passage of the bill to establish a federal 
program for the interim storage and eventual 
permanent disposal of highly radioactive nu- 
clear waste. Passed 69-9: R 40-2; D 29-7 (ND 
23-5, SD 6-2), April 29, 1982. A "yea" was a 
vote supporting the president’s position. 

(31) S 2248. Support Summit. (Department of 
Defense Authorization, Fiscal 1983.) Percy, 
R-lll., motion to table (kill) the Specter, R-Pa., 
amendment, as modified, stating the sense of 
Congress that the president should request a 
summit meeting with leaders of the Soviet 
Union to discuss the control of nuclear arms. 
Motion rejected 32-60: R 25-25; D 7-35 (ND 
2-25, SD 5-10), May 2, 1982. A "yea" was a vote 
supporting the president’s position. 

(32) DOD Inspector General. Roth, R-Del., 
motion to table (kill) the Bentsen, D-Texas, 
amendment to the Roth, R-Del., amendment to 
establish an office of inspector general in the 
Department of Defense. The Bentsen amend- 
ment gave the inspector general greater inde- 
pendence from the secretary of defense than 
did the Roth amendment. Motion rejected 45- 
46: R 44-4; D 1-42 (ND 0-30, SD 1-12), May 12, 
1982. (The Bentsen amendment subsequently 
was tabled by voice vote. The Roth amendment 
subsequently was adopted (see vote below). 

(33) DOD Inspector General. Roth, R-Del., 
amendment to establish an office of inspector 
general in the Department of Defense. Adopted 
94-0: R 51-0; D 43-0 (ND 30-0, SD 13-0), May 
12. 1982. 

(34) S. 2248. Department of Defense Authori- 
zation, Fiscal 1983. Passage of the bill to au- 
thorize $177,397,810,000 for Department of De- 
fense research and development, procure- 
ment, and operations and maintenance in fis- 
cal year 1983, and making a supplemental au- 
thorization of $731,400,000 for fiscal year 1982. 
Passed 84-8: R 49-2; D 35-6 (ND 21-6, SD 14- 
0), in the session which began May 13, 1982. 

(35) S Con Res 60. Disapproval of FTC Used- 
Car Rule. Adoption of the concurrent resolu- 
tion to disapprove a proposed Federal Trade 
Commission rule to require used-car dealers to 
inform customers of major known defects in 
used automobiles. Adopted 69-27: R 40-12; D 
29-15. 

(36) S Con Res 92. Defer 1983 Tax Cut, Fiscal 


1983. Byrd, D-W. Va., amendment to express 
the sense of the Senate that the Finance Com- 
mittee should defer the 1983 individual income 
tax cut or eliminate it and substitute a “fiscally 
prudent tax cut which distributes benefits fair- 
ly to all working and middle-income Ameri- 
cans." Rejected 35-63: R 0-53; D 35-10 (ND 
25-5, SD 10-5), May 20, 1982. 

(37) S Con Res 92. Decrease Foreign Aid, Fis- 
cal 1983. Baker, R-Tenn., motion to table (kill) 
the Dixon, D-lll., amendment to reduce outlays 
for foreign aid programs by $2.4 billion in fiscal 
1983-85 in order to maintain foreign aid at the 
fiscal 1982 level. Motion agreed to 60-32: R 
41-8; D 19-24 (ND 18-11, SD 1-13), May 21, 

1982. 

(38) S Con Res 92. Repeal Indexing, Fiscal 

1983. Eagleton, D-Mo., amendment to express 
the sense of the Senate that the Finance Com- 
mittee should report a bill repealing the index- 
ing provisions of the 1981 tax cut legislation. 
Rejected 34-56: R 5-42; D 29-14 (ND 19-10, SD 
10-4), May 21, 1982. 

(39) S Con Res 92. Reappropriate Defense 
Outlays, Fiscal 1983. Baker, R-Tenn., motion 
to table (kill) the Riegle, D-Mich., amendment 
to reduce defense outlays by $18.9 billion in 
fiscal 1983-85, transfer $14 billion to four 
domestic programs and allocate the remainder 
to deficit reduction. Motion agreed to 61-30: R 
46-2; D 15-28 (ND 5-24, SD 10-4), May 21, 
1982. 

(40) WIN Program Supplemental Appropria- 
tions, Fiscal 1982. Dixon, D-lll., amendment to 
provide an additional $38,400,000 to the De- 
partment of Health and Human Services for the 
work incentive (WIN) program. Adopted 76-19: 
R 35-16; D 41-3 (ND 27-2, SD 14-1), May 26, 
1982. 


HOUSE 


(1) HR 4481 . Justice Assistance Act. Passage 
of the bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Con- 
trol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to create an 
Office of Justice Assistance within the Justice 
Department and to authorize $170 million in 
50-50 matching grants to the states in fiscal 
1983 to aid in fighting crime. Passed 289-73: R 
92-63; D 197-10 (ND 137-2, SD 60-8), Feb. 10, 
1982. A "nay" supports the president. 

(2) HR 2329. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. 

Synar, D-Okla., motion to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill to waive the statute of limita- 
tions applicable to two claims that three Indian 
nations in Oklahoma have against the United 
States government. Motion rejected 174-215: 
R 13-158; D 161-57 (ND 123-25, SD 38-32), 
March 18, 1982. A two-thirds majority vote (260 
in this case) is required for passage under sus- 
pension of the rules. 

