The Louisiana Story

Since November 10, 1958, the Commission has received 115 sworn voting complaints from Negro citizens of 14 of Louisiana's 64 parishes. 1

All were investigated and staff investigators interviewed most of the

complainants at least twice.

From the outset the Commission sought the cooperation of Louisianaofficials, but the State's unwillingness to permit the Commission to examine voting and registration records became apparent from the start. 2

The staff nevertheless prepared a comprehensive set of interrogatories

to the voting registrars which it submitted to the State attorney general;he advised the registrars not to answer any of them. 3 At this point theCommission decided to hold a hearing. The hearing was first scheduled for July 13, 1959, with 39 Negro witnesses and 18 registrars ofvoters subpenaed to attend. On July 10 the Attorney General ofLouisiana, acting as counsel for the registrars, 4 filed suit to enjoin thehearing. The Federal District Court for the Western District of Louisiana ruled that Commission Rules of Procedure were not lawful and issuedthe injunction on July 12; 5 this action was sustained by a three-judgecourt, 6 but reversed by the Supreme Court on June 20, igGo. 7

The hearing was rescheduled for September 27-28, 1960, and the Attorney General of Louisiana, Jack P. F. Gremillion, was notified of thenew time and place on August 24, 1960. He replied 3 weeks later, urging postponement to avoid the "extreme likelihood of interfering" withpreparations for the November elections (in which the registrars wereinvolved). The Commission, continuing its efforts at cooperation, decided not to require registrars or other State officials to appear, and onlythose witnesses who were not represented by Mr. Gremillion testified.Witnesses were heard from 11 Louisiana parishes: Bossier, Caddo, Claiborne, East Carroll, Jackson, Madison, Ouachita, Plaquemines, RedRiver, St. Helena, and Webster. No witnesses were summoned from theother three parishes from which complaints were received2014Bienville,Washington, and De Soto2014because of litigation in the first two, and thefact that field investigations showed no current discrimination in DeSoto.

On the closing day a number of State officials made pleas to be heard.The Commission immediately assured the attorney general that they

would be heard if he could get them to New Orleans on that day, but hereplied that he could not. He expressed the desire to read a statementto the Commission, but declined to testify as a witness, and he failed toindicate when he would be able to produce the other State witnesses.Consequently, the hearing was recessed.

The second session was initially scheduled for March 22, 1961, andlater postponed, because of difficulties in securing a quorum, to May 5and 6. The attorney general was notified, but declined to attend because of prior commitments. He requested a further postponement, butthe Commission was unable to comply and so notified him.

The officials who had asked to be heard in September were invited totestify or submit statements, and the same invitation was extended tocertain others who were mentioned in testimony at the September session. Each person in the latter category was supplied with a copy ofthe testimony pertaining to him. Frank Voelker, Chairman of the Louisiana State Sovereignty Commission, and other members of that bodyhad previously indicated an interest in the Commission's undertakings.All were invited to submit statements or appear.

In response to these invitations, sworn statements were received fromAttorney General Gremillion and others. These were incorporated inthe record. In addition, several persons so invited submitted statementsand indicated a desire to testify. Others made no response.

The registrars of each of the parishes represented by witnesses in theSeptember session were subpenaed for the second session. The registrars of Plaquemines, Webster, and Bossier were originally also requiredto bring certain official records with them, but satisfactory arrangementswere made for the staff to inspect and copy these records in the registrars'offices.

In accordance with the Commission's Rules of Procedure, each witness was permitted to have counsel accompany him. Examination wasconducted only by Commissioners and designated members of the staff.Each witness was permitted to read a prepared statement if filed 24hours in advance of the hearing. Each had the right to inspect therecord of his testimony and to purchase a transcript at a nominal price. 8

NEGRO SUFFRAGE BEFORE 1954

To understand the significance of evidence developed at the Louisianahearing, some history may prove helpful. When Reconstruction endedin Louisiana in 1877, there were substantially more Negroes than whitesregistered to vote. The elections in 1878 and 1884 were marked by

rioting and violence, 9 and in 1879 Negro members of a police jury inEast Carroll Parish were forced to resign at gunpoint. 10 By 1888the Negro majority had lessened (official figures: colored, 127,923;white, 126,884), 11 an d 9 years later the whites were in the majority

