Alabama clings to segregationist past

During his inaugural address in 1963, the then Alabama governor, George Wallace, took to the steps of the state capitol and made a promise. Standing on the spot where Jefferson Davis had declared an independent southern confederacy just over 100 years before, he pledged: "In the name of the greatest people that ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny and I say: Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation for ever."

Yesterday it looked as if he might get his wish, after a referendum in the state looked likely to keep segregation-era wording, requiring separate schools for "white and coloured children" in its constitution as well as references to the poll taxes once imposed to disenfranchise blacks.

A narrow margin of 1,850 votes out of 1.38 million, or 0.13%, in a referendum on November 2, meant the state was obliged to hold a recount, which took place yesterday. But with no accusations of electoral fraud or any other irregularities, nobody last night expected the result to change.

The ballot initiative sought to remove the most objectionable elements of the state's constitution which remain, even though they have been overridden by more recent civil rights legislation. They include passages such as:

"Separate schools shall be provided for white and coloured children, and no child of either race shall be permitted to attend a school of the other race."

And: "To avoid confusion and disorder and to promote effective and economical planning for education, the legislature may authorise the parents or guardians of minors, who desire that such minors shall attend schools provided for their own race ... "

Almost 50 years since Rosa Parks was ejected from a bus in the shadow of the governor's mansion because she would not move to the back, most people thought the amendment to remove the segregation clause would pass fairly easily.

"It was more ceremonial than legalistic," said Bryan Fair, a law professor at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. "The language in the constitution was already unconstitutional and this would have brought Alabama up to date. So it was surprising that something so clear and symbolic would be even close."

Even the Montgomery Advertiser, not given to radical outbursts, backed it. "Amendment 2 is a valuable cleansing of a grievous stain on the state's image," it argued in an editorial shortly before the vote. "It should be ratified."

But powerful groups and personalities on the right campaigned heavily against it, claiming that the amendment opened the door to lawyers to sue the state and raise taxes.

Read More
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1362581,00.html