(3) HR 5708. Section 235 (National Housing 
Act Extension.) Gonzales, D-Texas, motion to 
suspend the rules and pass the bill to extend 
through fiscal 1982 the Section 235 program of 
mortgage assistance for low-income home 
buyers. Motion agreed to 341-54: R 124-45; D 
217-9 (ND 148-3, SD 69-6), March 23, 1982. A 
two-thirds majority vote (264 in this case) is re- 
quired for passage under suspension of the 
rules. 

(4) HR 6294. Housing Assistance Authoriza- 
tion. St. Germain, D-R.l., motion to suspend 
the rules and pass the bill to provide a supple- 
mental authorization to stimulate sales and 
production of single-family housing. Motion 
agreed to 349-55: R 135-43; D 214-12 (ND 


Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Twenty-Seven 



CHECKLIST: 1982 VOTING RECORD 


149-4, SD 65-8), May 11, 1982. A two-thirds ma- 
jority vote (270 in this case) is required for 
passage under suspension of the rules. 

(5) HR 5922. OSHA Authority (Urgent Supple- 
mental Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1982). 
Rousselot, R-Calif., amendment to continue 
under the Occupational Safety and Health Ad- 
ministration (OSHA) the authority to enforce 
safety standards on surface mining of stone, 
gravel, clay and phosphate, rather than trans- 
ferring jurisdiction to the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration (MSHA) as provided in 
the bill. Rejected 186-220: R 132-46; D 54-174 
(ND 9-143, SD 45-31), May 12, 1982. 

(6) HR 6068. Intelligence Agencies Authoriza- 
tions, Fiscal 1983. Passage of the bill to autho- 
rize secret amounts in fiscal 1983 for opera- 
tions of U.S. intelligence agencies. Passed 
357-23: R 168-1; D 189-22 (ND 121-21, SD 
68-1), May 19, 1982. 

(7) HR 5890. NASA Authorization. Passage of 
the bill to authorize $6,647,300,000 in fiscal 
year 1983 for National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration research and development. 
Passed 277-84: R 102-65; D 175-19 (ND 114- 
13, SD 61-6), May 13, 1982. 

(8) HR 6267. Net Worth Guarantee Housing 
Act. Passage of the bill to revitalize the hous- 
ing industry by setting up a Treasury fund to 
guarantee the net worth of qualified mortgage 
lending institutions. Passed 272-91: R 84-75; 
D 188-16 (ND 131-4, SD 57-12), May 20, 1982. 

(9) H Con Res 345. “Pay As You Go” Budget, 
Fiscal 1983. Miller, D-Calif., substitute, known 
as the “pay as you go” budget, to require that 
any increases in spending above fiscal 1982 
levels be matched by offsetting revenue in- 
creases or spending cuts in other programs. 
The substitute would result in a $27.5 billion 
surplus in fiscal 1985, according to Congres- 
sional Budget Office estimates. Rejected 
181-225: R 3-179; D 178-46 (ND 130-18, SD 
48-28), May 24, 1982. 


(10) H Con Res 345. Job Programs, Reduce 
Tax Cuts, Fiscal 1983. Obey, D-Wis., substi- 
tute to provide funding for emergency jobs pro- 
grams while maintaining other domestic pro- 
grams at real fiscal 1982 levels and increasing 
non-pay defense programs by 7 percent, and to 
scale back the tax cuts enacted in 1981. The 
substitute would result in a $1.3 billion deficit 
in fiscal 1985, according to Congressional Bud- 
get Office estimates. Rejected 152-268: R 8- 
176; D 144-92 (ND 133-26, SD 11-66), May 24, 

1982. 

(11) H Con Res 345. Increases Non-Defense 
Programs, Fiscal 1983. Fauntroy, D-D.C., sub- 
stitute, proposed by the Congressional Black 
Caucus, to make substantial increases above 
current policy levels in spending for non- 
defense programs, hold defense spending at 
fiscal 1982 levels, and increase revenues 
through extensive tax reforms. The substitute 
would result in an $18.7 billion surplus in fiscal 
1985, according to Congressional Budget Of- 
fice estimates. Rejected 86-322: R 0-177; D 
86-145 (ND 78-79, SD 8-66), May 24, 1982. 

(12) H Con Res 345. Cuts Non-Defense Pro- 
grams, Fiscal 1983. Rousselot, R-Calif., substi- 
tute to balance the budget in fiscal 1983-85 by 
making large cuts in non-defense programs 
while maintaining the three-year tax cut en- 
acted in 1981. The substitute assumed higher 
revenues under current tax policy than pro- 
jected by the Congressional Budget Office. Re- 
jected 182-242: R 135-53; D 47-189 (ND 5-154, 
SD 42-35), May 25, 1982. 

(13) H Con Res 345. Close Loopholes, Fiscal 

1983. Pease, D-Ohio, amendment, to the Latta, 
R-Ohio, substitute, to express the sense of the 
House that Congress should close tax loop- 
holes to the maximum extent possible as a 
way of raising revenues over the next three 
years. Rejected 68-342: R 7-176; D 61-166 (ND 
58-93, SD 3-73), May 25, 1982. 

(14) H Con Res 345. Entitlement and Discre- 


REPRESENTATIVES 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

ILLINOIS 

Washington (D-1) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Savage (D-2) 

Y 

9 

Y 

Y 

N 

? 

Y 

9 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Russo (D-3) 

Y 

Y 

? 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Derwinski (R-4) 

9 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Fary (D-5) 

Y 

# 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Hyde (R— 6) 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

C 

X 

9 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Collins (D-7) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Rostenkowski (D-8) 

9 

Y 

? 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Yates (D-9) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

9 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Porter (R-10) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Annunzio (D- 11) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Crane, P. (R-12) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

? 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

X 

N 

N 

N 

McClory (R-13) 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

9 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Erlenborn (R-14) 

Y 

9 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Corcoran (R-15) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Martin (R-16) 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

O’Brien (R-17) 

? 

