# Everett Dirksen *Republican senator from Illinois and Senate Minority Leader (1959–1969), named in the record for his part in the Senate compromise on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.* Everett McKinley Dirksen (January 4, 1896 – September 7, 1969) was an Illinois member of the [[Republican Party (United States)]]. He served first in the [[United States House of Representatives]] and later in the [[United States Senate]], where he led his party's caucus as [[Senate Minority Leader]] from 1959 and still held that post when he died in 1969.[^1] Before his political career he was a pre-law student at the [[University of Minnesota]] from 1914 to 1917.[^2] The Senate Historical Office's account of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] records that Minnesota Senator [[Hubert Humphrey]], the Democratic whip managing the bill, enlisted Dirksen, who had opposed the bill over certain provisions. Humphrey worked with him to redraft that language, and Dirksen then gained key votes for cloture from Republican colleagues with a speech calling racial integration "an idea whose time has come."[^3] On June 10, 1964, the Senate voted 71 to 29 for cloture.[^4] In *United Steelworkers of America v. Weber* (1979), the Supreme Court stated that "Section 703(j) was proposed by Senator Dirksen to allay any fears that the Act might be interpreted in such a way as to upset this compromise."[^5] The Court read that section as leaving private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans lawful under [[Title VII]].[^6] In January 2026 the [[United States Department of Justice]] sued the State of Minnesota under the same title, announcing the suit in a release titled *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*.[^7] The complaint cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times.[^8] ## Who Dirksen was born in Pekin, Illinois, on January 4, 1896. His parents had emigrated from East Frisia in Germany. He graduated from Pekin High School in 1913, then studied pre-law at the University of Minnesota from 1914 to 1917.[^2] He left college for the United States Army, enlisting on his twenty-first birthday, January 4, 1917. He went to France in 1918, received a commission as a second lieutenant in the 328th Field Artillery Regiment, and worked as an aerial observer. After occupation duty in Germany lasting until mid-1919, he took his discharge and went home to Pekin.[^2] Back in Pekin he worked in the Dirksen Brothers Bakery with his brothers and was active in the American Legion. Voters placed him on the nonpartisan Pekin City Council in 1926. From 1927 to 1931 he served there and also as the city's commissioner of accounts and finance.[^9] He lost a 1930 Republican primary to Representative William E. Hull by 1,155 votes. He beat Hull in 1932 and won seven more House elections, the last in 1946. His early backing of much New Deal legislation gave him a moderate reputation, but he moved toward conservative and isolationist positions, though he reversed his isolationism to support the Second World War effort.[^9] In 1950 he won a Senate seat by defeating the Senate Majority Leader, Scott W. Lucas, and he won re-election in 1956, 1962 and 1968.[^10] Senate Republicans chose him as Minority Leader in 1959 over John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky.[^10] In September 1969 surgeons at Walter Reed Army Hospital removed a lung adenocarcinoma; complications followed, and he died on September 7, 1969, aged 73. His body lay in state in the Capitol rotunda before burial in Pekin. In 1972 a Senate office building was renamed the Dirksen Senate Office Building.[^11] ## What The Senate's account describes Dirksen's role in the 1964 Act as twofold: redrafting, with Humphrey, language Dirksen had objected to, and then delivering Republican votes for cloture.[^3] The *Weber* opinion attributes to him a specific provision of Title VII, Section 703(j), and cites his floor remarks at 110 Cong. Rec. 12817 (1964).[^5] As the Court described it, Section 703(j) provides that nothing in Title VII "shall be interpreted to require any employer" to grant preferential treatment to a group because of a racial imbalance in the employer's work force.[^5] The Court reasoned that Congress's choice of the word "require" rather than the phrase "require or permit" in Section 703(j) supported its holding that Title VII's prohibition in Sections 703(a) and (d) "does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans."[^6] ## When - February 10, 1964: the House passed H.R. 7152; it reached the Senate on February 26.[^12] - March 9, 1964: Majority Leader Mike Mansfield moved to take up the bill and southern senators began a filibuster.[^12] - June 10, 1964: the Senate voted 71 to 29 for cloture, the first time it had voted to end debate on a civil rights bill.[^4] - Nine days after cloture, the Senate passed the bill; on July 2, 1964, the House accepted the Senate version and President [[Lyndon Johnson]] signed it the same day.[^13] - June 27, 1979: the Supreme Court decided *Weber*.[^5] - 2025: the Supreme Court decided *[[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]]*, 605 U.S. 303.[^14] - January 14, 2026: DOJ issued release No. 26-21 and filed its complaint against Minnesota.[^7][^8] ## Why The Senate account gives the arithmetic that brought Dirksen in. Cloture then required a two-thirds vote, sixty-seven senators, and with southern Democrats opposed, a substantial number of votes from the Republican minority were needed.[^12] Dirksen, the account states, had opposed the bill because he objected to certain provisions; it does not specify which.[^3] The *Weber* Court gave a further reason from the legislative record: "Title VII could not have been enacted into law without substantial support from legislators in both Houses who traditionally resisted federal regulation of private business." Those legislators sought to keep "management prerogatives, and union freedoms" undisturbed, and the Court described Section 703(j) as Dirksen's proposal addressed to that concern.[^15] ## How Mansfield placed the House-passed bill directly on the Senate calendar instead of referring it to the Judiciary Committee, which was chaired by James Eastland of Mississippi, described in the Senate account as a civil rights opponent. The Senate then debated the bill for sixty days.[^12] Humphrey and Dirksen redrafted the provisions Dirksen had objected to so that the bill would be more acceptable to Republicans, and Dirksen's speech followed.[^3] The cloture coalition was made up of members of both the [[Democratic Party (United States)]] and the Republican Party.[^4] ## How many - Cloture vote: 71 to 29, by a coalition of 27 Republicans and 44 Democrats.[^4] - Votes required for cloture in 1964: sixty-seven, two-thirds of the Senate.[^12] - Length of debate: sixty days, including seven Saturdays.