Shall Section 33, Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended by deleting the following sentence from the Constitution: 'The marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood, shall be unlawful and void'.
The interracial marriage ban clause in South Carolina's constitution dated back to 1895, when the document was rewritten "as part of a sometimes violent backlash against Reconstruction." The ban included only white and black people, mentioning no other races.[2] The 1895 constitution was written under Gov. Ben Tillman, whose administration was run on the idea that control of the state government should be held by white people.[3]
After the ruling, South Carolina's Attorney General urged for license bureaus to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples.[7]
In 1970 and 1972, following an opinion issued by the then South Carolina Attorney General Daniel McLeod in 1969 that the ban was unconstitutional, South Carolina repealed its statutory anti-miscegenation provisions. However, section 33 of article 3, the interracial marriage ban clause of South Carolina's constitution, still remained in place.[6][5][8]
In 1998, at the time of repeal of the constitutional ban, South Carolina was the second-to-last state to have a defunct ban on interracial marriage; the final state to repeal its ban was Alabama in 2000.[9]
Bill 4303 from the 112th Session, 1997-1998 of the South Carolina General Assembly placed the question on the ballot. The bill was authored by State Rep. Brad Jordan; however, Jordan allowed for State Rep. Curtis Inabinett to be the bill's introducer and chief sponsor.[10][11][12] In the State House, the bill received 99 votes in favor, 4 votes against, and had 20 representatives not vote. The 4 opposition votes came from State Rep. John Graham Altman, State Rep. Dan Cooper, State Rep. Larry Koon, and State Rep. Margaret Gamble.[13][11] In the State Senate, 45 votes were in favor, and none were in opposition.[14]
Support and opposition
Support
Legislators
Governor David Beasley applauded the State House's passage of the bill, according to spokesman Gary Karr.[5]
State House Majority Leader Bobby Harrell supported repeal of the ban, simply saying, "It's the right thing to do."[5]
House Speaker Pro-Tempore Terry Haskins attempted to repeal the provision a few years prior to the successful bill; however, legislative bill-writers deterred him. Haskins said, "Their reaction was, 'Everyone knows that's not enforceable, and it's too much trouble to bother making everybody go through the vote on it.'"[15]State Democratic Party Chairman Richard Harpootlian, a supporter of repealing the ban.
State Democratic Party Chairman Richard Harpootlian, in criticizing those who opposed the amendment, said, "I think they are stupid. When Republicans are all over African-American polling places with signs and video cameras and when you use race as a wedge issue, it trickles on down."[16]
State Rep. Jerry Govan, in response to suggestions that lawmakers in support of the measure had caved in to political correctness, said, "I think it is a slap in the face to all members of the General Assembly to imply that when people sign onto bills that they were sucked in." In response, State Rep. John Graham Altman, a representative who opposed the amendment, said, "Some legislators make it part of their strategy to be offended. Most black people don't care about this sort of thing."[10]
State Rep. Jeff Young, who led the subcommittee that studied the bill, said the subcommittee found that the ban should be removed and was "offensive to the people of South Carolina." Young also said, "It's an antiquated law. We ought to always strive to make our constitution a living document that accurately reflects society today, not society as it was 50 or 100 years ago. Things are outdated in there and I have no objection to someone having a study committee going through and updating all parts that are totally antiquated and determined to be illegal by the U.S. Constitution. Then we'll have a document that is current."[10][17]
State Rep. Curtis Inabinett, the bill's introducer and chief sponsor, said, "We should be beyond this. In years to come, we should at least let history reflect that we did something about it."[18] Inabinett also said that he believed the language was offensive to people of all races. "I think it's a substantive matter." Inabinett then said that his intent was not on cleaning out of all of the outdated provisions in the constitution, just the most egregious parts. He denied that his goal was to stir up racial divisiveness. "I wasn't thinking of the flag when I introduced it. I'm glad he's alluding to the fact that it needs to be cleaned up." Inabinett's reference was to State Rep. John Graham Altman, who opposed the amendment.[10] Inabinett also said, "There is a lot of terrible evil in this country with reference to race. Somebody had intentions years ago for enacting this legislation." He grew up in Colleton County and attended segregated schools. "I've been called all kinds of names from time to time." He also felt that the interracial marriage ban was hypocritical because many Southern white men had children with black women. "Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I've always felt the first deadbeat dads weren't black folks."[11] Inabinett questioned how the ban was enforced, saying, "How can you look at a person and tell that they are one-eighth Negro or not? What kind of test did our legislators use? How would you know?"[15]
