Lawyer

On this day in 1898

Louisiana Officially Disenfranchises Black Voters and Jurors

On May 12, 1898, the State of Louisiana adopted a new constitution with numerous restrictive provisions intended to exclude African American men from civic participation. At this time in the U.S., women of all races remained barred from voting, while Black men had recently gained the right to vote under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The new Louisiana Constitution, however, created a poll tax, literacy and property-ownership requirements, and a complex voter registration form all designed and enforced to disproportionately disenfranchise Black male voters.

The year 1865 included the Confederacy's defeat in the Civil War, widespread emancipation, and the abolition of slavery. All of these developments threatened to overturn Southern culture and social relations, which were based on white supremacy and racial hierarchy. After Reconstruction was forcibly dismantled in 1877 and white politicians and lawmakers regained control and power in the South, many efforts were made to restore that racial order through very strict laws that stripped Black people of many of their new civil rights—including the right to vote. In Louisiana, framers explicitly expressed their goal to “purify the electorate.”

When the restrictive voting provisions were first proposed for the 1898 Louisiana Constitution, some white officials expressed concern that the property and literacy requirements would also disenfranchise an estimated 25% of the white male population of voting age. In response, lawmakers drafted a “Grandfather Clause” which created an exception for those whose ancestors were registered to vote before 1867. This clause enabled many illiterate and poor white men to get around the literacy and property requirements. Black people remained blocked because Louisiana laws before 1867 disenfranchised nearly all Black men—especially those who were enslaved.

The 1898 Louisiana Constitution also eliminated the requirement of unanimous jury verdicts, allowing as much as a 9-3 split to still stand as a conviction. Because the U.S. Constitution now prevented states from wholly barring Black people from jury service, this provision was enacted to render small numbers of Black jurors inconsequential. Thomas Semmes, a former Confederate senator and head of the convention’s judiciary committee, praised the provision for success in its goal “to establish the supremacy of the white race in this State to the extent to which it could be legally and Constitutionally done.”

The 1898 Louisiana Constitution eliminated federally enforced voting rules that had enfranchised Black men in Louisiana during Reconstruction. As a result, in a state with 650,804 Black residents, the number of Black registered voters dropped from 130,000 before the new Constitution to just 5,000 by 1900. By 1904, the number dropped to just 1,000.

Throughout the Southern states, disenfranchisement laws targeted Black communities for generations. Louisiana’s 1898 Constitution was revised slightly in 1913, but most of its restrictive language remained until 1972. The non-unanimous jury rule remained in effect for more than a century, until Louisiana voters approved a constitutional amendment to abolish it in November 2018.

In United States v. James Comey - The Sea Shells Case

In late April 2026, the Department of Justice, led by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges of threatening the life of President Donald Trump. This case centers on a now-deleted social media post from May 2025 involving seashells.

The Core Allegation: "86 47"
The indictment stems from a photo Comey posted to Instagram showing seashells on a beach arranged to form the numbers "86 47."

The Interpretation:
The DOJ and President Trump contend that "86" is slang for "kill" or "assassinate," and "47" refers to Trump as the 47th U.S. President.

Trump’s Response: During a Fox News interview, Trump stated, "A child knows what that meant... that meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear."

The Charges: Comey faces a two-count indictment for "knowingly and willfully" making a threat to take the life of the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.

Comey’s Defense
Comey has vigorously denied any criminal intent, maintaining that the post was a observation of a political message he saw on a walk.

Intent:
Comey deleted the post the same day he shared it, stating, "I assumed they represented a political message... I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence."

First Amendment: His legal team, led by Patrick Fitzgerald, argues the charges are "frivolous" and an "affront to the First Amendment," asserting that political symbolism—however sharp—does not meet the legal threshold for a "true threat."

Legal and Political Context
This is the second attempt by the Trump administration to prosecute Comey.
Previous Case: In September 2025, Comey was charged with lying to Congress. That case was dismissed in late 2025 because the prosecutor was found to be unlawfully appointed.

Vindictive Prosecution: Critics and legal analysts have characterized the new seashell indictment as "vindictive prosecution" and a "naked use of federal authority" to target a political rival.

Department Turmoil: The push to indict Comey has reportedly led to significant internal friction at the DOJ, including the demotion or resignation of several career prosecutors who believed there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
As of May 2026, the case is pending in the Eastern District of North Carolina. Comey has stated he is "not afraid" and intends to fight the charges in court.

Follow for more legal news & information ⚖️

ELON MUSK v. OpenAI
The legal battle between Elon Musk and OpenAI (along with CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman) is a high-stakes conflict over the "soul" and mission of the company. As of May 2026, the case is currently in a landmark trial in a federal courthouse in Oakland, California.

Here is a summary of the key arguments and developments: The Core Allegations
Elon Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI who left the board in 2018, claims that the company has committed a"betrayal of its founding mission." His lawsuit centers on three main points:

Breach of Contract: Musk argues that OpenAI was established as a non-profit dedicated to developing Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) for the "benefit of humanity" and that all technology was meant to be open-source.

The Microsoft Pivot: He alleges that OpenAI has effectively become a "closed-source de facto subsidiary" of Microsoft, prioritizing corporate profits over AI safety.

Restructuring: Musk claims the move to a "capped-profit" (and eventually a more traditional for-profit) structure was a deceptive maneuver to "steal the charity" he helped build with nearly $44 million of his own money.

OpenAI’s Defense

Sam Altman and OpenAI’s legal team, led by veteran litigator William Savitt, reject these claims, arguing:
No Formal Agreement: They maintain there was never a signed "Founding Agreement" that mandated OpenAI remain a non-profit forever.

Musk's Real Motive: They argue the lawsuit is a case of "envy" or a tactical move to slow down a competitor. They highlight that Musk attempted to take majority control of OpenAI himself in 2018 and, after failing, launched his own AI company, xAI.

Survival: They contend that the massive computing power required for AGI made the original non-profit model unsustainable, necessitating the partnership with Microsoft.

Major Trial Developments (April–May 2026)
The trial has produced several explosive moments and revelations:
Musk’s Testimony: Musk took the stand in late April 2026, testifying that he felt "deceived" by Altman. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had once considered making OpenAI a for-profit himself, though he claimed he only wanted control to ensure safety.

The "$134 Billion" Claim: Musk is seeking roughly $134 billion in damages—a figure intended to represent the value of his early contributions and the "unjust enrichment" of the defendants. He has stated he wants any awarded money to go to OpenAI’s charitable arm, not his own pocket.

"Shakespearean" Internal Docs: Filings have revealed private emails and diary entries from Greg Brockman, where he expressed concerns in 2017 that turning for-profit would be "morally bankrupt" and a "nasty fight."

Shivon Zilis’s Testimony: Zilis (a former OpenAI board member and mother to several of Musk's children) testified about her role as a "facilitator" between Musk and Altman, revealing that she was occasionally used as an "informant" for Musk after his departure.

What’s at Stake?
If Musk wins, the court could potentially:
1. Remove Sam Altman and Greg Brockman from their leadership positions.
2. Force a restructure of OpenAI, potentially unwinding the for-profit entity.
3. Hinder OpenAI's planned public offering, which is expected to be one of the largest in tech history.
Elon Musk's $134 Billion Lawsuit Breakdown
This video provides a detailed breakdown of the legal arguments and the potential financial ramifications of the $134 billion lawsuit.