(55.7 percent2014164,0882014of the 294,432 registered). 12 The situationthen changed radically, and i year later on January i, 1898, there wereonly 87,240 registered voters in the State of Louisiana: whites 74,133(85 percent), and 12,902 colored (14.8 percent). 13 In 1898 theState constitution was changed; within 2 years, the Negro proportion ofvoters declined to 4. i percent, 14 and from 1910 through 1944, the number of Negroes registered never exceeded i percent of those potentiallyqualified to vote. 15

The 1898 constitutional convention is interesting in that it represented

a closing of ranks by white factions bitterly at odds with each other, butunited in the goal of excluding the Negro from voting. 16 It provided theframework for current efforts toward this same goal. 17 Thomas J. Kerman, Esq., a delegate to the convention, discussed its purposes andaccomplishments: 18

The convention interpreted its mandate from the people to be, to

disfranchise as many Negroes and as few whites as possible, withoutviolating the prohibition of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and to do this in such a way that electionshereafter could be made perfectly free and fair.

It being conceded that an educational or property test in thealternative was a necessity, many questions touching its characterhad to be considered and disposed of. In the first place, it hadto be fixed sufficiently high to bar the Negro effectively. . . . Theeducational test embodied in section 3 of art. 197 seems to fulfill these requirements. It is a much higher test than .. . required by any other State in the Union. To comply with it a manmust not only be able to read and write, but must have knowledgeof the essential facts entitling him to vote, and be able to reckontime and remember dates and places. Careful estimates concurin the conclusion that probably not more than 10 percent of theNegroes of voting age, certainly not more than 20,000 in theentire State, will be able to comply with this test. The alternative property qualification . . . will preserve the franchise to 5,000or 6,000 illiterate whites and about 1,000 Negroes.

Thorough consideration of the best obtainable statistics showedthat the plain alternative test, without modification, would excludefrom the electorate a large body of white voters, variously estimated at from 20,000 to 40,000, and which could, perhaps, besafely fixed midway between these two extremes, at 30,000. Thesewhite men were in the enjoyment of the franchise, and considered

it theirs by right of birth and manhood. Among them, illiteratebut not ignorant, were numbered many good and patriotic citizens,who had contributed much in peace and war to the up-buildingof our common country. The convention thought their disfranchisement too dear a price to pay, even for the disfranchisement ofmore than 100,000 Negroes.

The only plan left for the convention to adopt was that of thenow famous sec. 5, which maintains in the exercise of the franchise practically every white man entitled to vote at the date ofthe adoption of the Constitution. By virtue of its provisions noman who was a voter on January i, 1867, or prior thereto, norhis son, nor his grandson, nor any foreigner naturalized prior toJanuary i, 1898, provided he has resided in Louisiana five yearsnext preceding his application to register, can be denied the right tovote by reason of his failure to possess the educational or propertyqualifications prescribed by the Constitution. The worst that itsworst enemies can say of this section is that it establishes practicallyuniversal white manhood suffrage in Louisiana. The conventioninterpreted its mandate from the people to do this precise thing,and acted accordingly.

Toward the close of World War II, Negro registration began to increase.By 1948 the number had increased from 1,672 to 28,177, and 6 yearslater the proportion of the voting-age Negro population registered hadrisen from 5 to 27 percent. 19 A number of factors appears to have contributed to this increase. One may have been the Supreme Court decisions outlawing the "white primary." 20 Also significant were the manyNegro servicemen who returned from their travels and war experienceswith a new determination to exercise their rights: 21

Coming back to Louisiana, Plaquemines Parish, United States,

I began to find the place that I left and called home, making thesupreme sacrifice of relatives, property, and self, to defend theprinciples of our great United States and the Constitution andwhat they stand for, I became somewhat disgusted, sick, and whatnot, with the condition that existed in Plaquemines Parish, notagainst any individuals in particular, but against a system that moreor less discriminated basically against Negroes. I thought then andthere that I should put forth the necessary effort to try to getNegroes to become electors, so...