Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. Mississippi has the
Speaker 1: highest percentage of African Americans of any state in the country,
Speaker 1: but it hasn't elected a black official statewide in more
Speaker 1: than one thirty years. Jennifer Riley Collins, who wants to
Speaker 1: become Mississippi's first black Attorney General, says the reason is
Speaker 1: the state's constitution. She's suing to change that, and she's
Speaker 1: getting help from the country's first black attorney General, Eric Holder,
Speaker 1: joining me as a leading expert on election law, Rick Pildas,
Speaker 1: a professor at n y U Law School. Rick tell
Speaker 1: us about the provision in Mississippi state Constitution the suit
Speaker 1: is directed at, Yes, Well, this is a provision that
Speaker 1: requires someone, if they are going to be elected governor,
Speaker 1: not just to win a majority of the votes statewide,
Speaker 1: but also to win a majority of votes in a
Speaker 1: substantial majority of the counties in the states or the
Speaker 1: districts in the state. So in other words, you have
Speaker 1: to win, um, not just stay wide, but you have
Speaker 1: to be able to win in lots of the different
Speaker 1: counties or districts in the state. UM. And the concern
Speaker 1: is that this means that an African American candidate has
Speaker 1: to win not just statewide, but in a lot of
Speaker 1: places that are overwhelmingly white, and that that makes it
Speaker 1: far more difficult for an African American candidate to win statewide.
Speaker 1: How would the plaintiffs prove their case with statistics? And
Speaker 1: isn't that an uphill battle. No, they wouldn't have to
Speaker 1: prove a case like this with statistics, because this is
Speaker 1: just the formal structure of the election process. And thee
Speaker 1: is whether this structure is consistent with the Constitution and
Speaker 1: with the Voting Rights Act UM. And here we also
Speaker 1: have one of these very rare situations in which you
Speaker 1: have a an election provision or structure that goes back
Speaker 1: to one of these explicitly racist constitutions that were formed
Speaker 1: in many places in the South in the eighteen nineties
Speaker 1: and the early part of the twentieth century. Uh So,
Speaker 1: the argument is that this structure, this very unusual structure,
Speaker 1: was created in the nineties specifically for the purpose when
Speaker 1: African Americans were able to vote in the South of
Speaker 1: making it very very difficult for an African African American
Speaker 1: to get elected to a statewide office. Uh So, the
Speaker 1: combination of whether this is a discriminatory purpose behind this
Speaker 1: structure um and whether it violates either the Constitution of
Speaker 1: the Voting Rights Act as a result is the core
Speaker 1: of the case. And and statistical evidence will not be
Speaker 1: particularly critical in a case like this. If this ends
Speaker 1: up going to the Supreme Court, we have a court
Speaker 1: that has cut back on the Voting Rights Act and
Speaker 1: recently ruled that parties in Gerryman during is not against
Speaker 1: the Constitution. What do you suspect the court would do
Speaker 1: with this? Well, as I understand this case, this this
Speaker 1: is as I say, this is one of these very
Speaker 1: old uh examples that are not as common anymore, of
Speaker 1: of a provision that traces right back to an explicitly
Speaker 1: racist constitution that was adopted in in Mississippi. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Court has faced a few provisions like that from other
Speaker 1: state constitutions from that era, including from Alabama, and it
Speaker 1: has struck those provisions down as unconstitutional. Uh So, as
Speaker 1: I understand this case. I think Mississippi has a tough
Speaker 1: road to ho here in defending uh this provision uh
Speaker 1: and UH and I think the plaintiffs are you know,
Speaker 1: probably have a pretty strong case here. The response from
Speaker 1: Mississippi was that this is not about race, but about
Speaker 1: partisan politics. Does that get them anywhere? Well, if that
Speaker 1: were accurate, if this were just about partisan politics, then
Speaker 1: that probably would be a defensible answer. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: whether whether that's actually a plausible explanation for why this
Speaker 1: structure came into being um and whether it's a constitutional
Speaker 1: today is still an open question. And and this provision also,
Speaker 1: you know, looks like it violates a kind of one vote,
Speaker 1: one person type doctrine, which uh, you can't defend by
Speaker 1: saying you're violating that doctrine for partisan political purposes. Because
Speaker 1: what this provision says is it's not enough to win
Speaker 1: a majority of the votes statewide. You also have to
Speaker 1: win in a variety of individual counties or districts. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so this provision may violate the one vote, one
Speaker 1: person provisions of constitutional doctrine. UM. And there's no partisan
Speaker 1: defense to that. I want to broaden the conversation a
Speaker 1: little bit because, according to the election law Journal, Mississippi
Speaker 1: makes it harder to vote than any other state. Let's
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about the national fight over voter
Speaker 1: You know, registration laws and voter ID laws in most states.
Speaker 1: Do you see growing problems making the vote harder? Well,
Speaker 1: I think the issue that's being picked out in Mississippi
Speaker 1: in particular is the Fellon disenfranchisement law and the ongoing
Speaker 1: effects of Fellion disenfranchisement laws in Mississippi. UM. As you know,
Speaker 1: those laws have gotten a lot of attention in recent years. UM.
Speaker 1: And while the courts have not struck those laws down, UM,
Speaker 1: they have been changed by vote are initiative in a
Speaker 1: place like Florida, and by governor's actions in other states,
Speaker 1: and by some state legislation. UM. And I think that's
Speaker 1: the main thing that's being referred to in Mississippi. Beyond
Speaker 1: the particular law being UM challenged here, there's certainly there's
Speaker 1: a lot more activity about regulating access to the political process. UM.
Speaker 1: The courts have struck down some voter ID laws, they've
Speaker 1: upheld other voter ID laws. It depends a lot of
Speaker 1: the specifics of how a particular states voter ID law works.
Speaker 1: How many states allow felons to vote former felons. So
Speaker 1: there are just a very limited number of states who
Speaker 1: disenfranchise former falons for life. Uh. Many states disenfranchised people
Speaker 1: while they are serving their sentence um. And the real
Speaker 1: question is once people have fully served their sentence uh
Speaker 1: and fully paid their dues, are they then eligible to vote?
Speaker 1: Do they have to go through some very complex procedure
Speaker 1: to get their voting rights back or are they automatically
Speaker 1: able to vote at that point? Uh? And I think
Speaker 1: that's that's really where the largest issues are, these permanent
Speaker 1: bands for life for former felons who have served their time,
Speaker 1: or states that make it incredibly difficult you have to
Speaker 1: jump through lots of procedural hoops to restore your voting rights.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining us today. That's Rick Pildas.
Speaker 1: He's a professor at n y U Law School and
Speaker 1: a leading expert on election law. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is Bloomberg