WEBVTT - Battle to Dump Jim Crow-Era Voting Rules

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.040
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. Mississippi has the

0:00:20.120 --> 0:00:23.760
<v Speaker 1>highest percentage of African Americans of any state in the country,

0:00:23.800 --> 0:00:26.880
<v Speaker 1>but it hasn't elected a black official statewide in more

0:00:26.880 --> 0:00:30.760
<v Speaker 1>than one thirty years. Jennifer Riley Collins, who wants to

0:00:30.760 --> 0:00:34.239
<v Speaker 1>become Mississippi's first black Attorney General, says the reason is

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:37.840
<v Speaker 1>the state's constitution. She's suing to change that, and she's

0:00:37.880 --> 0:00:41.960
<v Speaker 1>getting help from the country's first black attorney General, Eric Holder,

0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:45.800
<v Speaker 1>joining me as a leading expert on election law, Rick Pildas,

0:00:45.840 --> 0:00:49.040
<v Speaker 1>a professor at n y U Law School. Rick tell

0:00:49.120 --> 0:00:53.600
<v Speaker 1>us about the provision in Mississippi state Constitution the suit

0:00:53.680 --> 0:00:57.520
<v Speaker 1>is directed at, Yes, Well, this is a provision that

0:00:57.640 --> 0:01:01.800
<v Speaker 1>requires someone, if they are going to be elected governor,

0:01:01.840 --> 0:01:04.480
<v Speaker 1>not just to win a majority of the votes statewide,

0:01:05.520 --> 0:01:11.679
<v Speaker 1>but also to win a majority of votes in a

0:01:11.720 --> 0:01:14.560
<v Speaker 1>substantial majority of the counties in the states or the

0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:17.360
<v Speaker 1>districts in the state. So in other words, you have

0:01:17.440 --> 0:01:20.640
<v Speaker 1>to win, um, not just stay wide, but you have

0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:24.120
<v Speaker 1>to be able to win in lots of the different

0:01:24.680 --> 0:01:29.040
<v Speaker 1>counties or districts in the state. UM. And the concern

0:01:29.560 --> 0:01:33.560
<v Speaker 1>is that this means that an African American candidate has

0:01:33.600 --> 0:01:36.680
<v Speaker 1>to win not just statewide, but in a lot of

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:40.440
<v Speaker 1>places that are overwhelmingly white, and that that makes it

0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:44.600
<v Speaker 1>far more difficult for an African American candidate to win statewide.

0:01:45.040 --> 0:01:49.120
<v Speaker 1>How would the plaintiffs prove their case with statistics? And

0:01:49.520 --> 0:01:52.800
<v Speaker 1>isn't that an uphill battle. No, they wouldn't have to

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:57.000
<v Speaker 1>prove a case like this with statistics, because this is

0:01:57.040 --> 0:01:59.960
<v Speaker 1>just the formal structure of the election process. And thee

0:02:00.320 --> 0:02:05.840
<v Speaker 1>is whether this structure is consistent with the Constitution and

0:02:05.960 --> 0:02:09.200
<v Speaker 1>with the Voting Rights Act UM. And here we also

0:02:09.240 --> 0:02:11.960
<v Speaker 1>have one of these very rare situations in which you

0:02:12.040 --> 0:02:16.040
<v Speaker 1>have a an election provision or structure that goes back

0:02:16.760 --> 0:02:21.639
<v Speaker 1>to one of these explicitly racist constitutions that were formed

0:02:21.760 --> 0:02:24.519
<v Speaker 1>in many places in the South in the eighteen nineties

0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:27.840
<v Speaker 1>and the early part of the twentieth century. Uh So,

0:02:27.919 --> 0:02:31.800
<v Speaker 1>the argument is that this structure, this very unusual structure,

0:02:32.760 --> 0:02:38.239
<v Speaker 1>was created in the nineties specifically for the purpose when

0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:41.480
<v Speaker 1>African Americans were able to vote in the South of

