OurTupelo

Justin Matheny, the state attorney representing Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, argued in federal court on Wednesday that a provision of the state Constitution adopted in 1890 designed to prevent African Americans from voting should be upheld.

During oral arguments on Wednesday before the full panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Matheny said that the constitutional provision disenfranchising people convicted of certain felonies is, in fact, constitutional.

Mississippi denies a higher percentage of its residents the right to vote because of felony convictions than any state in the country. In Mississippi, 235,150 people — or 10.6% of the state’s voting age population — have lost their right to vote, according to The Sentencing Project. Under the same restrictions, 130,500 Black Mississippians — or 16% of that voting age population — cannot vote. Since 2016, Mississippi has moved from second to first highest percentage in the nation.

Mississippi is in the minority of states — less than 10 — where voting rights are not automatically restored for people convicted of felonies either after they complete their sentence or at some point after completing parole or probation. 

The lawsuit before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals this week was filed in 2017 on behalf of Roy Harness, who was convicted of forgery in 1986 and recently received his bachelor’s degree in social work from Jackson State University. Harness lost his right to vote because of his conviction and is challenging the constitutionality of the state disenfranchisement provision. Other Mississippi plaintiffs, such as Kamal Karriem, who have lost their voting rights, also are included in the lawsuit.

READ MORE: Not all ex-felons are barred from voting in Mississippi, but no one is telling them that.

In federal court on Wednesday, Matheny’s main defense of the provision was based on two occasions the Legislature offered proposals to the voters to change those provisions of the Constitution. In 1950, the Legislature proposed, and voters approved, removing burglary from the list of disenfranchising crimes. And in 1968, murder and rape were added to the list of disenfranchising crimes.

But Donald B. Verrilli, former solicitor general in the Barack Obama administration arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs, argued that voters never had the opportunity to vote up or down on the eight specific crimes that state leaders said were made disenfranchising because of their belief that the crimes were more likely to be committed by African Americans.

The crimes were placed in the Constitution with racist intent, making the provision “unconstitutional and therefore invalid from the moment it was adopted,” Verrilli said.

He pointed out that if Mississippians had voted down the language in 1950 removing burglary from the list or the 1968 amendment adding rape and murder, the original crimes still would be enforced.

Still, some judges on the conservative-leaning court argued that because the Legislature did act on those occasions, that may be reason enough to take away the “racist taint” and leave the original disenfranchising crimes in the Constitution.

But upon questioning by other judges, Matheny conceded that no matter how Mississippians voted in 1950 and 1968, those original crimes still would be in the Constitution and people convicted of them would face a lifetime ban on voting.

Besides being in the Constitution, Matheny argued the Legislature in later years did place those original disenfranchising crimes in general law. The action on the Legislature to place the crimes in general law in later years removed racist motivation from the 1890 action, he said.

It was pointed out to Matheny by members of the court that the original state Constitution had a provision preventing African Americans from owning guns, which is clearly unconstitutional. He was asked whether it would be constitutional if such language was in in general law instead of the state Constitution.

“Perhaps not in that hypothetical,” Matheny said.

Matheny also was asked why other crimes viewed by the Legislature as more serious because they carried longer sentences — such as certain child exploitation offenses or kidnapping and drive-by shootings — were not made disenfranchising, but lesser crimes, such a bigamy and forgery, were.

Those crimes placed in the Constitution where conviction would cost a person the right to vote were bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy and burglary.

Under the original language of the Constitution, a person could be convicted of cattle rustling and lose the right to vote, but those convicted of murder or rape still would be able to vote — even while incarcerated.

In 1968, the crimes of murder and rape were added as disenfranchising crimes. But even today, a person could be convicted of writing a bad check and lose the right to vote, but be a major drug kingpin locked up in prison and still vote. The lawsuit does not seek to overturn the voting ban for those convicted of murder or rape.

Under the Mississippi Constitution, a person who loses his voting rights because of a felony conviction cannot have the rights restored without a two-thirds vote of both chambers of the Mississippi Legislature or by a gubernatorial pardon. The Legislature — and most governors — has been extremely reluctant to restore those rights.

