Election Law, Week 2: The History They Want to Censor

So….Week 1 ended on a sobering note: the destruction of the new, diverse democracy that had emerged in the South, the onset of Jim Crow and white supremacy for generations, and the highest court in the land declaring that there was nothing it could do about it.

In the upcoming week, we’ll explore in detail the tools that were used to lock that white supremacy into place over that time. (And yes, this is much of the history that some are trying to censor, which only redoubles my dedication to teaching it.) But then we’ll walk through the first steps along the long journey of overcoming it all, eliminating tools of suppression, one at a time.

Here is the next set of readings I recommend:

1. I like to use the groundbreaking work by Gunnar Myrdal, “An American Dilemma,” to take inventory and understand the interplay of the tools of oppression and suppression in the Jim Crow South. Specifically, please read the early part of Chapter 22, pages 474-490. You can find these pages here. Make a list of every tool Myrdal describes; think about how you might challenge them legally.

2. Then let’s dive into a number of cases (most are short):

   1. Grandfather Clause Cases: One early set of cases involves a suppression device that was widely used known as the “grandfather clause.” Two cases to read here are: (link on each case to read it)

      1. Guinn v. United States

      2. Lane v. Wilson

      3. Discussion: what's different about these cases from the cases we read in Week 1?  How does the approach and the language change?

   2. White Primary Cases: Another set of cases involves the device of racially-exclusive primaries that was the norm in many states. The two cases to read here are:

      1. Grovey v. Townsend

      2. Smith v. Allwright

      3. Discussion: how are these different from the cases we read in Week 1, and from each other?

   3. Court Involvement: Another set of cases involves the broader topic raised by the Giles v. Harris case from Week 1—when, if at all, should the Court even weigh in on cases involving voting, elections and democracy? This questions builds into an epic and fascinating battle among some of the most noteworthy Justices in the history of the Supreme Court, and the end of that battle marks a turning point in the history of voting rights and democracy in America. Chief Justice Earl Warren considered the line of case that would emerge the most important of his tenure on the Court The cases to read here are:

      1. Colegrove v. Green

      2. Gomillion v. Lightfoot

      3. Baker v. Carr

      4. Discussion: what are Frankfurter's arguments against the Court getting involved? What are the counterarguments?  What do you think of each? What changed between the three cases?

When you’re done reading these, I promise you will begin to be in a better place than you were at the end of Week 1.

Have a good weekend.

___

Some states are trying to censor what Americans know and can learn about our past. It’s sickening. But it only redoubles my commitment to give a firm grounding in the long struggle for and law of voting rights. Even though this is essential history and law for every American to understand, it is still too often overlooked and lost. Hundreds have already signed onto this Substack Course in Election Law and Voting Rights. You can have full access to the course by signing up for a paid subscription:

And please help spread the word; share this course with others you know: