Hooked On A Stealing: LBJ's Fraudulent First Election & Its Lessons For Today

Around a month ago, one of the most preeminent literary editors in recent history, Robert Gottlieb, passed away. Gottlieb’s charges included famed authors such as Salman Rushdie, John le Carré, Ray Bradbury, and Toni Morrison, and one of his most celebrated accomplishments was coming up with the title “Catch-22” when editing Joseph Heller’s pinnacle novel. Gottlieb also helmed The New Yorker from 1987-1992.

Accordingly, the author (or, to be entirely truthful, Mr. Childs) thought it appropriate to watch the documentary “Turn Every Page,” which chronicles the dynamic relationship between Gottlieb and Robert Caro, the renowned author of “The Power Broker” and an extensive series on President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The documentary recounts Caro's decision to leave New York City to immerse himself in the Texas Hill Country. He spent over three years investigating LBJ, becoming possibly the first to unearth solid evidence of Johnson’s manipulation of his 1948 Democratic nomination to the Senate.

This past March, James Mangan, a former Associated Press reporter, validated Caro’s painstaking research. Mangan uncovered extensive tape recordings of the election judge who manipulated the vote count.

In light of this, one can't help but question: why isn't this a more widely known narrative? Textbooks seem to gloss over LBJ's 1948 election. Even the recent AP exclusive attracted minimal attention. Surprisingly, very few people (including this author until a few weeks ago!) are aware of this tampered 1948 election, despite its undeniable influence on American politics.

A Twisted Path To Power

Johnson's victory in the 1948 Texas Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate had long been shrouded in rumors and accusations of electoral theft, even before what became known as the Box 13 Scandal broke. His opponent, the popular incumbent governor Coke Stevenson, lost by an incredibly narrow margin of just 87 votes out of almost a million cast, sparking widespread suspicion. This led to the famous – or rather infamous – phrase, "Landslide Lyndon."

The controversy stemmed from the extraordinarily late results from Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County, deep in South Texas. Election Judge Luis Salas had the responsibility of managing the votes in this precinct, and it is here that Johnson supposedly won the election.

In the initial vote count, Stevenson was ahead by more than 100 votes. However, six days after polls had closed, additional ballots appeared in what was called “Box 13.” Allegedly, 202 additional votes were "discovered," all cast in alphabetical order, and 200 of these ballots were in favor of Johnson. This suspicious occurrence propelled Johnson to victory, but many, including Stevenson, cried foul. 

When Stevenson turned to the National Democratic Party for support, he was met with disappointment. Johnson had cultivated important connections within the party and had the backing of powerful members.

Realizing his best path was now through the justice system, “Calculating Coke” filed a state lawsuit to prevent the certification of Johnson's win, arguing for a thorough investigation into the suspected fraudulent activities and claiming that Johnson and his team had violated his “civil rights.” This was granted.

In return, Johnson’s team, using D.C. super lawyer Abe Fortas, filed for a federal injunction. The basis for their claim was that Stevenson's lawsuit interfered with federal election processes, as it was ultimately a contest for a U.S. Senate seat. Johnson and Fortas also hoped to find a more sympathetic judge than the one presiding over the state case. 

In what is either a sneaky or brilliant legal maneuver, an appeal was filed with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, with the knowledge that the Fifth Circuit was in recess until the middle of October. This meant that instead of the Fifth Circuit hearing the case, it was tossed to Associate Justice Hugo Black in Washington. Black was a very liberal judge – just what Johnson and Fortas wanted – and sided with the Johnson camp. 

While state courts typically have jurisdiction over state elections, this case was an exception due to the legal argument that Johnson's team made. Despite the restraining order from the state court, which was intended to pause any certification until the fraud allegations could be fully investigated, the federal court’s order superseded it.

This move was and still is highly disputed. Critics argue that it demonstrated a troubling manipulation of the judicial system, pushing aside legitimate concerns about voter fraud for political convenience. While this particular case didn't establish a precedent per se, it did highlight a potential loophole in the American legal system, where federal courts could theoretically intervene in state matters if they can be connected to federal issues.

Nevertheless, despite disputed court filings and false votes, Johnson prevailed. Instead of retiring to work on his radio station – which was his plan following a loss – Johnson went on to become the 36th president of the United States within 15 years. Johnson later rewarded Fortas with a nomination to the Supreme Court.

Some Thoughts for Today

The topic of election integrity is probably one of the most polarizing in American politics. On the one hand, almost one third of Americans believe that Biden won the 2020 Presidential race due to election fraud. On the other, Democrats coined these accusations “the big lie” and have pointed to Trump’s multiple unsuccessful court cases, as well as several investigations that suggest voter fraud is infrequent. 

To avoid getting angry emails from either side of the aisle, this article aims not to address recent controversies, but instead glean what lessons from 1948 can help restore confidence in the electoral process for all Americans. In that vein, there were two things about this saga that stood out to this author. 

The first is that, back in 1948, Stevenson charged Johnson with having “dead” people vote, and this accusation was similarly echoed by Trump and his allies in 2020. However, according to Salas, their method for adding votes was more subtle: they simply figured out which people had not voted and cast ballots in those names. As noted in Salas’s interview with the AP:

“Q. Were all 200 names in the same handwriting?

A. Oh, yeah. They all came from the poll taxes, I mean, from the poll tax sheet.

Q. But some were dead?

A. No one was dead. They just didn’t vote.

Q. So you voted them?

A. They voted them.

Q. You certified?

A. I certified. So did the Democratic County chairman. I kept my word to be loyal to my party.

Q. Had some of those names already voted?

A. No, they didn’t vote in that election. They added ‘em. They made a mistake of doing it alphabetically.”

Recent investigations into election fraud have focused on multiple votes or misuse of mail-in ballots. However, Salas’s confession shows that any serious inquiry should focus on whether citizen votes were cast without the knowledge of said citizens. 

The second lesson is the danger of a drawn out election. Going through the Newspaper.com archives in search of the media’s take on the scandal, a large majority of articles actually chronicled the vote count over the course of weeks, and this lengthy period of time allowed Johnson and his allies to plot their way to victory. 

Similarly, many in 2020 felt as if the drawn out nature of the election covered up some form of underhandedness. Though some changes to voting practices were necessitated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the days-long process allowed rumor and speculation to spread, just like in 1948. In light of this, it would perhaps be better, come 2024, for states to tally their votes quickly as a way to earn greater trust from the electorate.

The 2024 election is beginning to heat up, and with it partisan divides are deepening. But, hopefully, the public can remember that it could unite after divisive scandals in the past and, accordingly, can find similarities with those across the aisle in the future.