READ MORE: Mississippi Senate killed 19 House bills to restore voting rights

Both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Mississippi Center for Justice filed separate lawsuits challenging Mississippi’s felony voting restrictions. Earlier this year a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit rejected the arguments of the lawsuits against the state. But the case was revived when the full panel agreed to hear it.

The case was argued Wednesday via video conference. It is not clear when the court will rule on the case.

The post Attorney general argues in federal court that Jim Crow-era voting ban should be upheld appeared first on Mississippi Today.

Rick Cleveland was present for Greenville Christian’s thrilling 48-41 victory over powerhouse Oak Grove and says it was no fluke. Plus, the Cleveland boys discuss the weekend in Mississippi college football – the Ole Miss run-away and the Mississippi State take-away – and what’s coming up next.

Stream all episodes here.

The post Podcast: Greenville Christian proves to all it’s legit appeared first on Mississippi Today.

The post Marshall Ramsey: The Lifeguard appeared first on Mississippi Today.

We want to know more about educators’ experiences with helping students get to graduation. Please take a moment to fill out the brief survey below.

Your name or any identifying information you submit will not be used without your consent.

The post Reader survey: Dropout prevention in schools appeared first on Mississippi Today.

The full U.S. 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments Wednesday morning from its federal courthouse in New Orleans on whether Mississippi’s lifetime ban on voting for people convicted of certain felonies is constitutional.

A ruling by the federal panel overturning the Jim Crow-era provisions of the state Constitution could restore the voting rights to tens of thousands of Mississippians “who’ve been locked out of the democratic process for life even after completing their criminal sentences and returning to their communities,” said Kevin Pallasch of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Both the SPLC and the Mississippi Center for Justice filed separate lawsuits challenging Mississippi’s felony voting restrictions, which were placed in the state’s 1890s’ Constitution to try to disenfranchise African Americans, writers of the Constitution said at the time.

Earlier this year a three judge panel of the 5^th Circuit rejected the arguments of the consolidated lawsuits against the state. But the case was revived when the full panel agreed to hear it.

In the 1890s, the Mississippi Supreme Court said the disfranchisement of felons was placed in the Constitution “to obstruct the exercise of the franchise by the negro race” by targeting “the offenses to which its weaker members were prone.” Rob McDuff, an attorney with the Center for Justice, said the provision’s intent was the same as the poll tax, the literacy test and other Jim Crow-era provisions that sought to prevent African Americans from voting.

Those crimes placed in the Constitution where conviction would cost a person the right to vote were bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement, bigamy and burglary. Those were crimes that the 1890 framers believed African Americans were more likely to commit.

Under the original language of the Constitution, a person could be convicted of cattle rustling and lose the right to vote, but those convicted of murder or rape and still be able to vote — even while incarcerated.

In 1968, the crimes of murder and rape were added as disenfranchising crimes. But even today, a person could be convicted of writing a bad check and lose the right to vote, but be a major drug kingpin locked up in prison and still vote. The lawsuit does not seek to overturn the voting ban for those convicted of murder or rape.

Under the Mississippi Constitution, a person who loses his voting rights because of a felony conviction cannot have them restored without a two-thirds vote of both chambers of the Mississippi Legislature or by a gubernatorial pardon. The Legislature has been reluctant to restore those rights.

It is not clear when the full panel will rule after the oral arguments.

The case against the state will be argued by former U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli.

The post 5th Circuit to hear arguments on state’s felony voting ban appeared first on Mississippi Today.

Democrats in the U.S. Congress are considering a way to offer health care insurance for low income Mississippians who have been denied coverage because of the refusal of the state’s political leadership to expand Medicaid.

The proposal would provide health care coverage to people who are below the federal poverty level (an individual making $12,880 per year or less) in the 12 primarily Southern states — including Mississippi — that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

Two million Americans could access health care coverage through the plan, with the bulk of those being in Texas, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina, according to an analysis by Judith Solomon, a health policy analyst with the Washington-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

In Mississippi, studies have estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 primarily working Mississippians could qualify for coverage if the state would expand Medicaid.