9 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

? 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Michel (R-18) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Railsback (R-19) 

? 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

? 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Findley (R-20) 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Madigan (R-21) 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Crane, D. (R-22) 

9 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Price (D-23) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

? 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Simon (D-24) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

? 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

(MISSOURI 

Clay (D-i) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

9 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Young (D-2) 

? 

N 

Y 

? 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Gephardt (D-3) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Skelton (D-4) 

? 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

? 

9 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Bolling (D-5) 

9 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

? 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

? 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

? 

Coleman (R-6) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Taylor (R-7) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Bailey (R-8) 

N 

N 

9 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Volkmer (D-9) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Emerson (R-10) 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 


tionary Programs, Fiscal 1983. Jones, D-Okla., 
amendment to the Latta, R-Ohio, substitute, to 
increase fiscal 1983 revenues by $7.5 billion 
and redistribute those funds to entitlement 
and domestic discretionary programs. Re- 
jected 175-237: R 4-181; D 171-56 (ND 134-19, 
SD 37-37), May 25, 1982. 

(15) S Con Res 60. Veto of FTC Used-Car 
Rule. Adoption of the concurrent resolution to 
disapprove the Federal Trade Commission rule 
to require used-car dealers to inform custom- 
ers of major known defects in used automo- 
biles. Adopted 286-133: R 167-18; D 119-115 
(ND 50-108, SD 69-7), May 26, 1982. 

(16) H Con Res 345. Nuclear Freeze Budget, 
Fiscal 1983. Conyers, D-Mich., amendment, to 
the Jones, D-Okla., substitute, to reduce bud- 
get authority by $20.4 billion and outlays by $8 
billion in fiscal 1983, reflecting a freeze on nu- 
clear weapons testing, production and deploy- 
ment. Rejected 28-383: R 1-184; D 27-199 (ND 
25-126, SD 2-73), May 26, 1982. 

(17) H Con Res 345. New Luxury, Excise 
Taxes, Fiscal 1983. Wylie, R-Ohio, amendment 
to the Latta, R-Ohio, substitute, to reduce fis- 
cal 1983 defense outlays by $7.5 billion and in- 
crease revenues by $15 billion through enact- 
ment of luxury and excise taxes. Rejected 128- 
285: R 37-149; D 91-136 (ND 85-65, SD 6-71), 
May 26, 1982. 

(18) H Con Res 345. Increase Education 
Spending, Fiscal 1983. Simon, D— III., amend- 
ment, to the Jones, D-Okla., substitute, to in- 
crease budget authority by $668 million and 
outlays by $87 million for education programs 
in fiscal 1983, and to make corresponding re- 
ductions in the allowances function. Adopted 
323-99: R 100-88; D 223-11 (ND 156-1, Sd 
67-10), May 26, 1982. 

(19) H Con Res 345. Federal Pay Raise, Fiscal 
1883. Hoyer, D-Md., amendment, to the Latta, 
R-Ohio, Aspin, D-Wis., and Jones, D-Okla., 
substitutes, to increase fiscal 1983 budget au- 
thority and outlays by $1.15 billion to accom- 
modate a 7 percent pay raise for federal em- 
ployees, rather than 4 percent as assumed in 
the substitutes. Rejected 143-281: R 26-163; D 
117-118 (ND 107-50, SD 10-68), May 27, 1982. 

(20) H Con Res 345. Federal Pay Raise, Fiscal 
1983. Hoyer, D-Md., amendment, to the Latta, 
R-Ohio, Aspin, D-Wis., and Jones, D-Okla., 
substitutes, to increase fiscal 1983 budget au- 
thority by $396 million and outlays by $398 mil- 
lion to accommodate a 5 percent pay raise for 
federal employees, rather than 4 percent as as- 
sumed in the substitutes. Adopted 259-159: R 
64-123; D 195-36 (ND 144-9, SD 51-27), May 
27, 1982. 


Low Cost 

Excellence 

Speed 

Call for estimates 

FOCUS/TYPOGRAPHERS 
(314) 991-1698 


Page Twenty-Eight 


FOCUS/Midwest 



EWDEMCE OF REAGAN’S SUCCESS 


The Beef votes ©f 1 §§1 


Key House and Senate votes in 
1981 provided clear evidence of Presi- 
dent Reagan’s extraordinary success 
in shepherding his programs through 
Congress. 

The president’s top goals of reduc- 
ing spending, cutting taxes and bol- 
stering defense were at stake in many 
of the 44 important votes selected by 
Congressional Quarterly and the 
American Civil Liberties Union. In 
most cases, Reagan’s position pre- 
vailed. 

Both House and Senate, for exam- 
ple, supported the administration line 
on each key vote on the president’s 
economic plan, including votes in 
both chambers on shaping Reagan’s 
package of budget and tax cuts. 

Both houses also supported the 
president’s request for an increase in 
the federal debt limit. In the Senate, a 
Democratic challenge to the Reagan 
tax plan was rejected by a wide 
margin. 

Both chambers supported the pres- 
ident’s decision to resume production 
of the B-l bomber that President 


everything he wanted. A resolution 
blocking the sale to Saudi Arabia of 
sophisticated radar planes and other 
military equipment was approved in 
the House by an overwhelming vote, 
although the Senate later cleared the 
sale. 

