xoxodede
Superstar
His determination to vote did away with the state’s white primary.
By Randall Kennedy,Updated February 26, 2020, 2:24 p.m.
George A. Elmore.HANDOUT
A modest businessman named George Elmore should be celebrated as the journey to the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination turns toward the South Carolina primary on Saturday. He is the person whose determination to vote in 1946 triggered a court ruling, Elmore v. Rice, which did away with South Carolina’s white primary.
Back then, Democrats monopolized political power in South Carolina. Starting in 1900, every governor, member of the state legislature, and US representative and senator had been a Democrat. Thus, exclusion from the Democratic primary was tantamount to disfranchisement. As a Black man, Elmore was barred by state law from participation in the primary.
In 1944, however, in Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court invalidated an analogous whites-only Texas law, ruling that it violated the rights of prospective Black voters under the 15th Amendment, which prohibited states from discriminating on racial grounds with respect to voting. Alarmed, South Carolina’s state leaders repealed all statutes regulating primaries, thereby, in their view, making the primary a wholly “private” affair beyond the reach of the 15th Amendment.
Get Today in Opinion in your inboxGlobe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday-Friday.
Governor Olin D. Johnson did not hide their motive. “History has taught us,” he declared, “that we must keep our white Democratic primaries pure and unadulterated so that we might protect the welfare and homes of all the people of our state.” He said that after “these statutes are repealed . . . we will have done everything within our power to guarantee white supremacy in our primaries.” He then warned that should “this prove inadequate, we South Carolinians will use the necessary methods to retain white supremacy . . . and to safeguard the homes and happiness of our people. . . . Let the chips fall where they may!”
When Elmore was prevented from voting pursuant to the purportedly “private” rules of the primary, he sued. The state Democratic Party argued that by removing all statutory regulation, the primary had been privatized and thus immunized against federal constitutional review. Judge J. Waties Waring rejected that claim, ruling that “all citizens . . . are entitled to cast a free and untrammelled ballot . . . and [that] if the only material and realistic elections are clothed with the name ‘primary,’ they are equally entitled to vote there.”
Democratic Party officials reacted by continuing to exclude Blacks from membership in the party but permitting them to vote in the primary on the condition that they, like members of the party, swore an oath of allegiance to certain tenets including separation of the races and opposition to federal fair employment legislation. Prompted by another set of Black litigants, Waring invalidated the oath requirement and prohibited the South Carolina Democratic Party from making any racial discriminations pertaining to voting or membership.
Put on notice that the judge was willing to crush further defiance with contempt-of-court citations, officials finally relented. By the summer of 1948, some 35,000 Blacks had signed their names onto the roll book of the South Carolina Democratic Party. As historian Peter F. Lau noted, this marked the first time since the late 19th century that substantial numbers of South Carolinians voted in what was, back then, the only elections that really mattered for state and national offices.
Elmore paid a steep price for his initiative. The Ku Klux Klan burned a cross on his property and he and his family were targeted by credible threats. Local banks and merchants deprived his grocery and liquor stores of credit and supplies. He was ruined financially. For too long his contribution and sacrifice, and that of other unsung petitioners, has been underappreciated.
What lessons can be gleaned from this story?
One is that, bad as the racial atmosphere is today, it is nowhere near as oppressive as it was when Elmore was denied a primary ballot. This is not an apology for what remains an unjust racial order or an invitation for complacency. Rather, it should be regarded as an acknowledgement of a complicated reality that involves retrogression, digression, and, yes, progress, too. There was a time, not so long ago, when contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination would have overlooked Black voters in South Carolina. Now they carefully plot how to win over those voters.
A second lesson stems from the first: Well-directed, persistent efforts that draw upon the best strains in American democratic traditions can effectuate important, lasting reforms. Some influential observers have posited theories of racial pessimism that admit of no progress. We are treated to Black history and prospect that is a narrative of stagnation in which slavery becomes “neo-slavery” (despite Reconstruction) and Jim Crow becomes “the New Jim Crow” (despite the Second Reconstruction). Recalling the tribulation and achievement of George Elmore should remind us of the daunting price that struggles for social justice often levy and the remarkable benefits that they sometimes bestow.
Randall Kennedy is a professor at Harvard Law School.
