Republican Gov.-Elect Tate Reeves won a solid general election victory over Democratic nominee Jim Hood and two minor party candidates in a race that was projected to be much tighter.
A less than enthusiastic turnout in the heavily Democratic 2nd Congressional District contributed to Hood’s defeat, but it was the ability of the Reeves campaign to essentially nullify Hood’s perceived home base in northeast Mississippi that turned the tide. Those factors, plus dominating the Gulf Coast and the Pine Belt from the primary through the general election, gave Reeves the win.
But both camps were expecting a closer race than what transpired, in which Reeves took 52.1 percent of the vote to Hood’s 46.6 percent and a combine 1.3 percent for minor party or independent candidates David Singletary and Robert Hickingbottom. And both camps considered the prospects of facing the aftermath of an uncomfortably close race that might well have plunged the Mississippi House into turmoil.
Since the stars came into alignment for a Reeves-Hood showdown, pitting two candidates with the state’s major parties who have each successfully sought statewide office four consecutive times, I’ve written about what has come to be called Mississippi’s “electoral junior college” contained in 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 is 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 Ronnie Musgrove-Mike Parker gubernatorial 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 Parker.
Musgrove was elected governor 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.
While the 1999 governor’s race is the only one in history impacted by the Jim Crow law, the 1991 lieutenant governor’s race between incumbent Democrat Brad Dye and Republican challenger Eddie Briggs invoked the law. Briggs carried the popular vote but the two were tied in the “electoral” vote.
Dye ended the standoff with a concession letter to the House asking them to vote for Briggs in the interest of the good of the Legislature. Lobbyist Al Sage reminded me of the Briggs-Dye contest.
Four black plaintiffs have asked the federal courts to level a playing field that was stacked in 1890. U.S. District Judge Dan Jordan has stated his intent to intervene if a candidate who wins the popular vote lost the election in the House.
It’s time that Mississippi lawmakers remove this troublesome, unfair vestige of the bad old days in Mississippi and voluntarily shut down the state’s archaic “electoral junior college.” I believe the legislative leadership will do just that and sooner than later.
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com.
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Sid Salter: Time to Remove Archaic Jim Crow Vestige from Constitution
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
Agreed. A bad law that must be eliminated.
Sooo this law is fine and dandy when the Democrats are in control of the legislature but the law is "Jim Crow era" when Republicans are in charge.
Sid is sooo insightful.
There really isn't any difference between 1950's Democrats and 2019 Republicans. They're all cut from the same cloth.
Blacks & Liberal always run to the courts when they don't get their way in elections!
Enough.---
Just because the MS constitution way approved in 1890 doesn't mean it was used against Blacks, Mexicians, or outer space aliens.
The Mississippi constitution mirror the U.S constitution.
So when you spit on one you spit on the other!
Sid Salter needs to be put out to pasture.His hate speech against his own race is appalling.
@*8:16 am argues that if one party behaves badly, the other party should not only behavior just as badly, but worse if possible?
Sadly, the common attitude of embracing all the corrupt and bad policies the other party or race did as either well deserved payback or improved nest feathering is exactly what keeps us on the bottom.
And, that hypocrisy is also what has spread to D.C. as we see in the impeachment hearing. The GOP was right about the Clinton impeachment process and now adopting the past wrong headed arguments of the Democrats back then. Party over country, party over State, party over city and race before humanity is destroying us.
And Christians have forgotten that " Do Unto Others …" doesn't end " as they did unto you". Hypocrisy is great as a winning strategy so that's all that matters , right?
I dare all of you to read the entire Mississippi State Constitution.
If you do, you will find an entire section that is unintelligible and likely was an effort to help those who were investing in railroads at the time...maybe...no one is sure. It's gobbledygook.
If you really want to be enlightened, pick a State, any State and read their state constitution.
Prepare to be mortified.
Our state constitution is embarrassing. Its just as embarrassing that state media and democrats want to keep beating a horse that is not even in the top 50 things that need to change in the constitution. Half of the whole document was written in a way to keep out-of-state instigators and blacks from having any say-so about anything or holding any office.
Even these closed primaries we have originate from Jim Crow reasoning. Can't have no blacks influencing who "we" elect.
Let's have a Constitutional Convention. Yes.
It would be interesting to see if we could negotiate a Constitution that was up to date and set Mississippi on a forward course.
Where is Gil Carmichael when you need him? RIP Gil, he knew what he was talking about.
As an alternative, what if we put a repealer on our Constitution and all Statutes as of 12-31-29? Could we come up with a new Constitution and statutes by then? Would be an interesting and productive effor.
I thought the Federally imposed Reconstruction of this state (and others) was supposed to give liberals, carpetbaggers and black folk the upper hand. Now Salter tells me that's not so.
Mr. Salter obviously found favor with the fact that a black federal district judge denied Hayes Dent the opportunity to be elected, said black judge deciding blacks needed a larger majority than they already enjoyed. Thus Dent lost, when, according to our state constitution, he would have won. Salter, as his mentors Mitchell and Minor, revel in that sort of constitutional denial.
Salter seems to disregard that nobody we send to Washington has any obligation to vote the minds of his/her constituents, while he (Salter) bemoans the fact that the same is the method of operation at the state level.
Another old article writer who needs to put himself out to pasture - enough of this radical/racial love affair with the term 'Jim Crow'.
"There really isn't any difference between 1950's Democrats and 2019 Republicans. They're all cut from the same cloth."
Likewise, there is no difference between the 1960s Republicans and the 2019 Democrats. They're cut from the same bolt as well.
Did anyone read the interview with Beth Orlansky in the Northside Birdcage Liner recently? She and her like-minded zealots are claiming that certain felonies should not be reasons for disenfranchisement because—wait for it!—these particular felonies are “committed disproportionately often by black people.” WHAT is THAT supposed to mean, and why on God’s green orb are we supposed to give any kind of pass to committers of these heinous deeds, just because they were lucky enough to be born black, and therefore unable to curb their passions—oh, the whole logical fallacy makes my head hurt. I am being perfectly sincere when I say that I surely do wish somebody could explain this to me. If Ms. Orlansky reads this blog, I’d welcome her clarification in laymen’s terms.
Watson wants to eliminate "Jim Crow Law" (which, incidentally, was put in place by Democrats). When Blacks move off "the democratic ticket only" mode, I might be inclined to agree. But they won't vote any other color than blue. So, no.
And in the same breath, Watson also wants to put a "recall referendum" in place.
It would appear Mr Watson has a taste for power.
Salter has never worked or sweated a day in his life it seems.
1:55 that’s just stupid
1:44, are you so uneducated that you don’t know the difference in reconstruction and the post-reconstruction backlash that resulted in Jim Crow laws, disenfranchisement of blacks and segregation?
These little country town academies are doing a heck of a job teaching Mississippi history!
Mr. Salter has obviously had his head buried in the liberal sand. He should know that MAGA means we are no longer concerned with destroying the politically incorrect vestiges of the past, we're embracing most of them. Isn't it great? If "Jim Crow" worked then, why not now? MAGA.
As I read the offending section, I see nothing about race but about keeping preventing larger population areas
from dominating elections at the expense of rural areas.
Salter, much like the poster at 3:03, doesn't depend on fact. Where there's no suggestion of racial animus, he is always free to make some up and insert it as easily as a comma. Let's resurrect old buzzwords like disenfranchisement. If they stirred folks up sixty years ago, they'll work again today. And it's still great fun to pretend all the ills of society are the fallout of white on black discrimination.
5:39 nailed it! It's about one highly populated city controlling the entire state. Don't believe it? Take a look at Illinois. The entire state is controlled by how the residents (criminals) of Chicago vote.
If only those guys back in the 1890's-1950's had not been so blatant in actually openly discussing their intent to re-enslave and disenfranchise black folk we could dismiss this "Jim Crow" crap the liberals keep reminding us of. Not that it matters though since we will simply rebrand laws like this. You never know when you might need them!
5:39 Of course! That's the ticket! That's what those guys were thinking. They couldn't care less about black voting. That's it! Of course!
This was the first article by Sid that I have read in over a year. Now I remember why I quit reading him.
Years ago, Sid was a good writer. Past tense is operative in the previous sentence.
In their mad rush to prove they are right it really then is no surprise that the binary thinkers here can't consider that the issue was about black voting AND the concern by other parts of white Mississippi that Jackson's white voting population would decide all electoral matters. 8:40 & 8:53 are as blinded by their animus as those they fault.
@2:49pm You seem , like far too many these days , to put anything in context.
Blacks were for the party of Mr. Lincoln until the 1960s when the Kennedy administration became to the first administration to put teeth to emancipation and took on Jim Crow laws.
The positions on key issues and policies of both parties have swapped over the years. What one is " for", the other is forced to " oppose" these days.
That is why anybody who believes a political party has some consistent , cohesive point of view that will not be forgotten in the pursuit of power is delusional.
Anyone that thinks one party is without the corrupt in their ranks is delusional.
And, we've become too lazy to figure out who in politics in either party has some sense of honor and moral boundaries
That anyone ever voted for Coach Pedo Protector is astounding.
All you modern-day philosophers ignore the fact that JFK would be a conservative, republican today. And all you know about historical context, you learned at Millsaps.
Do the people of Mississippi realize that we are at the bottom of every good list and at the top of every bad list? And it has been like this forever. When are we going to become more progressive and move this state forward? We have a new governor, but nothing will change. It's still the good ole boy system.
Post a Comment