0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:45.000
<v Speaker 1>making it very very difficult for an African African American

0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:48.440
<v Speaker 1>to get elected to a statewide office. Uh So, the

0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:52.320
<v Speaker 1>combination of whether this is a discriminatory purpose behind this

0:02:52.440 --> 0:02:56.480
<v Speaker 1>structure um and whether it violates either the Constitution of

0:02:56.520 --> 0:02:59.080
<v Speaker 1>the Voting Rights Act as a result is the core

0:02:59.120 --> 0:03:03.240
<v Speaker 1>of the case. And and statistical evidence will not be

0:03:03.400 --> 0:03:06.919
<v Speaker 1>particularly critical in a case like this. If this ends

0:03:06.960 --> 0:03:09.480
<v Speaker 1>up going to the Supreme Court, we have a court

0:03:09.560 --> 0:03:12.640
<v Speaker 1>that has cut back on the Voting Rights Act and

0:03:13.320 --> 0:03:17.360
<v Speaker 1>recently ruled that parties in Gerryman during is not against

0:03:17.360 --> 0:03:20.200
<v Speaker 1>the Constitution. What do you suspect the court would do

0:03:20.240 --> 0:03:24.120
<v Speaker 1>with this? Well, as I understand this case, this this

0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:26.200
<v Speaker 1>is as I say, this is one of these very

0:03:26.880 --> 0:03:31.760
<v Speaker 1>old uh examples that are not as common anymore, of

0:03:31.760 --> 0:03:35.840
<v Speaker 1>of a provision that traces right back to an explicitly

0:03:35.960 --> 0:03:41.320
<v Speaker 1>racist constitution that was adopted in in Mississippi. The Supreme

0:03:41.320 --> 0:03:44.200
<v Speaker 1>Court has faced a few provisions like that from other

0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:48.360
<v Speaker 1>state constitutions from that era, including from Alabama, and it

0:03:48.360 --> 0:03:54.680
<v Speaker 1>has struck those provisions down as unconstitutional. Uh So, as

0:03:54.720 --> 0:03:57.800
<v Speaker 1>I understand this case. I think Mississippi has a tough

0:03:57.920 --> 0:04:01.720
<v Speaker 1>road to ho here in defending uh this provision uh

0:04:01.760 --> 0:04:04.320
<v Speaker 1>and UH and I think the plaintiffs are you know,

0:04:04.440 --> 0:04:07.920
<v Speaker 1>probably have a pretty strong case here. The response from

0:04:07.920 --> 0:04:10.920
<v Speaker 1>Mississippi was that this is not about race, but about

0:04:11.000 --> 0:04:15.520
<v Speaker 1>partisan politics. Does that get them anywhere? Well, if that

0:04:15.600 --> 0:04:20.279
<v Speaker 1>were accurate, if this were just about partisan politics, then

0:04:21.040 --> 0:04:25.880
<v Speaker 1>that probably would be a defensible answer. Um. You know,

0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 1>whether whether that's actually a plausible explanation for why this

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:34.360
<v Speaker 1>structure came into being um and whether it's a constitutional

0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:39.560
<v Speaker 1>today is still an open question. And and this provision also,

0:04:39.880 --> 0:04:42.839
<v Speaker 1>you know, looks like it violates a kind of one vote,

0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:48.360
<v Speaker 1>one person type doctrine, which uh, you can't defend by

0:04:48.440 --> 0:04:53.000
<v Speaker 1>saying you're violating that doctrine for partisan political purposes. Because

0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:55.520
<v Speaker 1>what this provision says is it's not enough to win

0:04:56.040 --> 0:04:59.200
<v Speaker 1>a majority of the votes statewide. You also have to

0:04:59.240 --> 0:05:03.320
<v Speaker 1>win in a variety of individual counties or districts. Uh.