“The problem is the 12 states that refuse to expand despite overwhelming evidence of the benefits of expansion of coverage to people, state budgets and health care providers,” Solomon said. “Given it’s been seven years since expansion took effect and huge financial incentives in the American Rescue Plan Act haven’t moved any states into the expansion column, this is the only way to get coverage to those who have been left out.”

The congressional proposal is being considered as part of the budget reconciliation bill that Congress is currently negotiating. The initial budget plan was $3.5 trillion, which was met with intense pushback by Republicans and moderate Democrats.

The proposal is tied up in political negotiations, and it’s possible it will not make the final bill. Southern Democrats, in particular, are lobbying their party’s leadership for the workaround to Medicaid expansion in the 12 non-expansion states. But some Democrats in states that have already expanded Medicaid are arguing that if concessions must be made in the final budget bill, they would prefer to focus on other aspects of the sweeping bill — namely providing free dental, vision and hearing coverage to seniors across income levels.

Health care is a chief policy platform of Democrats across the nation, and considering how best to move forward on providing coverage to more Americans is at the forefront of the debate. But because most of the 12 states are controlled by Republicans, and Democrats typically lose elections in those states, there is tension within the party ranks about whether the Medicaid expansion workaround is politically advantageous.

If Mississippi were to expand Medicaid under current law, the federal government would pay 90% of the health care costs with the state paying the remainder. Gov. Tate Reeves, House Speaker Philip Gunn and others have argued Mississippi cannot afford the costs of expanding Medicaid, though multiple studies — including one last week from the Mississippi state economist — have found that the expansion with the infusion of billions of dollars in federal funds would actually increase state revenue collections.

READ MORE: State economist refutes politicians’ claim that Mississippi cannot afford Medicaid expansion

Under the proposal being considered by federal lawmakers, Mississippi would not be required to provide any matching funds.

“I imagine if there was any program like that, the governor and attorney general (Lynn Fitch) would sue to try to keep us from getting the money,” surmised Senate Public Health Committee Chair Hob Bryan, D-Amory, who has been a proponent of Medicaid expansion.

The federal American Rescue Plan, passed earlier this year as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, provides additional incentive for Mississippi to expand Medicaid, offering more than $600 million over a two-year period. The other non-expansion states received similar incentives as part of the American Rescue Plan. Presumably, because the 12 states refused to take advantage of those incentives, congressional leadership is developing the workaround to provide coverages to the uninsured in those states.

As the proposal is currently written, people who earn under the federal poverty line could obtain insurance on the Healthcare Marketplace. People, based on their income level, receive federal subsides to help pay for their marketplace policies.

Under current law, people who earn below the federal poverty level do not qualify for marketplace policies.

Also under the proposal, those falling below the federal poverty level could obtain the insurance on the marketplace at no cost to them. And then in 2025, the people would transition to a Medicaid program run solely by the federal government.

If passed, states currently in the Medicaid expansion program could opt out of their current program and rely on the solely federal program, but they would have to provide a payment to the federal government.

“I hope the expansion states that have embraced expansion and seen its benefits will understand that this is critical to do,” Solomon said.

READ MORE: Mississippi chamber of commerce mulling Medicaid expansion

The post Congress considers Medicaid expansion workaround to provide health care to poor Mississippians appeared first on Mississippi Today.

When I watched the governor on with Jake Tapper, it reminded me of this classic scene from Animal House.

The post Marshall Ramsey: All’s Well! appeared first on Mississippi Today.

The Board of Trustees of the Institutions of Higher Learning voted last week to ban public universities from requiring the COVID-19 vaccine for students, faculty and staff. The move appears to make it the first higher education governing board in the country to do so.

Mississippi’s eight public universities are now “prohibited by the Board from implementing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate as a condition of employment or enrollment except for clinical settings,” Caron Blanton, IHL’s spokesperson, wrote in an email Friday. 

The vote, held without notice at the boards’ annual retreat two-and-a-half hours from Jackson, came as a surprise to many faculty and staff. 

