Politicians
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 Isiah Fredericks said that he did not hold any objection to the ban being repealed, but wanted to be assured that it was not part of a campaign seeking to stop the momentum of the movement for a new state constitution.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]
Editorials
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 [10] In a separate paper, they wrote that the interracial marriage ban was outdated, unenforceable, and that the presence of the language in the constitution was insulting to most Mississippians and was "an embarrassment to them that they must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]