Similarly, the House rebuked the 
president on his proposals to elimi- 
nate the minimum monthly Social Se- 
curity benefit and to do away with 
the Legal Services Corporation. 

And while the White House was 
still wrestling with its formal position 
on an extension of the 1965 Voting 


KEY TO SYMBOLS USED IN 
DESCRIPTION OF BILLS 

D: Democrat 

R: Republican 

HR: House Bill 

S: Senate Bill 

H Res: House Resolution 

ND: Northern Democrats 

SD: Southern Democrats 

HJ Res: House Joint Resolution 


Rights Act, the House sent the presi- 
dent a clear signal of its own strong 
support for that measure. 

In other key votes, the Senate in- 
dicated its leanings on two controver- 
sial social issues with its votes in 
favor of far-reaching curbs on abor- 
tions and court-ordered school busing 
for the purpose of racial integration. 

Members of both houses shied from 
voting to approve a congressional 
pay raise for this year, opting instead 
for less direct ways to increase their 
take-home pay which matched if not 
exceeded an outright pay raise. 



The following U.S. Senate and U.S. House Votes were cast during 1981. 


KEY TO SYMBOLS USED IN 
VOTING COLUMNS 


Y: Voted for (yea) 

0 : Paired for 

N: Voted against (nay) 

X: Paired against 

?: Did not vote or otherwise 

make a position known 


Carter had canceled four years before. 
The House turned back an effort to 
block funding for the MX missile. 

Although Reagan fared quite well 
in both chambers the Democratic- 
controlled House did not give him 


How Votes Were Selected 

An issue is judged by the ex- 
tent it represents one or more of 
the following: 

• A matter of major contro- 
versy. 

• A test of presidential or po- 
litical power. 

• A decision of potentially 
great impact on the nation 
and lives of Americans. 

Selection of Votes: For each 
group of related votes on an 
issue, one key vote usually is 
chosen. This is the vote that 
was important in determining 
the outcome. 

In the description of certain 
key votes, the designation 
“ND” denotes Northern Demo- 
crats and “SD” denotes South- 
ern Democrats. 

Votes were compiled from 
separate reports by Congres- 
sional Quarterly and the Ameri- 
can Civil Liberties Union. 


SENATE 


(1) S 951, Anti-Busing Rider. (Justice Depart- 
ment Authorization.) Johnston, D-La., motion 
to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the 
Helms, R-N.C. -Johnston amendment to pro- 
hibit federal courts in most instances from 
ordering school busing for racial balance. Mo- 
tion agreed to 61-36: R 36-16; D 25-20 (ND 
11-19, SD 14-1), Sept. 16, 1981. A three-fifths 
vote (60) of the full Senate is required to invoke 
cloture. 

(2) School Desegregation. Johnston, D-La.- 
Helms, R-N.C., amendment to the Justice De- 
partment authorization bill prohibiting federal 
courts from ordering busing. Amendment 
could also lead to the reopening of existing 
busing orders. The vote followed a three month 
effort by Weicker, R-Conn., to delay action. 
Passed 60-39, Sept. 16, 1981. 

(3) H Con Res 194. Saudi AWACS. Adoption 
of the concurrent resolution disapproving the 
proposal by President Reagan to sell Saudi 
Arabia an $8.5 billion package of military 
equipment consisting of five E-3A Airborne 
Warning and Control System (AWACS) radar 
planes, 1,177 AIM-9L Sidewinder air-to-air 
missiles, 101 sets of conformal fuel tanks for 
F-15 fighter planes and six to eight KC-707 
tanker aircraft. Rejected 48-52: R 12-41; D 
36-11 (ND 28-4, SD 8-7), Oct. 28, 1981. A “nay” 
was a vote supporting the president’s position. 

(4) S 694. Fiscal 1981 MX Missile. (Supple- 
mental Defense Authorization.) Tower, R- 
Texas, motion to table (kill) the Pressler, R- 
S.D., amendment to delete $7 million for re- 
search related to the MX missile. Motion 


agreed to 79-15: R 44-6; D 35-9 (ND 20-9, SD 
15-0), April 7, 1981. 

(5) HR 4144. Waterway. (Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations, Fiscal 1982.) Per- 
cy, R-lll., amendment to delete $189 million for 
the continued construction of the Tennessee- 
Tombigbee Waterway. The effect would be to 
cancel the project. Rejected 46-48: R 27-21; D 
19-27 (ND 17-14, SD 2-13), Nov. 4, 1981. A 
“nay" was a vote supporting the president’s 
position. 

(6) HR 4144. Clinch River Breeder Reactor. 
(Energy and Water Development Appropria- 
tions, Fiscal 1982.) Johnston, D-La., motion to 
table (kill) the Bumpers, D-Ark., amendment as 
amended by the Tsongas, D-Mass., amend- 
ment, to reduce by half ($90 million) the ap- 
propriation for Clinch River (Tenn.) nuclear 
breeder reactor. Motion agreed to 48-46: R 
36-14; D 12-32 (ND 4-26, SD 8-6), Nov. 4, 1981. 
A “yea” was a vote supporting the president’s 
position. 

(7) HR 3512. Abortion. (Fiscal 1981 Supple- 
mental Appropriations.) Helms, R-N.C., motion 
to table (kill) the Appropriations Committee 
amendment to delete House-passed language 
prohibiting Medicaid funding of abortions ex- 
cept when needed to save the mother’s life. 
(The effect of the motion was to restore the 
House prohibition to the bill.) Motion agreed to 
52-43: R 33-19; D 19-24 (ND 12-18, SD 7-6), 
May 21, 1981. A “yea” was a vote supporting 
the president’s position. 