For months, faculty urged Mississippi universities to join the hundreds of other colleges across the country that have mandated the COVID vaccine. But administrators, namely those at Mississippi State University and University of Mississippi, insisted they did not have that authority even though IHL said they did. In August, Blanton told Mississippi Today that IHL’s immunization policy “represents the minimum requirements that must be enforced by the universities. Additional requirements are not prohibited.” 

READ MORE: Fact-check: Mississippi universities say they can’t require the COVID vaccine. IHL says they can.

That’s no longer the case with this new vote, which appears to be the first time a higher ed board has moved to ban a COVID vaccine mandate. 

“The decision by the Mississippi Board of Trustees is a slap in the face to all faculty and students calling for basic public health protections to ensure safe learning environments in their classrooms and on campus,” Irene Mulvey, president of the American Association of University Professors, told Mississippi Today in a statement.

University of Mississippi Medical Center announced last month it will require all students and employees to be fully vaccinated by Nov. 1.

UMMC spokesperson Patrice Guilfoyle told Mississippi Today on Monday that “it is our understanding what when the IHL board originally voted, they excluded UMMC, and because we are a clinical sciences campus, it does not impact our policy. It is our understanding that our campus is part of the clinical settings.”

In late August, as the delta variant surged across Mississippi, the IHL board called a special meeting to debate whether or not to require the vaccine. At that meeting, held on Aug. 27, the board voted over the objections of the two physician board members not to require the vaccine. 

After 19 minutes of discussion, Trustee Chip Morgan, a real estate lawyer, made a motion for the board to vote on. 

“I will leave it to the staff to provide the exact language,” Morgan said, “but I’d like for us to point out our support for the vaccine, and that it is by far and away the best protection we have for our schools.

“And with the caveat of the medical center, and I presume … some of the nursing programs are gonna have clinical interaction,” he continued, “but other than that, I think we ought to say at this time, it’s our view that we would not impose any requirement on the universities to mandate vaccination.”

At a faculty senate meeting at MSU two weeks later, David Shaw, the provost, fielded repeated questions from professors about whether IHL’s vote left the door open for individual universities to require the COVID vaccine. To their surprise, Shaw pointed to the August vote as proof of why the university could not mandate the vaccine. 

The overwhelming vote by the governing board against vaccine mandates, Shaw said, amounted to a “very clear directive” to universities.

This left the faculty confused  — the vote had not seemed to change IHL’s stance on whether individual universities could impose vaccine mandates on their own.

“Could you please get the legal counsel of either IHL or the university to explain to us why we need authority from IHL in order to institute this,” one faculty member asked Shaw at the meeting. 

Confusion deepened last week when the provost emailed MSU faculty with an update on IHL policy.

In the email, Shaw told faculty the minutes of the August IHL meeting showed the board had passed a motion stating that “institutions are directed to refrain from mandating the COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of enrollment or employment.”

That was different from what a recording of the meeting showed IHL had voted on.

By Friday morning, though, IHL took a new vote to confirm the policy as Shaw’s email described it. 

A recording of that vote and any discussion is not available because the vote took place during the board’s annual retreat, which this year was held in West Point in a room that “did not have the technical capabilities for webcasting,” Blanton told Mississippi Today. 

Across the country, a handful of state legislatures and governors have prohibited public entities from requiring the vaccine. Seven states, for example, have banned vaccine requirements for state workers, according to the National Academy for State Health Policy. But the IHL appears to be the first higher ed board to institute a state-wide ban. 

“The Board acknowledges that vaccinations are the safe and effective way to end the pandemic but will not institute a vaccine mandate,” Mulvey said. “Instead, they are mandating that faculty put their health at risk in order to do their jobs. This is malpractice in board leadership that will lead to additional serious illness and death.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated after publication to include a quote from the University of Mississippi Medical Center.

The post ‘A slap in the face’: In surprise vote, IHL board bans COVID-19 vaccine mandates appeared first on Mississippi Today.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban on Dec. 1, providing what many believe could be the first opportunity for the conservative majority to widely limit access to abortion in America.

On Monday the court released its schedule for its October term, and will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in December. The case focuses on Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which the Mississippi Legislature passed in 2018 and was immediately blocked by lower federal courts.

The case challenges Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that affirmed pregnant people have a constitutional right to receive an abortion. Mississippi’s case is a testing ground, the first reproductive rights case to be argued before the Supreme Court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in 2020.

The case before the court is not the most restrictive ban passed in Mississippi. In 2019 the state Legislature passed a fetal heartbeat ban which prohibited abortion after six weeks, but it was struck down in an appelate court. The 15-week ban passed in 2018. State law currently prohibits abortions after 20 weeks in Mississippi, though the sole provider in the state only performs them up to 16 weeks.

Last month the Supreme Court allowed a Texas law to go into effect that prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

READ MORE: Mississippi pro-choice activists prepare for an America without Roe v. Wade

Oral arguments will be heard in person, but the courtroom will not be open to the public. The court said earlier this month that a live feed will be made available.

The post U.S. Supreme Court schedules oral arguments for Mississippi abortion ban appeared first on Mississippi Today.

When repeatedly asked on national television why Mississippi led the nation in COVID-19 deaths per capita, Gov. Tate Reeves downplayed the statistic and refused to discuss what’s being done to address it, instead lashing out at Democratic President Joe Biden.

Reeves appeared Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with Jake Tapper to discuss his response to the pandemic, particularly his opposition to Biden’s proposed vaccine mandate. 

Reeves has previously stated that he plans to sue the federal government once the particulars of the vaccine mandate are released, a claim he reasserted during his Sunday appearance. 

“If this president has the ability to mandate vaccines, what powers do we not grant this president? What does he not have the ability to do?….That’s not something that I’m willing to stand by and allow him to do. Obviously we have made it very clear that we are prepared to sue once we actually see the rule.” 

Tapper repeatedly pressed Reeves on the high COVID death rate per capita in Mississippi, which last week rose to first in the nation, asking what steps Reeves was taking to address this. 

“If Mississippi were its own country, you would be second in the world, only to Peru, in terms of deaths per capita,” Tapper said. “That’s a horrible, horrible, heartbreaking statistic. So, with all due respect, governor, your way is failing. Are you going to try to change anything to change this horrible statistic from what you’re doing already?”

Reeves did not directly answer the question and instead attempted to contextualize the statistic, pointing out that deaths are a lagging indicator and that case counts have fallen and total vaccinations have increased in Mississippi.

While daily death totals do often lag behind case counts and positivity rates in terms of measuring the prevalence of the virus at any given moment, Tapper was referencing the total number of deaths in Mississippi since the pandemic began — currently 9,270, according to the Mississippi Department of Health. It is this number, the total number of deaths since the start of the pandemic, for which Mississippi now leads the nation on a per capita basis. 

Mississippi taking the top spot was the direct result of a disastrous August that pushed its health care system to the brink of collapse. The state’s caseload and hospitalization rates are still quite high, but have decreased significantly from the peaks seen in August. Over the past two weeks, new infections have decreased by 32% and hospitalizations have decreased by 23%. 

While the number of vaccines administered each week did increase during the height of the delta variant’s presence in Mississippi, that number is currently trending downward. Currently, 42% of Mississippians are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. 

In the CNN interview, Reeves also repeatedly attempted to direct focus on other states, saying that he expected total deaths per capita to increase in other states that are currently experiencing a surge in cases and implying that Mississippi may not hold the top spot for long in terms of per capita deaths. 

Tapper continued to ask Reeves about what changes he was making in Mississippi, and Reeves responded by repeating changes in virus caseload and vaccination rates in Mississippi. During the 11-minute interview, Reeves never discussed any changes that he had made in his decision-making as the leader of the pandemic response efforts.

WATCH: The full Sept. 19 CNN interview with Gov. Tate Reeves

The post Gov. Reeves downplays Mississippi’s highest-in-nation COVID death rate appeared first on Mississippi Today.