In a recent column, I wrote about the major time in Mississippi history that an obscure Mississippi constitutional relic from the days of “Jim Crow” laws came to electoral fruition in deciding a statewide election.
It was 20 years ago in 1999 when Democrat Ronnie Musgrove – then the incumbent lieutenant governor – won a tight general election gubernatorial race against Republican nominee Mike Parker, Reform Party nominee Jerry Ladner, and independent Helen Perkins.
Musgrove was elected governor – running for an open seat since then-incumbent Republican Gov. Kirk Fordice couldn’t succeed himself a second time – with a plurality of 49.6 percent of the vote to Parker’s 48.5 percent of the vote in a race that was ultimately decided by the Mississippi House of Representatives. Ladner got 1.1 percent of the vote while Perkins took 0.8 percent. Musgrove won the popular vote by some 8,344 votes.
But Musgrove and Parker each carried 61 of the state’s 122 House districts. When the vote went to the House to settle it, Musgrove won by a margin of 86 to 36 in the House floor vote. Out of 86 Democratic votes in the House that day, 84 voted for Musgrove. Of the 33 Republicans in the House that day, 31 voted for Parker. All three independents voted for Parker. Two Democrats voted for Parker, while two Republicans voted for Musgrove.
If Musgrove won the popular vote, why did it matter that Parker tied him 61-61 in the state’s 122 House districts?
Strictly considered, it’s because of Article V, Sections 140, 141 and 143 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1990. Those provisions were added to the state’s Reconstruction constitution in a naked attempt to make it difficult if not impossible for a black candidate to win a statewide election. The constitutional provisions required that a candidate win popular vote majority and a majority (with a plurality) of the state’s House of Representative districts as well.
If those two-tiered tests are not satisfied, then the constitution required that the matter be settled by a vote of the House of Representatives. The constitutional provisions did not, however, require the House members to vote as their constituents did or even with their own party. It was a wide-open, political free-for-all.
Yet for more than a century, the 1890 provisions were nothing more than constitutional oddity. But in 1999, the stars came into alignment in the Musgrove-Parker showdown. And while post-Civil War white Democrats put the provisions in place to keep black from winning elections, the same provisions in 1999 were used by black and white Democrats alike to box out the Republican contender, Mike Parker.
One of the ironies of that 1999 votes involved then-Democratic State Rep. Blaine “Bo” Eaton of Taylorsville. Eaton’s district voted in favor of Republican Mike Parker. But in the constitutional showdown vote, Eaton voted with his fellow Democrat Ronnie Musgrove. A significant number of Legislative Black Caucus members were happy enough to use the 1890 constitutional provisions to keep a Republican out of the Governor’s Mansion.
Fast forward to 2015. Incumbent Democratic Rep. “Bo” Eaton battled GOP challenger Mark Tullos of Raleigh to a 4,598-vote tie. The outcome of the race would decide whether Republicans would have a 74-seat, three-fifths “super majority” in the House. It was statewide news.
As House Democrats stuck together and voted together to settle the 1999 Musgrove-Parker race, House Republicans did the same thing in 2015 with the Eaton-Tullos tie vote. After more than three hours of debate, the House voted 67-49 to unseat Eaton and declare Tullos the winner.
By all prognostications, we have a tight governor’s race in 2019 between Republican Tate Reeves and Democrat Jim Hood. The GOP has about a 60 percent majority currently in the House.
Four black plaintiffs are asking the federal courts to level a playing field that was stacked in 1890. As Nov. 5 is looming, the judicial clock is ticking on whether those same Jim Crows laws help decide another Mississippi election.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
Sid Salter: Fed Lawsuit Tightens Governor's Race
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Politicians, in general, have devolved from "men to mice".
I would vote for a black candidate like Melvin Preister Jr over Tate Reeves if he was running for Governor. I wouldn't vote for a race baiting buffoon like Stokes or an gum flapping charlatan like Lumumba.
10::44 am You are judging Jackson's current mayor based on your opinion of his father, not on who he is and the actions he is trying to take to correct the mistakes he recognizes were made in the past by more than a few mayors.
Like Melvin Priester, is smart and well- educated, but he has a harder row to hoe than Melvin Priester as he has to gain broader support.
I would point out that Mississippi should be like Montgomery , Alabama. Alabama is supporting the first African American mayor there and wishing him well...even his opponent. They seem to have learned from us that constantly trashing your capitol is bad marketing that hurts the entire state.
Southerners with good sense don't air their dirty laundry in public. They quietly try to clean it.
Wait, did you say that the democrats were the racist party of old? I have run into a fair share of racists democrats recently and all you hear is how racist the republicans are. Very odd.
@11:48
It starts and ends with law and order. The voters in Jackson consistently elect soft judges their "hommies" won't get locked up. Lumumba and any other mayor is doomed to look like a failure until the voters of Jackson demand law and order at the ballot box. When that happens then we'll address that accountability thingy.
10:44
If you are going to vote for Hood then you are voting along the same lines as Stokes. Believe me Stokes is more of a conservative than Hood.
Wow. Back then they thought of everything. Was there anything that didn't involve race back then? Really.
@11:48 AM couldn't wait any longer to carry Antar's water today and decided that this place was as good as any.
Not auto-accepting SS's premise.
Now Sid, how, exactly did the lawsuit tighten the race?
charlatan
n. A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent, and often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.
n. One who pretends to knowledge, skill, importance, etc., which he does not possess; a pretender; a quack, mountebank, or empiric.
Oh yes, that is definitely an accurate description of Baby Choke! Just watch any speech videos from his jetting around the country and bloviating at colleges and other gatherings.
11:48 am
I judge humans by their behavior not their skin color or their parents...what they do...what actions they take.
5:35 pm By your own definition, Lumumba can't be a charlatan given his academic record, but the definition seems to fit you well.
Of course both of you. will ignore the fact in Reeve's ad above that as Lt. Governor than he will as Governor, Reeves had more power to raise teacher salaries and didn't.
Also, you will overlook the arrests of two Russians who dine with the President and Guiliani for funneling Russian money into America First's pack. You will fall for the excuse that the money " hasn't been used and is in a separate account" never imagining the return of the money or wondering how the money in that account would have been used.
You both seem to have very poor judgment about what is or isn't a reliable sources of information.God forbid you would used your brain and think before jumping on bandwagons.
October 10, 2019 at 11:21 AM = Yaaaawwwwwnnn, SSSsssnooorrreee, ZZZZZZZzzzzz
Post a Comment