The Missing and Misplaced History in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder – Through the Lens of the Louisiana Experience with Jim Crow and Voting Rights in the 1890s
33 Miss. C. L. Rev. 201 (2014)
Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Research Paper No. 2014-20
18 Pages Posted: 25 Jul 2014 Last revised: 5 Apr 2016
Date Written: June 1, 2014
Abstract
The modern Supreme Court adheres to the principle of facial neutrality and the significance of facial neutrality to equality norms in the context of race. The Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1898, which restricted the franchise in a number of race neutral ways, and introduced the “Grandfather Clause,” exempting any males entitled to vote on January 1, 1867 and their male descendants over the age of 21 at the date of adoption of the new Constitution from the new restrictions, is illustrative of the very racially conscious ways in which southern state legislatures in the post-Reconstruction Era, deliberately sought to use neutral rules to thwart equality for blacks. This paper explores the Louisiana experience and what it suggests about the Court’s use of neutrality as a primary principle in guiding equality norms. It does so by exploring the recent Supreme Court decision in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder and the majority opinion’s use of history in its analysis, and restoring some of the history leading up to passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in particular, the Louisiana experience with voting rights in the 1890’s, to illustrate the significance of the historical record in understanding modern day trends and norms.
Keywords: voting, race, segregation, equality
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation