The Economist - USA (2019-11-02)

26 United States The EconomistNovember 2nd 2019

2

1

T

hegovernor’sraceinMississippiis

a reminder that America has strange,

little-known election rules which can

profoundly affect results. This one could

mean the candidate with fewer votes gets

chosen for the state’s highest office

under a system that could be rejected by

the Supreme Court.

Under Mississippi’s constitution,

statewide officers must win a majority of

the popular vote and a majority of the 122

districts comprising the state’s House of

Representatives. If no one wins a double-

majority, the House may choose the

governor. This provision’s aim was overt-

ly racist. According to a record of the

state’s constitutional convention, which

was held in 1890 at the start of the Jim

Crow era, the framers declared: “It is the

manifest intention of this convention to

secure to the state of Mississippi ‘white

supremacy’.” By crowding blacks into a

few districts (and denying them the

vote), the framers ensured that whites

could never be outvoted.

The law now discriminates against

Democrats, the political party for whom

African-Americans overwhelmingly

vote. In practice, Democrats need to win

at least 55% of the popular vote to win a

majority of districts.

Other states once had similar provi-

sions. In Georgia candidates had to win a

weighted majority of counties. That was

struckdownbytheSupremeCourtin

1963, ruling that it offended against the

principle of one person-one vote. The

surprise is that Mississippi’s law has

survived so long.

In May the National Redistricting

Foundation, headed by Eric Holder,

President Obama’s attorney-general, and

the Mississippi Centre for Justice, a legal

group, filed suit in district court, claim-

ing the constitution discriminates

against African-Americans. In hearings

in October the judge was sympathetic to

the argument but wary of changing

election law on the eve of a vote. How-

ever he rules, the provision is likely to

continue in force, since the losing side

will appeal and the case could make its

way to the Supreme Court.

That could have immediate conse-

quences. The race for governor is tight.

The Republican is ahead but Jim Hood,

the Democratic candidate, could win the

popular vote though not a majority of

districts. In other races when this hap-

pened, either the losing candidate con-

ceded before the House got involved or

the leading candidate was from its ma-

jority party, which selected him. This

time, the Republican candidate, Tate

Reeves, has refused to rule out letting the

House decide. The candidate with the

most votes could lose the election. Hard-

ly a popular mandate.

Losertakeall

Mississippi

JACKSON

Jim Crow still haunts the Magnolia State’s politics

cising his rival as inadequately Trumpist

and says he will “do to Louisiana what

Trump has done to America”.

If Mississippi and Louisiana are politi-

cally distinctive it may be because they ex-

aggerate national trends, rather than con-

tradict them. They are the two states with

the highest proportion of African-Ameri-

can voters; these are solidly Democratic.

They have an unusually high proportion of

white working-class and rural voters; these

are reliably Republican. As a result, say

Nate Silver and Nathaniel Rakich of Fi-

veThirtyEight, a statistical website, the two

states have among the least “elastic” elec-

torates in the country: their voters are

among the least likely to change their

minds. Moreover, thanks to the second

group, Mr Trump is even more popular in

the two states than might be expected.

Messrs Silver and Rakich calculate states’

“Republican lean” based on polls and the

party’s performance over previous cycles.

Compared with this baseline, Mr Trump is

more popular in Mississippi and Louisiana

than in any other Republican states.

If they are indeed characteristic of the

nation, that may not bode well for Demo-

crats in Republican states. In Louisiana’s

jungle primary, Republicans enjoyed a

landslide. Five of seven statewide officers

from the party won in the first round. Re-

publicans won a supermajority in the state

Senate. Republicans in Mississippi also

think they can increase their share in the

state House to two-thirds.

Such majorities could enable ruling Re-

publicans to overturn a governor’s veto.

That matters because 2020 is a census year,

and after each census the state legislature

must draw new redistricting (voting-area)

maps to reflect population shifts. In prac-

tice, Republican-controlled houses with

supermajorities could redraw voting maps

to hurt Democrats, without fear of a Demo-

cratic governor’s veto.

None of this means a Democrat cannot

win in the Deep South. Mr Edwards fell

short in the primary mainly because of low

turnout among African-American voters.

Their numbers usually rise in the second

round. That, plus votes from some disaf-

fected anti-Rispone Republicans, would be

enough for him. Mr Hood’s climb is steeper

because the Republican is ahead in the

polls and because of Mississippi’s consti-

tution (see box). The two men’s difficulties

show how hard it is for centrists to win in

states where politics is less and less local,

even at a local level. 7

Y’all ready for this?

Sources:JMCAnalytics;

Mason-Dixon

*Oct 24th-26th 2019

†Oct 17th-19th 2019

United States, governor elections

Votingintention,%

0 1020304050

Louisiana*

John Bel Edwards (D)

Eddie Rispone (R)

Mississippi†

Tate Reeves (R)

Jim Hood (D)

T

estifying earlierthis year before the

Senate Appropriations Committee,

William Barr, Donald Trump’s attorney-

general, said, “I think spying did occur”

against Mr Trump’s campaign in 2016. That

is an odd way to characterise the fbi-led in-

vestigation into Russian interference,

which began not with surveillance, but

with a tip from Australia’s government—

that Russia had offered “dirt” on Hillary

Clinton’s campaign. But it delighted Mr

Trump, who has long blamed his woes on a

“deep state” conspiracy. Mr Barr recently

gave the president another reason to smile,

as news leaked that the Justice Department

(doj) had opened a criminal inquiry into

the origins of the Russia investigation.

That has left many in Washington con-

fused. On one hand, the attorney whom Mr

Barr has put in charge of the investiga-

tion—John Durham, the chief federal pros-

ecutor in Connecticut—is respected across

the political spectrum for his apolitical

thoroughness as well as his probity. A

criminal inquiry gives him the power to

subpoena witnesses, empanel grand juries

and bring indictments.

On the other, investigations into possi-

ble malfeasance within an agency are usu-

ally carried out by the agency’s inspector

general (ig). Indeed, the doj ig’s office was

WASHINGTON, DC

The Justice Department opens a

criminal investigation into itself

The Russia inquiry

In search of lost

crime