1987 Mississippi Amendment 3

1987 Mississippi Amendment 3 was a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Mississippi to repeal the state's defunct ban on interracial marriage. The amendment was symbolic, as the Supreme Court had ruled interracial marriage bans unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia 20 years prior, which rendered the provision defunct and unenforceable. The ballot measure was approved in a 51.76% to 48.24% vote, though 44 of Mississippi's 82 counties voted against.

In 1967, as a result of the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Loving v. Virginia, Mississippi's interracial marriage ban was struck down.^[1] However, the ban remained in Mississippi's constitution as a defunct provision.^[2]

On August 2, 1970, what is believed to be the first legally performed interracial marriage in Mississippi took place between Roger and Berta Mills. On July 21, 1970, the couple applied for a marriage license, but were denied one after the Hinds County Circuit Clerk was ordered by a judge not to do so, with the judge citing the state's 19th-century-ban. The denial came at the request of the Southern National Party, a white segregationist group that had asked Circuit Judge Marshall Perry of Grenada County to deny the marriage license, as well as one to another interracial couple in Hinds County that was seeking one. However, on July 31, following a "tense and highly publicized battle," U.S. District Judge Harold Cox ordered the circuit clerk to issue both licenses. The couple married two days later.^[1]

Before the election was held, no public debate was sparked,^[2] and there was no organized opposition to any of the 10 amendments on the ballot that year.^[3]

House Concurrent Resolution No. 13 placed the amendment on the ballot.^[4] On January 21, 1987, the House Constitution Committee voted to approve the resolution.^[5] On January 22, the Mississippi House voted in favor, in a 110 to 2 vote.^[6] During the week of January 30, the Mississippi House voted again, this time in a 70 to 40 vote.^[4] On March 11, the Mississippi State Senate voted to approve the amendment, while also adopting minor amendments.^[7]

State Attorney General Ed Pittman, discussing both the interracial marriage amendment and a 1987 ballot measure that amended Mississippi's constitution to require the state to provide free public schools, said, "These will have image benefits. They don't comport with federal constitution [sic] or what we are presently doing. They bring the state constitution into line with what actually is being done. And these kinds of things are sometimes thrown up at us in court, because they are still in the constitution.^[8]

State Rep. John Reeves, an advocate for constitutional reform, said, "I really felt that everybody knew that provision had already been declared violative of the U.S. Constitution, and that it wouldn't be a real big issue, just a matter of form. But I think what this points up is the fact that many people in the state for personal reasons simply do not approve, and so they voted not to take it out of the constitution."^[9]

State Rep. Isiah Fredericks said that he did not hold any objection to the ban being repealed, but wanted to be assured that it was not part of a campaign seeking to stop the momentum of the movement for a new state constitution.^[6]

State Rep. Walter Phillips, who pushed for the amendment, said, "A lot of people in the state felt strongly about it (interracial marriage) although it didn't matter." Phillips said that the opposition didn't matter because the ban had been defunct and unenforceable for years prior.^[2]

The Sun Herald believed that voters should pass all 10 amendments on the ballot in 1987, but preferred a new constitution. The newspaper rationed that the amendments were needed, and that if the amendments were rejected, it would give those in opposition to the adoption of a new constitution "added ammunition," because they could point out that voters rejected change.^[10] In a separate paper, they wrote that the interracial marriage ban was outdated, unenforceable, and that the presence of the language in the constitution was insulting to most Mississippians and was "an embarrassment to them that they must go through the formality of an election to remove the offensive section."^[11] In another paper, the Sun Herald described the ban as a "vestige of the past" and that clerks who issued marriage licenses no longer enforced it; if they did, the newspaper said, they "would lose on federal constitutional grounds."^[12]

The Hattiesburg American, like the Sun Herald, backed all 10 amendments, though preferred for a constitutional convention to take place so a new constitution could be adopted.^[13]

The Enterprise-Journal endorsed all ten amendments that were on the ballot, and, when talking about the interracial marriage and free public schools amendments, said, "[a]pproval of these two amendments simply brings the constitution in line with present practice."^[14]

The Clarion Ledger also supported approving the amendments in order to "make some progress in changing the archaic document," but said that the number of amendments proposed was "another argument for the need of wholesale constitutional reform."^[15]

The Magee Courier did not explicitly endorse the amendment, though it described the interracial marriage provision as being "part of the constitution's racist language from nearly a century ago."^[16]

The following information was shown to voters for Amendment 3:^[17]

Amendment No. 3

House Concurrent Resolution

No. 13

This proposal repeals Section 263, which makes illegal the marriage of a white person to a person having one-eighth or more Negro blood.

For......................................( )

Against................................( )

In 2011, a poll conducted on Mississippi Republicans by Public Policy Polling asking if interracial marriage should be legal or illegal found that 40% believed it should be legal, 46% believed that it should not be, and 14% were unsure.^[19]

By age group, those aged 18 to 29 were opposed 31–54–15 (31% in favor, 54% opposed, 15% not sure), those aged 30 to 45 were in support 48–38–15, those aged 46 to 65 were in support 49–39–12, and those older than 65 were opposed 30–56–14.^[19]

• 1998 South Carolina Amendment 4
• 2000 Alabama Amendment 2