Marina Jenkins, National Redistricting Foundation litigation director, stated that “maintaining status quo” is an overly generous strategy since it was established in 1890s to stop African Americans holding statewide office. The issue is state constitutional provisions that require candidates for statewide office win the majority of votes and most votes in the majority of the 122 House district. The election is thrown to Mississippi House to determine who the top vote-getter is. The Constitution was adopted in Narratives that clearly show the provision were created to stop black Mississippians from holding office. These provisions were included in other Jim Crow laws that were designed to keep black Mississippians out of the voting booth. Four black Mississippi residents are represented by four attorneys associated with the Mississippi Center for Justice and the National Redistricting Foundation. They want Jordan to declare those provisions unconstitutional. Even if that decision is not made, it would be a good idea to at least remove the requirement that a candidate have to win a majority in the House districts. If this provision is struck down, the election will be thrown in the House if the candidate fails to win a majority (50% plus one) of votes. Jordan seemed to be genuinely confused about how to rule after he heard almost three hours of oral arguments in the Southern District of Mississippi at the Cochran Courthouse, Jackson. Uzoma Nakwonta, representing four African Americans, said Jordan that he was reluctant to amend the Mississippi election law. He also stated that he would not allow the state to address the issue. The state wouldn’t have this opportunity at such a late date. Jones was told by Jordan that a 1960s Supreme Court decision that disqualified similar provisions in Georgia, where candidates had to win the highest number of votes per county, seemed to support the argument that the Mississippi provisions needed to be amended. Jordan said that he would rule prior to the Nov. 5, general election. However, he stated that he was still struggling with the fact there haven’t been any similar cases outside of the 1960s Georgia Georgia case. Jordan stated that a part of him believes no matter what I do, he would encourage the opposing side to appeal immediately to get more information on the issue. Jones informed the judge that he shouldn’t change state law by himself because “the stars might align” and the election will be thrown into the House. Jones explained to the judge that the provisions were only a factor in one election, 1999 when Ronnie Musgrove was elected the House’s top vote-getter for governor. In reality, the House voted for lieutenant governor in 1995 and 1991. In both cases, the losing candidate requested that House members vote for the candidates who received the most votes. This year, most people believe that the Democrats have elected an opponent for governor. It is Attorney General Jim Hood. According to those who wish to amend the law, statistical analysis by their researchers has shown that Hood would need to win approximately 55 percent of the vote in order to capture a majority. This is because the House districts are drawn to favor Republican candidates. His opponent, Republican Lieutenant Governor. Tate Reeves would need to win just 47 percent of the vote. Nkwonta stated that the finish line for the white-preferred candidates is much sooner than the one for the black-preferred candidates. “That is certainly an equal protection issue.” In Mississippi, the majority of white voters voted for the Republican candidate. Most black voters voted for the Democrat. It is likely that the litigation in federal courts regarding the issue will continue even if Jordan rules differently. Jones stated that the federal courts could continue to litigate the issue after the general election, regardless of what Jordan rules.