State Rep. Olin Phillips voted in favor of the amendment; however, he personally opposed interracial marriage, saying, "It's just my Christian belief that a good Southern Baptist ought not to do that. I'm a Baptist, and this is a really strong, hard-shell religious belief." Phillips felt that repealing the ban meant condoning interracial marriage and turning away from God's word. However, he did not know which passage in the Bible said that black people and white people should not marry. He wondered why people of different races would want to marry, and he especially wondered about the attraction of white women to black men, saying, "I don't know what prompts it. Is it the athletics in the blacks? Or is it just curiosity?" He also believed that interracial marriage invited trouble for both parents and children. "It's a social stigma that follows all the families. When it does happen, you hear about it quick. Word gets around." Though, Phillips said that he did not believe in white supremacy. But, he said, "I just believe in the sanctity of the white race. I just can't condone interracial marriage." Phillips also thought that black people who had pure African lineage would have the same feelings on interracial marriage. "I don't believe the real African-Americans, the real black people, want that." Nevertheless, despite personal opposition, Phillips voted in favor "to let the people decide."[19][11]
State Rep. Fletcher Smith: "If you can say people can't marry in a constitutional structure, it is a race issue. It can't be anything other than a race issue." Smith also said that if a racial belief is cloaked in religion, "that means that the religious belief is a racist religious belief." He questioned the logic of those who opposed interracial marriage, saying, "If they had thought it through, they would see that the idea would be a white-supremacy idea right out of the pages of the Klu Klux Klan and the White Citizen's Council, because they had a religious belief for what they were doing, as well. I think most of the folks are probably reasonable on other issues. But when you get to primary social relationships such as marriage, they get to be unreasonable."[11]
State Rep. John Scott, in response to State Rep. Olin Phillips' claim about African-Americans, said, "I can't find those people. I don't know of any Americans, if they are Americans, that are what he would describe as being African. If he says 'real black people,' we are all 'real black people.' It is impossible to separate the bloodlines of 200 years of slavery. People need to face up to what we are in America, that most of what we see in America is a product of interracial mingling." Scott said that he called Phillips his friend. "Some of what people believe is so indoctrinated in them as young people and has been passed from generation to generation, when you cross-examine the information that is given, then the Bible becomes a scapegoat....People don't marry because of their color. They marry people because of how they feel about them."[11]
State Senator Darell Jackson, who, at the time of being asked his views on interracial marriage had recently married an interracial couple, said, "Race was not the issue. Their love and caring for each other was the issue." Jackson said if he were debating the issue on the floor of the Senate, he "would tell them to look at no other than the face of Jesus Christ. I would say, 'If Jesus was sitting where you are in the General Assembly and he had to vote on this issue, how would he vote, based on the gospel?' Maybe their own personal visions have become paramount to their religious convictions. To do that under the umbrella of religion is an insult to Christianity and to all religions."[11]
State Rep. Chip Campsen: "I just don't think that it's appropriate for the state to prohibit that. I think people may have objections to that personally, and if they do, they do not need to interracially marry. It's another thing for a state to say it is inappropriate."[15]
State Rep. Joe Neal, when speaking of the proposal, said, "It's a beginning." He brought up how he feels that racial healing would not come to South Carolina until the state's laws also reflected that priority. Neal, a pastor, officiated about a half-dozen marriages with interracial couples at the time of being questioned in 1997. He believed that marriage was not an issue of race, but instead of how well-prepared for racial divisiveness in the world the couple is. "Marriage is between two people. Race doesn't play a part in that, and it's not appropriate for it to."[15]
State Rep. Brad Jordan, after learning about the provision still being a part of the constitution, said, "I was dumbfounded. I said we need to do something about that." Jordan, who was an active member of the Evangelical Christian men's organization Promise Keepers, immediately thought of an interracial couple that he knew in his church after learning of the defunct clause. The female in the marriage was dying of cancer. "I realized this young lady would actually probably pass away in a state where her marriage is constitutionally illegal." Although Jordan was unable to repeal the law before the woman passed away, he did set the wheels into motion.[15] Jordan also said, "It symbolizes an inequality that I think we need to end, and it needs to end now."[20] He described the ban as "a sad commentary that has remained."[12] He later further affirmed his backing of the repeal, describing the language as "cruel and hateful" and that he felt "a very strong call for racial healing in our state."[21] Jordan authored the repeal bill, though allowed State Rep. Curtis Inabinett to introduce the legislation and be its chief sponsor.[12]
State Rep. Tom Keegan supported the repeal, saying, "There's enough racial division in the country as it is, and to have that kind of language in the 20th century only serves to foster racial division. We don't need it."[22]
State Rep. Robert Ford, after bringing up that there were 12,000 interracial couples in South Carolina, said, "Unless we're going to put all these folks in jail," the law should be amended. Ford, a black politician, also joked about the archaic language of the clause, saying, "What's a negro?"[22]
State Rep. Mike Baxley, after a debate occurred in the State House with State Rep. John Graham Altman opposing the repeal, said, in a written statement, "With all due respect to Mr. Altman, it's our duty as a legislature to remove socially repugnant and antiquated laws from our founding document so that all citizens can be proud of our state constitution."[23]
Editorials
The Herald released an editorial in favor of the measure, describing the ban as "an unsavory relic of the past" and "a stain on the constitution."[24] The newspaper, days after the election had taken place, released an opinion section affirming support for the measure, and described the fact that more than one-third of the state opposed the measure as "a black eye for the state."[25]
The Sun News also released an editorial after the amendment vote had occurred, saying that their concern lied with the fact that six counties had voted against the measure. The newspaper went on to say, "The times, they are a'changing, but not fast enough."[26]
The State released an opinion paper expressing support for the repeal, describing the provision as "offensive and hateful" and "a surviving relic of brutally enforced laws — now void — that once banished blacks to the back of the bus, to separate and inferior schools, to separate accommodations and even separate drinking fountains." The newspaper went on to say, "It reminds one of Adolf Hitler's rules for racial purity" and that "we should take this wording out of our constitution for the same reason we would pick up trash in our front yard: it doesn't look good, and it says something about us if we leave it lying around."[27]
The Beaufort Gazette supported all amendments on the ballot in 1998, including the interracial marriage amendment, saying that the state's constitution "should be a sacred document that reflects the ideals of a state" and that the amendment "would purge a race-purity test from the Constitution."[28]
The Greenville News backed deletion of the ban, saying that it "serves only as a painful reminder of an earlier time."[29]
Opposition
State Rep. Dan Cooper voted against the bill and said he feared the ballot measure's wording would confuse voters and "by choice or by accident might vote to leave it there. And if it stays, let's face it, the state will look bad nationally." He personally felt that "people have the right to do what they want to" when stating his feelings on the topic.[18]
