Shut Up and Dribble

 

Legislative Disenfranchisement

As a sociologist who studies race and ethnic systems, processes, and practices, I was immediately concerned when two Black elected officials were expelled from the Tennessee legislature.  Some of the questions that immediately intrigued me were: 1) What were the root causes of these expulsions; 2) how did these expulsions impact the voters who elected them; and 3) what does history tell us about what I choose to call “legislative disenfranchisement.”    My research documents that this is not the first time Black, elective officials have been legislatively disenfranchised.  I can identify at least three other times in U.S. history where this has occurred.  These periods are salient because they all marked racially tense periods in which transformative social movements attempted to secure democratic rights by challenging laws, practices, and policies.   In each period, electoral disenfranchisement resulted in despair, fragmentation, and the loss of effective leadership.  In terms of the political, legislative, judicial, or community agendas and goals, electoral disfranchisement is meant to delay and obfuscation, frustration, and retrenchment.  What follows is an examination of the legislative disenfranchisement for the select periods and the resultant outcomes. 

Historically, predominantly white legislative bodies have removed Black elective officials from office, effectively disenfranchising their constituents. In addition, these statewide bodies have punished the respective officials and denied their constituents their political rights.  These state-mandated expulsions have typically been for minor, if not manufactured, infractions, while the penalties have been severe.  In all cases, the sentences were more related to the political stance of the Black elective officials and not their minor offenses.  The three periods that resulted in legislative disenfranchisement have occurred are:  1) the period shortly after reconstruction, 2) the period leading up to and during the Modern Civil Rights movement, and 3) the current Black Lives Matter movement.  

Reconstruction and Legislative Disenfranchisement

Georgia, in 1865, was one of the first southern states to comply with President Andrew Johnson’s Reconstruction requirements.  But the political hopes and dreams of the newly freed Black voters were short-lived as “disillusionment” set in and was finally crushed by 1872.  The immediate effects of the Reconstruction enactments were the inevitable success of the Republican party as newly enfranchised Black joined in mass.  White Democrats refused to vote, and the Republicans had a landslide victory in 1867.  Of the 165 delegates elected, thirty-five were Black.  Among the first legislative initiatives pushed forward by the Republican majority, they included campaign pledges to create public education, debt relief, and homestead exemptions.  One of the first bills passed by the Republican majority was to vote against a section of the Reconstruction Acts that “explicitly stated that all qualified electors were eligible to hold office.”  A few months later, the Democratic-controlled legislature, with help from Republicans, voted to expel 33 Black elected officials.  With the legislative disenfranchisement, Black voters in Georgia no longer had advocates pushing for their concerns -particularly public education, debt relief, and homestead exemptions.  They also lost faith in both the Republicans and the legislative process.  Declining interest, and frustration, resulted in significantly lower turnouts.  It would take almost 100 years before the voters in Georgia would again trust the system.   (Mathews 1976)