On Friday, a federal district court declined to grant a preliminary injunction blocking a provision of Missisippi's 1890 Jim Crow constitution that could prevent Democratic state Attorney General Jim Hood from becoming governor even if he wins more votes than Republican Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves on Tuesday. However, the judge hearing the case, Daniel Jordan, sent a strong signal that he would bar the law if it comes into play after the election.
The provision in question requires candidates for statewide office to win both a majority of the popular vote and a majority of state House districts; if no one does, the Republican-controlled House would pick the winner. Because Republicans aggressively gerrymandered those districts to disfavor Democrats, Hood has little chance of carrying a majority of House seats. That would allow the House to install Reeves as governor even if Hood wins the most votes.
Jordan explained that he would not enjoin the law in advance of Election Day because no one has yet been irreparably harmed by it. In addition, with the election just days away, he said there’s insufficient time for election officials to craft any sort of remedy on their own.
However, Jordan also concluded that the plaintiffs are "right" that requiring candidates to win a majority of state House districts violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of "one person, one vote." Therefore, if Hood wins a majority of the vote but fails to win enough House districts, there’s a good chance that Jordan would step in to prevent Mississippi’s constitutional provision from being enforced. It’s not clear what the court would do, though, if Hood wins a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote.