Quantcast
Connect with us

Democrats could have a real shot at winning Mississippi — if not for its Jim Crow election laws

Published

on

Jim Crow is still a thing — if not in law than in spirit in many places.

Mississippi has the largest population of African American voters in the nation, yet no African American has won statewide office in more than 130 years. A newly filed federal lawsuit alleges that is because of election rules from the state’s 1890 constitution that were conceived during the racist backlash to the Civil War and Reconstruction, in a period when black people represented the majority of the state’s population.

White politicians in the South sought to suppress the black voting power that emerged during Reconstruction with racially discriminatory laws, albeit less overtly racist than those that existed before the Civil War. Many of the Jim Crow laws written into the new constitution Mississippi passed after Reconstruction have long since been struck down by courts, but one law still on the books effectively makes it harder for African Americans and Democrats to win elections statewide.

Mississippi might be the most racially polarized state in the nation. The state is about 58% white and 37% African-American. So even while Mississippi’s black population votes overwhelmingly Democrat, in a state where Democrats struggle to get even 15% of the white vote, it’s all but impossible for a Democrat to win statewide. That’s because Mississippi is the only state in the nation where candidates for statewide office must win a majority of the state popular vote and a majority of the House districts in the state. Mississippi’s African-American voters are heavily concentrated in 42 counties, while a majority of the state’s 122 counties are majority white and majority Republican, this Jim Crow-era method of electing officials to statewide office “dilutes African American voting strength,” according to the plaintiffs in a new lawsuit.

The federal suit was filed last week by four longtime Mississippi voters in affiliation with former Attorney General Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee. It seeks an injunction in this year’s elections against using what it describes as a “racist electoral scheme.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“The challenged provisions dilute votes cast by African-Americans and minimize the influence of African-American votes in elections for statewide offices, all of which denies African-Americans an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect their preferred candidates,” the complaint states. According to the group of black voters, Mississippi’s system both violates the federal Voting Rights Act and perhaps even the Supreme Court’s “one person, one vote” jurisprudence, since an equal number of votes won’t be cast in each state House district. (The Supreme Court in 1963 struck down Georgia’s system of determining statewide primary contests by a county system that gave rural voters excess weight.

Mississippi’s state Constitution also gives the state legislature the power to pick a winner in the event that no candidate reaches both the popular vote and electoral vote threshold. That too is a focus of the lawsuit.

“This discriminatory electoral scheme achieved, and continues to achieve, the framers’ goals by tying the statewide-election process to the power structure of the House,” the complaint continues. “So long as white Mississippians controlled the House, they would also control the elections of statewide officials.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Such was the case in 1999 when the Democratic-controlled House voted along party lines to elect a governor between two white candidates who failed to satisfy both rules after a four-person race split the vote. Coincidentally, that was the last time Democrats controlled the governor’s mansion in the Magnolia State.

But for the first time in more 20 years, Democrats could have a real shot at the governorship — if not for Mississippi’s racist system for electing governors.

Attorney General Jim Hood, the only statewide elected Democrat in Mississippi, has actually led in many of the polls for governor taken so far this year. A proven winner who secured four statewide victories by landslides, Hood’s chances could be hurt the existing law if he wins the governor’s race closely, as polling indicates, because he would likely end up losing in the Republican-controlled legislature. Furthermore, this race will be more tightly contested than in years past because the winning side takes the upper hand in the state’s redistricting process, set to begin in 2021.

ADVERTISEMENT

That may explain why national Democrats like Holder, have taken notice of the rule that basically makes it impossible for the opposition party to ever win statewide office.

Democratic Governors Association communication director David Turner said in a statement, “The Mississippi laws are clearly designed to give certain districts a disproportionate influence on the outcome and these vestiges of Jim Crow that attack civil rights have no place in our country today. The DGA sees the race in Mississippi as a big opportunity for a victory regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit.”

Whatever the outcome of this lawsuit, or the governor’s race in Mississippi, the state’s reliance on an outdated system is a reminder that racial bias is stitched into the fabric of practically every part of American culture. Changing this electoral rule is one thing; rooting out the underlying attitudes and assumption that made it possible is quite another.


Report typos and corrections to [email protected].

Send confidential news tips to [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

2020 Election

Bernie Sanders’ staff demand to be paid the $15-an-hour minimum wage he advocates: report

Published

on

Campaign workers working for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are demanding an increase in pay consistent with the senator's campaign rhetoric, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

"Unionized campaign organizers working for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s presidential effort are battling with its management, arguing that the compensation and treatment they are receiving does not meet the standards Sanders espouses in his rhetoric, according to internal communications," the newspaper reported.

Continue Reading

2020 Election

Here is why Nancy Pelosi allowed a House impeachment vote

Published

on

Admitting that he isn't privy to insider knowledge from the Democratic leadership, Bloomberg columnist Jonathan Bernstein suggested that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be playing a much longer game on the possibility of impeachment hearings on Donald Trump than her detractors believe.

Wondering, "Is Nancy Pelosi closer to impeachment?' Bernstein writes, "Usually, when a regular bill or resolution has been introduced, it’s then referred to committee. If the majority party doesn’t want to consider the bill, it will die with no further action. Under House rules, however, any member can force an impeachment resolution onto the floor as pending business. That’s what [Rep. Al] Green (D-TX) did Wednesday."

Continue Reading
 

2020 Election

White House aides fear Trump believes House vote against impeachment means it’s never going to happen: report

Published

on

A proposal to start impeachment hearings that failed in the House on Wednesday led Donald Trump to optimistically proclaim that his presidency is safe at his North Carolina rally last night. But his proclamation has some White House officials worried the president really believes he is out of the woods.

According to a report at Politico, close aides to the president worry that his comment that "we have all this [impeachment] behind us," may be based on an unfounded notion by Trump about how Congress works.

Speaking at his campaign rally in Greenville, N.C., Trump boasted to the crowd, "I just heard that the United States House of Representatives has overwhelmingly voted to kill the most ridiculous project I’ve ever been involved in: the resolution -- how stupid is that -- on impeachment. I want to thank those Democrats because many of them voted for us, the vote was a totally lopsided 332-95-1.”

Continue Reading
 
 
 

Copyright © 2019 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email [email protected]

Join Me. Try Raw Story Investigates for $1. Invest in Journalism. Escape Ads.
close-image