How different would the South have voted without Jim Crow?

[Vice President Christian Man]

How different would the South had voted if it wasn't for poll taxes and disenfranchment. Here's some changes I think would've occurred:

Tennessee looks more similar to West Virginia in terms of its voting patterns, flipping a few decades earlier and becoming a reliable-R state for a few elections prior to the Great Depression, before flipping back to OTL and following the same voting pattern.

Virginia: Votes Rep in 1920 but stays relatively similar.

North Carolina: Votes Rep in 1904, 1920 and possibly 1908. I doubt the populist coalition which heavily voted for Weaver would reject Roosevelt. It would vote for Eisenhower both times as well, seeing how close Eisenhower was with the white electorate.

Georgia+Alabama: Votes Rep in 1928, although there are enough populist voters in both states that it could go to Roosevelt in 1904. Similar to North Carolina, La Follette would probably be stronger than IOTL but it wouldn't be enough for a win.

South Carolina: With its majority-black electorate, I think it would've been a strong Rep-state through at least 1928 and possibly 1932. Then it would switch Dem, vote for Thurmond assuming he still wins with conservative support, and then votes for Eisenhower before resuming OTL.

Mississippi: Probably still a strong-Dem state besides the majority-Black areas along the Mississippi River. I think it would look similar to OTL other than Kennedy winning instead of unpledged electors and Johnson doing a lot better, probably cracking 40% against Goldwater, assuming he's hated by the Deep South for a different reason (maybe there's a Deep South backlash to The Great Society instead).

Louisiana: There could be a stronger split between Thurmond + Truman voters allowing Dewey to win a plurality. Other than that I think it stays similar other than Eisenhower winning in '52 and Johnson winning in '64.

Arkansas: There's probably enough black turnout that Nixon or even Humphrey wins instead of Wallace, but other than that I think it remained a Dem-stronghold prior.

[Agonized-Statism]

There would have to be a level of commitment to Reconstruction that couldn't realistically be there to begin with. Even the most radical Republican politicians were still liberal and wouldn't agree to a far-reaching campaign against the cultural foundations that allowed Southern segregation and racial violence to persist for over a century. The premature end of Reconstruction was inevitable IMO. Anyway, not to be that guy, but an alternate history where that does happen would seriously change the approach and coalitions of the parties going forward. Elections without Jim Crow wouldn't be recognizable.

[Skill and Chance]

It is likely that there would be no Great Migration in this scenario.  That means MS, LA, and SC would stay majority-black into the long run.  Mississippi, in particular, was nearly 60% black prior to WWI.  AL and GA would stay >40% black into the long run.  FL starts off at over 40% black as the Civil War ends.  That wouldn't hold after the 1920's and post-WWII construction booms, but it would still have a substantially larger black population in the long run.  VA similarly starts off >40% black, and that probably holds until after WWII. 

This has huge implications for the electoral college and the senate. There would effectively be VRA states.  An overwhelming majority of the statewide officials from MS/LA/SC would be black from Reconstruction to the present day.  In AL and GA in that era, it's unclear if a black candidate would be able to win support from any white voters at all, but in FL and VA, it would be possible for a coalition of black voters and non-Southern white voters to elect their preferred candidates pretty regularly.  These candidates are almost surely Republicans until at least the Great Depression, and there is almost surely a stronger progressive/interventionist Republican wing in the long run because of this.