State Rep. John Graham Altman: "I think it's silly and a waste of time. It's just another example of political correctness run amok. That language in the constitution is meaningless." Altman brought up how there were other outdated areas of the constitution that had been struck down, such as black people being counted as six-tenths of a human being; Indians who weren't taxed not being counted; women being denied voting rights and the ability to serve on juries; and the requirement that a person be religious to be sworn into public office. "They just go after those that are high profile, politically correct, and I think all that silliness needs to be stopped." Altman also favored leaving the Confederate flag on the top of the State Capitol "because it's already there. We got more important things on our plate. It does no one any harm to leave history unsanitized."[30][17] Altman, who was the only member of the House Judiciary Committee, a committee containing 25 people, to speak out and vote against the legislation, also said, "This is 1998's Confederate battle-flag issue....It is the PC (political correctness) issue for this year." Though, Altman stated that the interracial marriage ban clause was, "evil — not just wrong, but evil." However, he still felt unsure of the sponsors' motives. "Why don't we clean out that part where it says you've got to be literate to vote? There are a multitude of things in there (the constitution) that no longer have any meaning. Why didn't the makers of this bill go after that? I come to this issue as I come to all politically correct issues, and say, 'No, I will not do it.' Why not let (the language) remain there as a lesson for us never to do it again?" In response, State Rep. Jeff Young replied, "I think you've found the evil intent where none exists. You may be correct. There are a number of areas in our constitution that need to be cleaned up. You'd like to catch all the fish in the lake, but you can't. If there are other areas that are offensive in 1998, let's move on those, too."[10]State Rep. John Scott, a supporter of the repeal, moved for quick closure, saying, "In the name of peace, I move adoption of the bill."[23] After the meeting ended, State Rep. Jerry Govan, another supporter of the bill, said, "I'm not even going to dignify Mr. Altman's comments with a reply."[23] Later, before the vote took place in the House, Altman said that at least 15 to 20 members of the House opposed the bill, but may bow under pressure to vote in favor.[11]
State Rep. Larry Koon voted against and opposed the bill on religious grounds. He pointed out that animals do not breed with different species of animals. "You have not seen a change in the animals, the mammals and reptiles. They have the same animals that they had when I was a little kid, and that was 54 years ago." However, Koon said that he did not equate human races to animal species. But, he still saw the separation of animals as a sign that interracial marriage was not God's way. He also said that because nations and races appear in the Bible, it is a hint that God wants distinct races. "If you go back and read throughout the Bible, there are all different nationalities of people. I do also think that if God had ever intended that we just have one race, I think we would have one race." Koon denied thinking that any race was better than another. "This is not a racist issue with me. I've got black friends here in the Legislature, and I hunt with people who are black."[11]
State Rep. Liston Barfield did not vote, as he felt that not voting was the same as a "no" vote. When asked why he decided not to vote "no" if that's what he wanted, Barfield said, "I decided I just didn't want to get in the middle of it."[22]
Other/unclear viewpoints
State House Minority Leader Gilda Cobb-Hunter, who did not cast a vote on the measure.
State House Minority Leader Gilda Cobb-Hunter refused to cast a vote on the bill because of a separate piece of legislation being debated at the time attempting to eliminate affirmative action programs. "This is a clear example of the hypocrisy in this body. There's more danger in that affirmative action bill than there is in that unconstitutional marriage ban."[5] Though, Cobb-Hunter could not see how opponents of the bill could say they were in support of individual freedom while also supporting language that limits, even if only in a symbolic way, someone's right to marry freely. "How can you serve a God who you say created us all and is a loving, caring God, but believe that if those of us who are different colors somehow find each other and fall in love and marry, that there is something wrong with that? Where is the Christianity in that?"[11]
State Senator Yancey McGill: "As an elected official, we have to take a stand for the future. I just don't think, biblically, that's part of God's plan." However, McGill also said, "The law probably should not be there." At one point, he said he would vote against the bill, but later said that he was not sure, then later said he would vote in favor.[11]