(0) HR 1553. Debt Limit Increase. Passage of 
the bill to increase the public debt limit to $985 
billion through Sept. 30, 1981. Passed (thus 
cleared for the president) 73-18: R 46-3; D 27- 
15 (ND 20-7; SD 7-8), Feb. 6, 1981. A “yea” was 
a vote supporting the president’s position. 

(9) S Con Res 9. Budget Reconciliation In- 


Page Twenty-Nine 


Volume 15, Number 92 






KEY VOTES OF 1981 


structions. Adoption of the concurrent resolu- 
tion to instruct 14 Senate authorizing and ap- 
propriations committees to cut $36.9 billion 
from fiscal 1982 spending. Adopted 88-10: R 
51-1; D 37-9 (ND 22-9, SD 15-0), April 2, 1981. 
A “yea” was a vote supporting the president’s 
position. 

(10) HR 3512. Social Security. (Fiscal 1981 
Supplemental Appropriations.) Hatfield, 
R-Ore., motion to table (kill) the Moynihan, D- 
N.Y., amendment stating the sense of the sen- 
ate in opposition to President’s Reagan’s pro- 
posed reductions on social security benefits. 
Motion agreed to 49-48: R 48-2; D 1-46 (ND 
0-32, SD 1-14), May 20, 1981. A “yea” was a 
vote supporting the president’s position. 

(11) H J Res 266. Indexing Tax Cuts. Finance 
Committee amendment to require, beginning 
in 1985, that individual income taxes be ad- 
justed, or indexed, annually to offset the ef- 
fects of inflation. Adopted 57-40: R 43-8; D 14- 
32 (ND 11-20, SD 3-12), July 16, 1981. 

(12) H J Res 266. Targeting Tax Cuts. Holl- 
ings, D-S.C., amendment to the Finance Com- 
mittee bill limiting the size of personal tax 
reductions and targeting them to middle- 
income taxpayers in order to achieve a bal- 
anced budget by 1984. Rejected 26-71: R 0-51; 

D 26-20 (ND 20-12, SD 6-8), July 22, 1981. A 
"nay” was a vote supporting the president's 
position. 

(13) H J Res 325. Congressional Pay Raise. 
(Fiscal 1982 Continuing Appropriations.) Hat- 
field, R-Ore., motion to accept language pro- 
posed by House-Senate conferees to provide 
for a permanent appropriation of funds for con- 
gressional pay increases, when recommended 
by the president and upheld by Congress. Mo- 
tion agreed to 48-44: R 37-13; D 11-31 (ND 
7-22, SD 4-9), Sept. 30, 1981. 

(14) S 573. Decontrol. (Oil Industry Antitrust 
Exemption.) Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, amend- 
ment to nullify President Reagan's Jan. 28 
order terminating immediately all remaining 


controls on oil and gasoline. Rejected 24-68: R 
3-47; D 21-21 (ND 18-10; SD 3-11), March 10, 
1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the presi- 
dent’s position. (The bill, to extend through 
Sept. 30, 1981, antitrust exemptions for oil 
companies participating in the programs of the 
International Energy Agency, subsequently 
was passed by voice vote.) 

(15) S 884. Tobacco Price Supports. (Agricul- 
ture and Food Act of 1981.) Huddleston, D-Ky., 
motion to table (kill) the Eagleton, D-Mo., 
amendment to allow the agriculture secretary 
to establish price support levels for certain 
grades of tobacco deemed by the secretary to 
be in excessive supply and non-competitive, 
except that the level may not go below 75 per- 
cent of the level established for the 1982 crop 
of that kind of tobacco. Motion agreed to 41- 
40: R 28-17; D 13-23 (ND 6-20, SD 7-3), Sept. 
18, 1981. 

(16) S 509. Milk Price Supports. Melcher, 
D-Mont., amendment to establish a quota on 
the importation of casein products into the 
United States. Rejected 38-60: R 7-45; D 31-15 
(ND 19-12, SD 12-3), March 24, 1981. A “nay” 
was a vote supporting the president’s position. 

(17) HR 4995. B-1 Bomber. (Defense Appro- 
priations, Fiscal 1982.) Hollings, D-S.C., 
amendment to delete from the bill $2,429 bil- 
lion for research on and procurement of the 
B-1B bomber, and to distribute the money 
among other accounts. Rejected 28-66: R 
5-43; D 23-23 (ND 18-13, SD 5-10), Dec. 3, 
1981. A “nay" was a vote supporting the presi- 
dent's position. 

(18) Legal Services. Weicker, R-Conn., mo- 
tion to table Cochran, R-Miss., amendment to 
the Legal Services appropriations bill which 
would have cut the current funding level from 
$321 million to $100 million. Cochran amend- 
ment would have virtually terminated most of 
the Legal Services program. Passed 48-33, 
Nov. 13, 1981. 

(19) School Prayer. Helms, R-N.C., amend- 


ment to the Justice Department appropriations 
bill barring the Department from spending 
money to challenge state voluntary school 
prayer programs. Purpose of the amendment is 
to prevent the Department of Justice from en- 
forcing the Supreme Court decision declaring 
such programs unconstitutional. Passed 58- 
38, Nov. 18, 1981. 


HOUSE 


(1) H Res 251. House Earned Income Limit. 
Adoption of the resolution to increase the 
limitation on House members' outside earned 
income from 15 percent to 40 percent of their 
official salary, and to increase the limit on 
each individual honorarium payment for a 
speech, article or personal appearance from 
$1,000 to $2,000, for calendar years 1981 
through 1983. Rejected 147-271: R 73-112; D 
74-159 (ND 49-107, SD 25-52), Oct. 28, 1981. 