0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:06.520
<v Speaker 1>And so this provision may violate the one vote, one

0:05:06.560 --> 0:05:12.000
<v Speaker 1>person provisions of constitutional doctrine. UM. And there's no partisan

0:05:12.040 --> 0:05:15.600
<v Speaker 1>defense to that. I want to broaden the conversation a

0:05:15.680 --> 0:05:18.960
<v Speaker 1>little bit because, according to the election law Journal, Mississippi

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:22.680
<v Speaker 1>makes it harder to vote than any other state. Let's

0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:26.559
<v Speaker 1>talk a little bit about the national fight over voter

0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:31.920
<v Speaker 1>You know, registration laws and voter ID laws in most states.

0:05:32.160 --> 0:05:37.400
<v Speaker 1>Do you see growing problems making the vote harder? Well,

0:05:37.560 --> 0:05:40.080
<v Speaker 1>I think the issue that's being picked out in Mississippi

0:05:40.120 --> 0:05:44.960
<v Speaker 1>in particular is the Fellon disenfranchisement law and the ongoing

0:05:45.040 --> 0:05:50.200
<v Speaker 1>effects of Fellion disenfranchisement laws in Mississippi. UM. As you know,

0:05:50.400 --> 0:05:54.640
<v Speaker 1>those laws have gotten a lot of attention in recent years. UM.

0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:58.320
<v Speaker 1>And while the courts have not struck those laws down, UM,

0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:01.800
<v Speaker 1>they have been changed by vote are initiative in a

0:06:01.800 --> 0:06:05.000
<v Speaker 1>place like Florida, and by governor's actions in other states,

0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:08.679
<v Speaker 1>and by some state legislation. UM. And I think that's

0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:11.760
<v Speaker 1>the main thing that's being referred to in Mississippi. Beyond

0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:16.360
<v Speaker 1>the particular law being UM challenged here, there's certainly there's

0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:21.520
<v Speaker 1>a lot more activity about regulating access to the political process. UM.

0:06:21.600 --> 0:06:24.880
<v Speaker 1>The courts have struck down some voter ID laws, they've

0:06:24.920 --> 0:06:27.400
<v Speaker 1>upheld other voter ID laws. It depends a lot of

0:06:27.440 --> 0:06:31.120
<v Speaker 1>the specifics of how a particular states voter ID law works.

0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:36.640
<v Speaker 1>How many states allow felons to vote former felons. So

0:06:36.920 --> 0:06:39.520
<v Speaker 1>there are just a very limited number of states who

0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:46.000
<v Speaker 1>disenfranchise former falons for life. Uh. Many states disenfranchised people

0:06:46.080 --> 0:06:49.720
<v Speaker 1>while they are serving their sentence um. And the real

0:06:49.800 --> 0:06:54.400
<v Speaker 1>question is once people have fully served their sentence uh

0:06:54.480 --> 0:06:58.800
<v Speaker 1>and fully paid their dues, are they then eligible to vote?

0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Do they have to go through some very complex procedure

0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:05.160
<v Speaker 1>to get their voting rights back or are they automatically

0:07:06.520 --> 0:07:09.200
<v Speaker 1>able to vote at that point? Uh? And I think

0:07:09.240 --> 0:07:12.800
<v Speaker 1>that's that's really where the largest issues are, these permanent

0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:17.559
<v Speaker 1>bands for life for former felons who have served their time,

0:07:18.400 --> 0:07:21.520
<v Speaker 1>or states that make it incredibly difficult you have to

0:07:21.600 --> 0:07:24.720
<v Speaker 1>jump through lots of procedural hoops to restore your voting rights.

0:07:25.080 --> 0:07:28.280
<v Speaker 1>Thanks so much for joining us today. That's Rick Pildas.

0:07:28.360 --> 0:07:30.400
<v Speaker 1>He's a professor at n y U Law School and

0:07:30.440 --> 0:07:35.720
<v Speaker 1>a leading expert on election law. Thanks for listening to

0:07:35.720 --> 0:07:39.040
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:42.800
<v Speaker 1>the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

0:07:42.840 --> 0:07:47.320
<v Speaker 1>com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is Bloomberg