Justice Jackson's Dissent in ROY HARNESS v. MICHAEL WATSON: Challenging Mississippi's Longstanding Disenfranchisement Law

Introduction

The case of ROY HARNESS, et al. v. MICHAEL WATSON, MISSISSIPPI SECRETARY OF STATE (143 S. Ct. 2426) presents a critical examination of Mississippi's enduring disenfranchisement statutes. Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 30, 2023, the central issue revolves around Section 241 of Mississippi's Constitution, which contains eight crimes that serve as bases for felon disenfranchisement. This commentary explores the nuanced dissenting opinion of Justice Jackson, co-joined by Justice Sotomayor, in response to the Court's denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby upholding the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The majority's denial suggested a reluctance to overturn the existing disenfranchisement provisions in Mississippi's Constitution. However, Justice Jackson's dissent vehemently opposed this denial, arguing that the lower courts failed to recognize the inherently discriminatory nature of Section 241 and its continued impact on Black Mississippians' voting rights.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Justice Jackson references several key precedents to bolster the argument against the disenfranchisement statutes:

• WILLIAMS v. MISSISSIPPI, 170 U.S. 213 (1898): Acknowledged the discriminatory intent behind Mississippi's disenfranchisement provisions but declined to challenge them.
• Ratliff v. Beale, 74 Miss. 247 (1896): Similar in recognizing the discriminatory aims of the state's constitutional provisions.
• HUNTER v. UNDERWOOD, 471 U.S. 222 (1985): Unanimously invalidated Alabama's constitutional provision for disenfranchisement, highlighting the untenable discriminatory motivations behind such laws.
• Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977): Established that the burden lies with the state to prove that discriminatory intent is absent.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's stance against racially motivated disenfranchisement and provide a foundation for Justice Jackson's dissent.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Jackson critiques the Fifth Circuit for two primary analytical errors:

• Reenactment Argument: The Fifth Circuit erroneously considered changes to Section 241 as a "reenactment" of the original provisions. Justice Jackson clarifies that amendments in 1950 and 1968 did not fundamentally alter the eight discriminatory crimes but rather made selective changes, leaving the core discriminatory intent intact.
• Discriminatory Purpose: The Fifth Circuit incorrectly assumed that the state could demonstrate the absence of discriminatory intent by pointing to legislative considerations in the 1980s. Justice Jackson emphasizes that the burden is not to show a theoretical possibility of non-discriminatory enactment but to prove that the discriminatory actors would have enacted the law absent the discriminatory intent.

Furthermore, justice Jackson draws parallels to HUNTER v. UNDERWOOD, asserting that the enduring nature of Section 241's provisions continues to disenfranchise Black voters, fulfilling the discriminatory objectives of the 1890 Mississippi Constitutional Convention.

Impact

If Justice Jackson's dissent were to influence future deliberations, it could catalyze a re-examination of longstanding disenfranchisement laws across various states. Emphasizing historical context and the perpetuation of discriminatory practices, the dissent highlights the need for judicial intervention to rectify entrenched racial injustices within the legal framework governing voting rights.

Additionally, the dissent serves as a call to action for advocacy groups and legal scholars to challenge similar statutes, invoking precedents that recognize and condemn racially motivated disenfranchisement.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Felon Disenfranchisement: The practice of revoking the voting rights of individuals convicted of felonies. In Mississippi, specific crimes listed in Section 241 serve as criteria for this disenfranchisement.

Writ of Certiorari: A legal order by which a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court. Denial of certiorari means the Supreme Court will not review the lower court's ruling.

Discriminatory Purpose: The intent to create laws or policies that unfairly target or disadvantage specific groups, often based on race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics.

Reenactment: In this context, refers to the misconception that amending parts of a law completely renews or replaces its original discriminatory nature.

Conclusion

Justice Jackson's dissent in ROY HARNESS v. MICHAEL WATSON serves as a poignant critique of the Supreme Court's reluctance to address enduring racial disenfranchisement through Section 241 of Mississippi's Constitution. By meticulously dissecting the Fifth Circuit's errors and reinforcing the significance of historical context in judicial review, the dissent underscores the urgent need to confront and dismantle racially discriminatory laws that persist in undermining democratic principles. This commentary highlights the ongoing struggle for equal voting rights and the pivotal role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional protections against racial discrimination.