If a headline summed up the unrelenting narrative leading up to the Georgia midterm election, it was delivered by the New Republic: “Georgia Senate contest is all about race, actually.” President Joe Biden earlier reinforced this view by saying falsely and repeatedly claimed that Georgia’s electoral laws are “Jim Crow on steroids”. Even as a record number of minority voters cast their ballots, the narrative continued in the race between US Senator Raphael Warnock (D) and his challenger Herschel Walker (R).
Within 24 hours of Georgia’s election officially heading for a December runoff, media outlets from National Public Radio to Time Magazine ran stories suggesting the runoff itself was a racist fabrication. After all, Warnock did not get the majority of votes, but at least 1 percent more than Walker.
On NPR, host Leila Fadel sounded genuinely shocked when Georgia PBS reporter Stephen Fowler explained that runoff elections were engineered by white supremacists to antagonize black voters. Fadel replied, “Wow. A law originally intended to disenfranchise black voters is why this runoff exists in the first place.” Fowler also noted that Walker is “a weaker candidate … haunted by controversy,” while Warnock is a “well-known figure,” trying to be “a problem solver who works non-partisan”.
The obvious bias aside, the NPR segment reflects an ongoing effort to portray the race as something about, well, race. Claims of voter suppression are difficult to sustain after a record vote. Now the runoff is the embodiment of racism.
One wonders if these journalists would have been just as offended at the thought of a runoff if Walker had had a 1 percent lead. What is clear is that the fact that both candidates are black does not seem to change the relevance of this topic of conversation.
Indeed, direct racist attacks against Walker have received comparatively little media attention, and commentators have used racist terms against Walker — when he was subjected to a hate speech on MSNBC by regular Elie Mystal — with little to no media outcry or network apology .
The story behind the runoff shows racial motives in states like Georgia. In the 1960s, Georgia State Assemblyman Denmark Groover (D) introduced runoff election laws “to circumvent so-called Negro-Bloc voting.” However, this is not the sole motivation for runoff laws, and it is not the value of their continued use.
In Arkansas, the majority rule for primary elections has been challenged on the same grounds that it is racially motivated and upheld by the state. A federal court found that the law has a non-racist purpose to require majority-supported elections as a “fundamental part of Democratic political philosophy.” That part of the opinion was upheld by the Court of Appeal, although the Court was overturned on other grounds.
Ten states apply this rule to area codes: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Vermont. In my view, the value of requiring majority support in a primary in the general election is only amplified and should be required in all states.
In reality, runoffs can empower minority voters by forcing candidates to turn to every major voting bloc. About a third of Georgia’s registered voters are black. In 2021, even critics of the runoff conceded that minority voters won. Indeed, now-Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) was in the same position as Walker this time; He received fewer votes than incumbent Republican David Perdue (who won 0.3 percent of the general election in the first ballot), but Ossoff eventually prevailed in the runoff.
The political motivation for demanding runoff elections decades ago does not mean that it remains a racist practice today or has a racially discriminatory purpose. On the contrary, some of us have advocated the expanded use of runoff rules as an enhancement to our democratic process.
Many countries require their leaders to secure a majority of the votes in either general or run-off elections. However, the United States allows the selection of a leader with less than half the nation’s support, including leaders who actually receive fewer votes than their opponents – a reality both parties have criticized after various elections in the past, depending on which one side won.
Of course, the presidential election system is enshrined in the constitution and would require a constitutional amendment to change it. However, races in Congress are governed by state laws like those in Georgia. By demanding a runoff, candidates are being forced to appeal to a broader constituency, beyond the mere constituency of their core party.
It is an important element of any democratic system that elected leaders speak with the authority and legitimacy that comes from being elected by a majority of their constituents. It is particularly important in the Senate, which was designed to dampen and dampen House impulses. Senators were given longer terms and larger constituencies than members of the House of Representatives, in part to create competing interests, even in states controlled by one party.
It can also favor fast-disappearing moderates. Because of our deep political divisions and the operation of our primary systems, moderates are as rare as agnostics in the College of Cardinals today. Incumbents are typically favored in primary elections, and congressional districts are now heavily rigged by both parties to ensure reliable results. Some states have taken to breaking the hold of incumbents by wisely requiring the top two winners in a primary to run against each other, even if they belong to the same party.
Crowds, Power and January 6th Beware the Earned Income Tax Credit Extension
But demanding majority support for Congress is another way to center candidates in deeply divided districts.
After December 6, the Georgians will have a senator for the next six years, whom a majority actually wants. Therefore, the runoff election in Georgia should be an example of why such majority requirements are crucial for the further development of democracy. If you’re really worried about when “democracy dies” it’s when the views of the majority ultimately don’t matter. In Georgia, democracy isn’t just “on the ballot”—it’s the ballot.
Jonathan Turley is Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