(2) Legal Services. Wilson, D-Tex., amend- 
ment to prohibit all class action lawsuits by 
the Legal Services Corporation. Passed 241- 
167, June 17, 1981. 

(3) Legal Services. McDonald, D-Ga., amend- 
ment to prohibit Legal Services representation 
of people who have been discriminated against 
on the basis of sexual preference. Passed 281- 
124, June 18, 1981. 

(4) HR 3480. Legal Services Corporation. 
Passage of the bill to reauthorize the Legal 
Services Corporation for fiscal 1982-83, at 
$241 million annually. Passed 245-137: R 59- 
lie; D 186-21 (ND 137-3, SD 49-18), June 18, 
1981. A “nay” was a vote supporting the presi- 
dent’s position. 

(5) HR 3112. Voting Rights Act Extension. 
Butler, R-Va., amendment to allow three-judge 
federal district courts to hear petitions by 
jurisdictions seeking to bail out from coverage 


REPRESENTATIVES 12 3 4 


ILLINOIS 

Washington (D-1) 
Savage (D-2) 

Russo (D-3) 
Derwinski (R-4) 
Fary (D-5) 

Hyde (R-6) 

Collins (D-7) 
Rostenkowski (D-8) 
Yates (D-9) 

Porter (R-10) 
Annunzio (D-1 1) 
Crane, P. (R-12) 
McClory (R-13) 
Erlenborn (R-14) 
Corcoran (R-15) 
Martin (R-16) 
O’Brien (R-17) 
Michel (R-18) 
Rallsback (R-19) 
Findley (R-20) 
Madigan (R-21) 
Crane, D. (R-22) 
Price (D-23) 

Simon (D-24) 

MISSOURI 

Clay (D-1) 

Young (D-2) 
Gephardt (D-3) 
Skelton (D-4) 
Bolling (D-5) 
Coleman (R-6) 
Taylor (R-7) 

Bailey (R-8) 

Volkmer (D-9) 
Emerson (R-10) 


N N N Y 

Y N ? Y 

Y N Y Y 
N Y Y N 
? N Y Y 

Y Y Y N 

Y N N Y 

Y N Y Y 
N N N Y 

Y Y N Y 

Y N Y Y 

Y Y Y N 
N N Y N 

Y ? N Y 
X N Y N 
N Y N Y 
N Y Y Y 

Y Y Y N 

Y N N Y 

Y Y N Y 

Y Y Y N 

Y Y Y N 

Y N Y ? 

Y N Y ? 


Y N N Y 
N N Y Y 
N Y Y Y 
N Y Y ? 

Y N N Y 
N Y Y Y 

Y Y Y N 
N Y Y N 
N ? Y Y 
N Y Y N 


5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

SENATORS 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 






















ILLINOIS 








N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Dixon (D) 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

9 

Y 

Y 

? 

9 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

? 

N 

N 

N 

N 

9 

9 

? 

? 

Percy (R) 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

X 

X 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 








N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

? 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

? 

? 

? 

? 

MISSOURI 




N 


N 


Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Danforth (R) 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

# 

N 

X 

N 

N 

X 

X 

Eagleton (D) 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

9 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 









N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 









N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 









N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 









# 

# 

# 

9 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

? 

Y 

Y 



8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 



Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

ILLINOIS 








N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

9 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

9 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Dixon (D) 


N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Percy (R) 


Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

? 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

? 

Y 

Y 

? 

Y 









N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

? 

Y 

? 

N 

Y 

? 

? 

MISSOURI 








N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 



N 

N 

N 



Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

9 

? 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Danforth (R) 


Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Eagleton (D) 


Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

? 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 









N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

? 

N 

? 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 









N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

? 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 



14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

? 

N 

N 

? 

Y 

Y 

9 

N 

Y 

ILLINOIS 








N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 








N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

9 

N 

N 

? 

N 

N 

9 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

9 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 
N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

? 

N 

N 

? 

Y 

Y 
? 

Y 

Y 
N 

Y 

Y 
? 

Y 

Y 
? 

Y 

Y 
? 

Y 

Dixon (D) 
Percy (R) 


ZZ 

N 

N 

N 

N 

ZZ 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

MISSOURI 








N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

9 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 








N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

X 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

? 

Y 

N 

Y 

Eagleton (D) 


Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Danforth (R) 


N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 


Page Thirty 


YOCVS/Midwest 













KEY VOTES OF 1981 


of the Voting Rights Act. Rejected 132-277: R 
102-75; D 30-202 (ND 4-153, SD 26-49), Oct. 5, 
1981. 

(8) Voting Rights. Campbell, R-S.C., amend- 
ment to the Voting Rights extension bill to per- 
mit a state covered under the Section 5 pre- 
clearance provisions to "bail out" if two-thirds 
of its counties are eligible to bail out. Rejected 
95-313, Oct. 5, 1981. 

(7) Voting Rights. McClory, R-lll., amend- 
ment to the Voting Rights extension bill to 
eliminate requirements that certain jurisdic- 
tions provide bilingual election materials. Re- 
jected 128-284, Oct. 5, 1981. 

(8) H Con Res 194. Disapproving the AWACS 
Sale. Adoption of the concurrent resolution 
disapproving the sale to Saudi Arabia of Air- 
borne Warning and Control System (AWACS) 
radar planes, conformal fuel tanks for F-15 air- 
craft, AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles and KC-707 
aerial refueling aircraft. Adopted 301-111: R 
108-78; D 193-33 (ND 149-5, SD 44-28), Oct. 
14, 1981. A "nay" was a vote supporting the 
president’s position. 

