Anything like Rhode Island's 1935 "Bloodless Revolution" happen in other states?

[Blue3]

Quotes from Ballotpedia and Wikipedia, but any political/history student of Rhode Island knows it well:

(and I made it so you can just read the bold if you want... the rest is for additional information)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some background on Rhode Island, especially the successful 1935 "Bloodless Revolution" and how we are still on the path it set us on.





Supporters of the Bloodless Revolution also said it was payback to the political establishment that created the conditions for, and thwarted, the Dorr Rebellion in 1841-1842. State Democrats have honored Thomas Wilson Dorr in the State House ever since.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, a very interesting history, with the failed 1840's Dorr Rebellion as background context to the successful 1930's Bloodless Revolution.

Another good article on it: http://ripr.org/post/80th-anniversary-day-changed-ri-politics-forever
(Also: http://ripr.org/post/fighting-bob-quinn-and-bloodless-revolution and http://wpri.com/blog/2013/01/01/new-years-day-marks-78-years-since-ri-bloodless-revolution/ )



Has anything at all happened like this in other states??

Could this happen again in modern times??

[Intell]

Boston and democratic control that emerged fromit's immigrant base and James Micheal Curley were caused by the symptoms of Rhode Island, and resulted in it's transition to the democratic party, throughout the new deal there were two democrats, there were 2 Massachusetts, a republican one and a democratic one, the republicans composed of the old elite and the middle class, the democrats, the emerging catholic, and working class base.

Blacks were in many cases republican in Massachusetts, than in other parts of the countries until 1964 (I think I read that somewhere).

Looking at Conservative Dems, Progressive Dems, Labour Orientated Dems, Upper-Middle Class Dems, Centrist Dems, or liberal reps, conservative reps is interesting, and the wide array of the spectrum within the parties (much less pronounced these days, much more pronounced in the 90's 80's and before), was a result of being "born" into a party, due to race, religion or class.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_South_Carolina,_1878#Voter_Fraud

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Classic example is this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Democratic_Revolution_of_1954

I would also look into the North Dakota NPL rule. Possibly a few more.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_South_Carolina,_1878#Voter_Fraud

Our 1890 gubernatorial election would be more of an analogy in my opinion.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The 1902 Virginia constitution disenfranchised like 90% of then registered black voters and 50% of then registered white voters.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Then came the revolution. Although they had won only 20 of the 42 state Senate seats, the Democrats under Gov. Theodore Green refused to seat two Republicans in 1935. With the lieutenant governor’s tiebreaker, they voted Democrats into the seats and proceeded in 14 minutes to declare the state Supreme Court vacant, to abolish state boards that controlled Democratic cities, to increase the power of the governor, and to reorganize state government to purge Republicans.

I find this part very troubling. I looked it up, and apparently in 1935 the Rhode Island Constitution/State Legislation allowed a simple majority of the State Legislature to recall Supreme Court Justices. Thankfully I don't think many modern state constitutions allow for that.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Sounds to me like federal troops should have been called in to restore order, but I'm not surprised FDR was okay with this and did nothing.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

North Carolina 2011???

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Democratic_Revolution_of_1954

[Skill and Chance]

Then came the revolution. Although they had won only 20 of the 42 state Senate seats, the Democrats under Gov. Theodore Green refused to seat two Republicans in 1935. With the lieutenant governor’s tiebreaker, they voted Democrats into the seats and proceeded in 14 minutes to declare the state Supreme Court vacant, to abolish state boards that controlled Democratic cities, to increase the power of the governor, and to reorganize state government to purge Republicans.

I find this part very troubling. I looked it up, and apparently in 1935 the Rhode Island Constitution/State Legislation allowed a simple majority of the State Legislature to recall Supreme Court Justices. Thankfully I don't think many modern state constitutions allow for that.

This is true, but in most states, and arguably in the US Congress after a Senate rules change, it would be legal for a simple majority to more than double the size of their jurisdiction's Supreme Court.  In theory, they could do it all while refusing to seat a member of the opposition party whose election was disputed and would have cast the decisive vote against it.  This underscores how much our constitutional system is dependent on respecting unwritten norms.  My understanding is that it it has become a tradition for the party that takes a majority in the House of Commons to immediately appoint itself a majority in the House of Lords, which historically had powers vaguely resembling US judicial review.

How do you feel about the Republican 2/3rds majority abolishing 2 SCOTUS seats and admitting tiny new states for explicitly political reasons in 1866?  Of course, when the opposition just attempted armed revolt and killed 2% of the population, it is IMO more justifiable to bend the rules a bit.  I presume you would have strongly objected to the FDR 1937 plan to add 6 SCOTUS seats if it had passed?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Then came the revolution. Although they had won only 20 of the 42 state Senate seats, the Democrats under Gov. Theodore Green refused to seat two Republicans in 1935. With the lieutenant governor’s tiebreaker, they voted Democrats into the seats and proceeded in 14 minutes to declare the state Supreme Court vacant, to abolish state boards that controlled Democratic cities, to increase the power of the governor, and to reorganize state government to purge Republicans.

I find this part very troubling. I looked it up, and apparently in 1935 the Rhode Island Constitution/State Legislation allowed a simple majority of the State Legislature to recall Supreme Court Justices. Thankfully I don't think many modern state constitutions allow for that.

This is true, but in most states, and arguably in the US Congress after a Senate rules change, it would be legal for a simple majority to more than double the size of their jurisdiction's Supreme Court.  In theory, they could do it all while refusing to seat a member of the opposition party whose election was disputed and would have cast the decisive vote against it.  This underscores how much our constitutional system is dependent on respecting unwritten norms.  My understanding is that it it has become a tradition for the party that takes a majority in the House of Commons to immediately appoint itself a majority in the House of Lords, which historically had powers vaguely resembling US judicial review.

How do you feel about the Republican 2/3rds majority abolishing 2 SCOTUS seats and admitting tiny new states for explicitly political reasons in 1866?  Of course, when the opposition just attempted armed revolt and killed 2% of the population, it is IMO more justifiable to bend the rules a bit.  I presume you would have strongly objected to the FDR 1937 plan to add 6 SCOTUS seats if it had passed?

I'm certainly no fan of FDR or Lincoln. No one listens to me when I try and explain why Constitutionally, West Virginia shouldn't be its own State.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow, this is really fascinating. I had no idea State politics in a New England State could be so contentious and dramatic. I don't have much to contribute here, but thanks Blue for telling us about that!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, this is really fascinating. I had no idea State politics in a New England State could be so contentious and dramatic. I don't have much to contribute here, but thanks Blue for telling us about that!

Rhode Island had this epic HP as a Senator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_DeWolf