State Rep. Lanny Littlejohn, based on a report from February 1998, saw no reason in removing the ban from the constitution. "We already have the intermarriage, and nobody's prosecuting. But to come out and pass a bill (removing the ban) is taking it one step too far." Littlejohn did not vote on the bill. "It was going to pass anyway." Because the issue was going to voters that fall, "I just left it alone." He also said, "We live in the Bible Belt. If we keep on bending on things like this, we will be totally immersed in people doing what they want to do. We need some basic laws. That's not the way God meant it. He does create races of people, and He did that for a reason. From the beginning, He set the races apart." Though, Littlejohn could not find a prohibition in the Bible. "I think a lot of blacks and other races feel the same way about intermarriage. I think we'd all be better off with a better definition of who we are."[11] In a later report from September 1998, however, Littlejohn thought the amendment should be deleted, though maintained his personal opposition. "I think God has a perfect plan and man has screwed it up time and again, and this is just another example. But it can't stay in the constitution now because society has said we can't have it."[31]
State Rep. Billy Witherspoon clicked his "no" vote button twice before turning it off and keeping his vote blank.[22]
State Rep. James "Bubba" Cromer primarily viewed the measure as an effort "to revamp antiquated provisions."[18]
Contents
The following question and explanation was shown to voters for Amendment 4:
"Shall Section 33, Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended by deleting the following sentence from the Constitution: 'The marriage of a white person with a Negro or mulatto, or person who shall have one-eighth or more of Negro blood, shall be unlawful and void'.
Yes []
No []
Those voting in favor of the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'Yes', and those voting against the question shall deposit a ballot with a check or cross mark in the square after the word 'No'."
Explanation of above: This amendment, if approved, will remove the part of the Constitution that makes marriage between whites and blacks illegal.[32][a]
Pre-decision polling
Before the election in which the amendment was voted on took place, a poll conducted by Mason-Dixon was released; the poll found that 48 percent of South Carolina registered voters favored a repeal of the state's constitutional ban, while 29 percent opposed it. The poll surveyed 820 registered voters between December 9 and December 11, 1997, based on statewide telephone interviews, and had a 3.5 percent margin of error.[34]
In an August 1998 poll by Mason-Dixon, conducted with 806 registered voters over telephone, two-thirds favored deletion of the ban, 22 percent opposed it, and around 11 percent were undecided. The poll had a 4 percent margin of error.[35]
Results
40 counties voted in favor of the measure, and 6 voted against. No county had more than 75.3% vote in favor (Beaufort County), and none had less than 44.7% (Cherokee County).
The amendment required a subsequent vote by the legislature in order to be ratified; the ratification, following approval by both the state House and Senate, took effect during the week of February 14, 1999, officially removing the state's marriage ban, which had been unenforceable for over 31 years.[36]
Based on the percentage of participants by race in the 1998 general election, all six counties that opposed the amendment had a majority-white percentage of people who voted.[37] Data gathered in the 2000 census shows that all six counties that opposed the amendment had a majority-white population in total.[38] An estimated 40% of white voters opposed the ballot measure.[39]
A map depicting Cherokee County, South Carolina, which voted against both gay and interracial marriage by the highest margins of any county in the state.
The six counties in opposition later voted in favor of the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage referendum, with Cherokee County, one of the six, being the only county to have more than 90% of its vote be in favor of the ban.[40] The amendment was also later compared to the gay marriage referendum, with The Times and Democrat saying that targeting same-sex couples was "no less vicious than targeting interracial couples was in another era."[41]
123Pressley, Sue Anne (November 3, 1998). "SOUTH CAROLINA'S RACIAL RELIC". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 26, 2024. Retrieved August 31, 2025.
↑"Ban is embarrassment". Newspapers. The Herald. February 12, 1998. Retrieved November 25, 2025.
↑Speizer, Jayne; Sovde, Roger; Plumb, Terry C.; Rassmann, Richard R.; Werrell Jr., James (November 5, 1998). "Controversial amendments". Newspapers. The Herald. Retrieved November 23, 2025.
↑Ellis, Paula; Deans, Sue; Ausband, Jerry; Willis, Bill (November 11, 1998). "Catching up?". Newspapers. The Sun News. Retrieved November 23, 2025.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