(9) HR 4995. B-1 Bomber. (Defense Depart- 
ment Appropriations, Fiscal 1982.) Addabbo, 
D-N.Y., amendment to delete $1,801 billion 
from Air Force procurement intended for the 
B-1 bomber. Rejected 142-263: R 21-157; D 
121-106 (ND 111-42, SD 10-64), Nov. 18, 1981. 

A "nay” was a vote supporting the president’s 
position. 

(10) HR 4995. MX Missile. (Defense Depart- 
ment Appropriations, Fiscal 1982.) Addabbo, 
D-N.Y., amendment to delete $1,913,200,000 in 
Air Force research, development, test and eval- 
uation funds for the MX missile and basing 
system. Rejected 139-264: R 27-151; D 112- 
113 (ND 103-48, SD 9-65), Nov. 18, 1981. A 
“nay" was a vote supporting the president’s 
position. 

(17) HR 4144. Waterway. (Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations, Fiscal 1982.) 
Pritchard, R-Wash., amendment, to the Myers, 
R-Ind., amendment, to delete $189 million for 
the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. Re- 
jected 198-208: R 108-70; D 90-138 (ND 82-70, 
SD 8-68), July 23, 1981 . A "nay" was a vote sup- 
porting the president’s position. 

(12) HR 4144. Clinch River Breeder Reactor. 
(Energy and Water Development Appropria- 
tions, Fiscal 1982.) Coughlin, R-Pa., amend- 
ment to delete $228 million for the Clinch River 
(Tenn.) nuclear breeder reactor. Rejected 
186-206: R 70-104; D 116-102 (ND 107-38, SD 
g-64). July 24, 1981. A "nay" was a vote sup- 
porting the president’s position. 

(13) HR 1553. Debt Limit Increase. Passage of 
the bill to increase the public debt limit to $985 
billion through Sept. 30, 1981. Passed 305-104: 
R 150-36; D 155-68 (ND 112-37, SD 43-31), 
Feb. 5, 1981 . A "yea" was a vote supporting the 
president’s position. 

(14) H Con Res 115. Fiscal 1982 Budget 
Targets. Latta, R-Ohio, substitute, to the 
resolution as reported by the Budget Commit- 
tee, to decrease budget authority by $23.1 
billion, outlays by $25.7 billion and revenues by 
$31.1 billion, resulting in a $31 billion deficit 
for fiscal 1982. Adopted 253-176: R 190-0; D 
63-176 (ND 17-144, SD 46-32), May 7, 1981. A 
“yea" was a vote supporting the president’s 
position. 

(15) HR 3982. Budget Reconciliation. Latta, 
R-Ohio, amendments, considered en bloc, to 
strike parts of six titles of the bill recommend- 
ed by the following committees — Agriculture; 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; Education 


and Labor; Post Office and Civil Service; 
Science and Technology; and Ways and 
Means— and to substitute provisions endorsed 
by President Reagan. Adopted 217-211: R 
188-2; D 29-209 (ND 3-157, SD 26-52), June 26, 
1981. A "yea" was a vote supporting the presi- 
dent’s position. 

(19) HR 4559. Foreign Aid Appropriations, 
Fiscal 1982. Passage of the bill to appropriate 
$7,440,280,064 for foreign aid and related pro- 
grams In fiscal 1982. Passed 199-166: R 84-87; 
D 115-79 (ND 95-36, SD 20-43), Dec. 11, 1981. 
(The president had requested $7,775,098,683.) 

(20) S 884. Agriculture and Food Act of 1981. 
Adoption of the conference report on the bill to 
reauthorize for four years price support and 
other farm programs and, for one year, food 
stamps. Adopted 205-203: R 125-59; D 80-144 
(ND 27-121, SD 53-23), Dec. 16, 1981. A "yea" 
was a vote supporting the president’s position. 

(21) School Desegregation. Collins, R-Tex., 
amendment preventing the Justice Depart- 
ment from using any funds in litigation that 
might result in school busing for desegrega- 
tion purposes. It would forbid the Department 
to participate in almost all desegregation 
cases. Passed 265-122, June 9, 1981. 

(22) Abortion. Ashbrook, R-Ohio, rider to 
Treasury appropriations bill cutting off health 
insurance benefits for abortions of federal em- 
ployees unless the woman’s life is endan- 
gered. Passed 253-167, July 30, 1981. 

(23) School Prayer. Walker, R-Penn., amend- 
ment to the Justice Department appropriations 
bill barring the Department from spending 
money to challenge state voluntary school 
prayer programs. Purpose of the amendment is 
to prevent the Department from enforcing the 
Supreme Court decision declaring such pro- 
grams unconstitutional. Passed 333-54, Sept. 
9, 1981. 

(24) Names of Intelligence Agents. Ashbrook, 
R-Ohio, amendment adding a "reason to be- 
lieve" standard to the Intelligence Identities 


continued from page 25 

ure for 1979. 

Before 1981, the only liberal orga- 
nization competitive in the field was 
the National Committee for an Effec- 
tive Congress (NCEC). 

Among the five other leading liber- 
al groups, two are linked to potential 
1984 presidential candidates. The 


Protection Act. This would make it a crime to 
publish information revealing the identity of a 
covert CIA or FBI agent or informant if there is 
"reason to believe" that such disclosure will 
harm intelligence activities. Passed 226-181, 
Sept. 23, 1981. 