[^12] - Minority Leader election, 1959: Dirksen 20, Cooper 14.[^10] - Senate re-election margins: 54.1% to 45.7% over Richard Stengel (1956); 52.9% to 47.1% over Sidney R. Yates (1962); 53.0% to 46.6% over William G. Clark (1968).[^10] - Citations of Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 in the 2026 federal complaint: eight.[^8] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who - Humphrey, a Minnesota Democrat, and Dirksen, an Illinois Republican, are the two senators the Senate account credits with the redrafting; the project's time table dates their compromise to March 1964 and files it under Title VII and § 43A.191.[^3] - Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified *[[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]]* as a matter of general public importance.[^7] ### What - The Senate Historical Office describes the 1964 Act as "the most sweeping civil rights legislation in the nation's history" and states that it "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history."[^13] The statute's documented outputs since then include judicial readings that pull in different directions. - In *Weber*, the Court relied on Dirksen's Section 703(j) to hold that Title VII permits voluntary, race-conscious [[Affirmative action]] plans by private parties; it noted that the case involved no state action and so raised no claim under the [[Equal Protection Clause]].[^6] Concurring, Justice Blackmun wrote that "the Congress that passed Title VII probably thought it was adopting a principle of nondiscrimination that would apply to blacks and whites alike."[^16] - In *Ames*, the Court held that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs" and rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^14] - The United States' complaint in *United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026), is brought under Title VII. It cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subdivision 3(c), which requires an agency to explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^8] No ruling in the case appears in the sources of this record.[^8] - DOJ's release No. 26-21 describes the State's program as "Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime."[^7] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages finds that no other U.S. state has been so described; that is the project's catalogue finding, not an independently established fact.[^7] ### When - March 1964: Humphrey–Dirksen compromise (time table); June 10, 1964: cloture.[^4] - January 14, 2026: release No. 26-21 and the complaint in No. 0:26-cv-00273.[^7][^8] ## Notes [^1]: Wikipedia contributors, *Everett Dirksen* (revision 1378359435, retrieved 2026-10-27) — party, House and Senate service, Senate Minority Leader 1959–1969, birth and death dates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen [^2]: Wikipedia contributors, *Everett Dirksen*, "Early life" and "Military service" (revision 1378359435) — birth in Pekin, University of Minnesota 1914–1917, Army enlistment January 4, 1917, service in France and Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen [^3]: U.S. Senate Historical Office, *Landmark Legislation: The Civil Rights Act of 1964* — Humphrey enlisted Dirksen; the two redrafted language Dirksen objected to; Dirksen's "an idea whose time has come" speech gained Republican cloture votes. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm [^4]: U.S. Senate Historical Office, *Landmark Legislation: The Civil Rights Act of 1964* — June 10, 1964 cloture vote of 71 to 29 by a coalition of 27 Republicans and 44 Democrats; first cloture on a civil rights bill. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm [^5]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers of America v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (decided June 27, 1979) — Section 703(j) proposed by Senator Dirksen; its text; Dirksen remarks at 110 Cong. Rec. 12817. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/443/193 [^6]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers of America v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) — holding that Title VII does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans; "require" versus "require or permit"; no state action. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/443/193 [^7]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*, release No. 26-21 (Jan. 14, 2026) — title of the release; Attorney General Bondi's certification of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^8]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII action citing Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subd. 3(c). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^9]: Wikipedia contributors, *Everett Dirksen*, "Post-war" and "U.S. representative" (revision 1378359435) — bakery, American Legion, Pekin City Council 1927–1931, 1930 primary loss by 1,155 votes, 1932 election, re-elections through 1946, shift in positions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen [^10]: Wikipedia contributors, *Everett Dirksen*, "U.S. senator" (revision 1378359435) — 1950 defeat of Scott W. Lucas; 1956, 1962 and 1968 margins; 1959 Minority Leader vote of 20–14 over John Sherman Cooper. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen [^11]: Wikipedia contributors, *Everett Dirksen*, "Death" and "Legacy and honors" (revision 1378359435) — surgery and death on September 7, 1969; lying in state; 1972 renaming of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen [^12]: U.S. Senate Historical Office, *Landmark Legislation: The Civil Rights Act of 1964* — House passage of H.R. 7152 on February 10, 1964; Mansfield's calendar placement; March 9 filibuster; sixty days of debate; two-thirds (sixty-seven) cloture requirement; southern Democratic opposition. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm [^13]: U.S. Senate Historical Office, *Landmark Legislation: The Civil Rights Act of 1964* — Senate passage nine days after cloture; House acceptance and President Johnson's signature on July 2, 1964; the Office's description of the Act. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/CivilRightsAct1964.htm [^14]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs; "background circumstances" rule rejected. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf [^15]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers of America v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) — legislative-record account of the support needed to enact Title VII and the purpose of Section 703(j). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/443/193 [^16]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers of America v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) (Blackmun, J., concurring) — statement on what the enacting Congress probably thought. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/443/193