A subtle, dangerous pattern is emerging across the American landscape. As Black citizens become the majority in cities across the South, a new “legal architecture” is being built to sidestep that majority and render Black leadership irrelevant. From the water boards of Birmingham to the courtrooms of Jackson, Mississippi, the play is the same: If you can’t win at the ballot box, change the rules of the game.
The “Bypass” Trick
Here in Monroe, we have just witnessed a textbook example of this modern-day disenfranchisement. Our Home Rule Charter is clear: the Mayor appoints a fire and police chief, subject to the confirmation of the City Council. This Council represents the majority of our citizens, who happen to be African-American.
But when Mayor Ellis bypassed five qualified Black applicants to select a white candidate, and the Council exercised its legal right to refuse confirmation, the rules were suddenly moved. Instead of working within the democratic framework of our city, the Mayor used a “bypass trick” and lobbied to bypass working the black majority city council which resulted in ACT 452.
This state law allows the Mayor to do an end-run around the Council, handing the appointment power to the Governor. It is a blatant attempt to ensure a white-led administration can install its preferred leadership regardless of the objections of a Black-majority Council. It doesn’t just ignore the Council; it ignores the voting rights of every Black citizen who put them there.
The Fortress of “Standing”
I joined the lawsuit against Act 452 because this isn’t just a personnel dispute; it’s about the worth of a vote. When the state strips my elected representatives of their Charter-given power, my vote becomes a hollow gesture.
Yet, in a 15-page ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty dismissed our challenge. My name, as one of the four plaintiffs, was not mentioned at all. My specific complaint—that my rights under the Voting Rights Act are being diluted—was never even addressed.
Instead, the Judge, a Trump appointee, hid behind the “Redressability” wall. The Judge claimed that because the court couldn’t “guarantee” that striking down the law would fix the impasse between the Mayor and the Council, it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.
Make no mistake: The court had the power to fix my problem. It could have struck down Act 452 as a law that dilutes my rights. By refusing to do so, the court has turned “standing” into a fortress for those seeking to retake power from Black majorities. But, of course, that’s the plan.
A Dangerous Precedent
The message sent from the bench this week is a chilling one for the entire South. It tells state legislatures: “If you tie a political knot complicated enough, the federal courts will refuse to untie it—even if that knot is strangling the Civil Rights Act.”
By refusing to address the merits of our claim, the judiciary is essentially giving a green light to state takeovers of local Black governance. If the federal courts will not protect the fundamental right to local self-determination, then what is the value of a vote that the state can simply legislate away?
The civil rights fight never ended; it just moved into the courtroom.
This ruling will be appealed, just as similar injustices are being appealed across this region. The plots and plans to dilute our power haven’t stopped—and neither should our resistance.