(25) Names of Intelligence Agents. Final pas- 
sage of the Intelligence Identities Protection 
Act, including a "reason to believe" standard 
of proof In determining if a crime has been 
committed by disclosing the name of an intelli- 
gence agent. Passed 354-56, Sept. 23, 1981. 

(16) HR 4242. Tax Cuts. Conable, R-N.Y., 
substitute amendment to the bill to reduce in- 
dividual income tax rates by 25 percent across- 
the-board over three years, to index tax rates 
beginning in 1985 and to provide business and 
investment tax incentives. Adopted 238-195: R 
190-1; D 48-194 (ND 12-151, SD 36-43), July 
29, 1981. A "yea" was a vote supporting the 
president’s position. 

(17) HR 4331/HR 3982. Minimum Social Secu- 
rity Benefits/Budget Reconciliation. Bolling, 
D-Mo., motion to order the previous question 
(thus ending debate and the possibility of 
amendment) on the rule (H Res 203) providing 
for consideration of 1) the bill (HR 4331) to 
amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
Act of 1981 (HR 3982) to restore minimum 
Social Security benefits and 2) the reconcilia- 
tion act conference report. Motion agreed to 
271-151: R 166-21; D 105-130 (ND 56-101, SD 
49-29), July 31, 1981. 

(18) HR 4560. Social Program Spending. 
Labor- HHS-Education Appropriations, Fiscal 
1982. Regula, R-Ohlo, motion to recommit the 
bill to the Appropriations Committee. Rejected 
168-249: R 140-39; D 28-210 (ND 3-157; SD 
25-53), Oct. 6, 1981. (The bill, appropriating 
$87,181,250,000 for the departments of Labor, 
Health and Human Services, and Education, 
and related agencies, subsequently was 
passed by voice vote.) A "yea" was a vote sup- 
porting the president's position. 


Fund for a Democratic Majority has 
close ties with Sen. Edward M. Ken- 
nedy of Massachusetts. It raised 
$861,091 last year, its first year, and 
spent $636,196. The Committee for 
the Future of America, linked to 
former Vice President Walter Mon- 
dale, raised $678,469 and spent just 
under $400,000. 


1981 Fund Raising 

Conservative Groups 
Congressional Club 
National Conservative PAC 
Fund for a Conservative Majority 
Citizens for the Republic 
Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress 
Americans for Change 

Liberal Groups 

National Committee for an Effective Congress 

Fund for a Democratic Majority 

Independent Action 

Committee for the Future of America 

Democrats for the 80’s 

Progressive PAC 


1981 • 
Receipts 

$5,323,566 

4,143,132 

1,060,727 

1,049,680 

889,207 

336,863 


$972,863 

861,091 

684,282 

678,469 

600,108 

205,033 


1981 

Expenditures 

$5,809,007 

4,224,109 

1,063,878 

927,839 

912,827 

330,106 


$1,029,430 

636,196 

673,100 

399,219 

287,249 

165,765 


Conservatives 


Volume 15, Number 92 


Page Thirty-One 


incisive! 


As a critique of metropolitan 
news media. The St. Louis 
Journalism Review is an 
advocate in the continuing 
campaign to improve the 
quality and integrity of the 
press and broadcasting. Since 
1970, The Review has been 
offering challenging and pro- 
vocative assessments of the 
state of journalism relating not 


only to St. Louis but to the 
nation as well. 

Winner of the first Lowell 
Mellet Award for “Best 
Press Criticism,” The Review 
was cited for “sustained and 
hard-hitting criticism,” which 
made a distinguished 
contribution to the im- 
provement of journalism, 
both print and broadcast.” 



called for, praise where praise 
is due. We strive to become to 
the regular newspapers, radio 
and television stations what 
those media are to government 
and other institutions. 



PROFESSIONAL! 


For eleven years the best 
among the top professional 
journalists, many of them 
working full-time for the press 
and broadcast media, have 
cared enough about what you 


read, hear and see to act as a 
kind of loyal opposition to the 
media for which they work. 
Whether to-the-point 
reports on recent events or 
in-depth analyses, the 


credibility and authority of 
the St. Louis Journalism 
Review has remained 
unchallenged— except by 
those we expose. 


outrageous! 


That’s because we’re fiercely 
independent and staunchly 
apolitical. Given the incredible 
influence news media wield, we 

recognize the need for an 
independent voice, un- 
daunted by the private 
interests of publishers and 
broadcast executives. 


Each issue comes to you full of 
insights, candid observations, in- 
vestigative reports, scoops, 
speculation and careful research 
about the world of professional 
news media. With a probing 
eye, we’ll keep you up to date 
on the latest technology, the 
newest angle or the oldest 



trick as we vigorously examine 
every aspect of the media and 
their effect on public information 



©Step B1MB8 


Some are 
offended by 
our out- 
spokenness 
Too bad 
They ardently 
hope we’d 
drop out 
of sight Not a 
chance Our readers know the 
service we provide is unique in the 
country Join us and find out. 


‘Awards were also made by the journalism 
faculty of Southern Illinois University at 
Carbondale and by the St Louis Association 
of Black Journalists 


ST. LOUS 

8606 Olive Blvd. 

St. Louis, Mo. 63132 


Please enter my subscription for 
( ) 1 Yr. (6 issues) $8 

( ) 2 Yrs. (12 issues) $14 

( ) 3 Yrs. (18 issues) $19.50 

( ) 5 Yrs. (30 issues) $29 

□ Check enclosed* □ Bill Me 

Name 


Address 


City/State/Zip 
Occupation — 


C) Two recent issues free if you enclose payment. 


Page Thirty-Two 


FOCUS midwest