By Randall Kennedy,Updated February 26, 2020, 2:24 p.m.
George A. Elmore.HANDOUT
A modest businessman named George Elmore should be celebrated as the journey to the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination turns toward the South Carolina primary on Saturday. He is the person whose determination to vote in 1946 triggered a court ruling, Elmore v. Rice, which did away with South Carolina’s white primary.
Back then, Democrats monopolized political power in South Carolina. Starting in 1900, every governor, member of the state legislature, and US representative and senator had been a Democrat. Thus, exclusion from the Democratic primary was tantamount to disfranchisement. As a Black man, Elmore was barred by state law from participation in the primary.
In 1944, however, in Smith v. Allwright, the Supreme Court invalidated an analogous whites-only Texas law, ruling that it violated the rights of prospective Black voters under the 15th Amendment, which prohibited states from discriminating on racial grounds with respect to voting. Alarmed, South Carolina’s state leaders repealed all statutes regulating primaries, thereby, in their view, making the primary a wholly “private” affair beyond the reach of the 15th Amendment.
Get Today in Opinion in your inboxGlobe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday-Friday.
Governor Olin D. Johnson did not hide their motive. “History has taught us,” he declared, “that we must keep our white Democratic primaries pure and unadulterated so that we might protect the welfare and homes of all the people of our state.” He said that after “these statutes are repealed . . . we will have done everything within our power to guarantee white supremacy in our primaries.” He then warned that should “this prove inadequate, we South Carolinians will use the necessary methods to retain white supremacy . . . and to safeguard the homes and happiness of our people. . . . Let the chips fall where they may!”
When Elmore was prevented from voting pursuant to the purportedly “private” rules of the primary, he sued. The state Democratic Party argued that by removing all statutory regulation, the primary had been privatized and thus immunized against federal constitutional review. Judge J. Waties Waring rejected that claim, ruling that “all citizens . . . are entitled to cast a free and untrammelled ballot . . . and [that] if the only material and realistic elections are clothed with the name ‘primary,’ they are equally entitled to vote there.”
Democratic Party officials reacted by continuing to exclude Blacks from membership in the party but permitting them to vote in the primary on the condition that they, like members of the party, swore an oath of allegiance to certain tenets including separation of the races and opposition to federal fair employment legislation. Prompted by another set of Black litigants, Waring invalidated the oath requirement and prohibited the South Carolina Democratic Party from making any racial discriminations pertaining to voting or membership.
Put on notice that the judge was willing to crush further defiance with contempt-of-court citations, officials finally relented. By the summer of 1948, some 35,000 Blacks had signed their names onto the roll book of the South Carolina Democratic Party. As historian Peter F. Lau noted, this marked the first time since the late 19th century that substantial numbers of South Carolinians voted in what was, back then, the only elections that really mattered for state and national offices.
Elmore paid a steep price for his initiative. The Ku Klux Klan burned a cross on his property and he and his family were targeted by credible threats. Local banks and merchants deprived his grocery and liquor stores of credit and supplies. He was ruined financially. For too long his contribution and sacrifice, and that of other unsung petitioners, has been underappreciated.
What lessons can be gleaned from this story?
One is that, bad as the racial atmosphere is today, it is nowhere near as oppressive as it was when Elmore was denied a primary ballot. This is not an apology for what remains an unjust racial order or an invitation for complacency. Rather, it should be regarded as an acknowledgement of a complicated reality that involves retrogression, digression, and, yes, progress, too. There was a time, not so long ago, when contenders for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination would have overlooked Black voters in South Carolina. Now they carefully plot how to win over those voters.
A second lesson stems from the first: Well-directed, persistent efforts that draw upon the best strains in American democratic traditions can effectuate important, lasting reforms. Some influential observers have posited theories of racial pessimism that admit of no progress. We are treated to Black history and prospect that is a narrative of stagnation in which slavery becomes “neo-slavery” (despite Reconstruction) and Jim Crow becomes “the New Jim Crow” (despite the Second Reconstruction). Recalling the tribulation and achievement of George Elmore should remind us of the daunting price that struggles for social justice often levy and the remarkable benefits that they sometimes bestow.
Randall Kennedy is a professor at Harvard Law School.