Huge Election Scandal Brewing in Mississippi - Page 4

danarhea · 09-19-08, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prrriiide

You should have kept reading. On p. 9 the ruling says:

MUST. Not should. Not ought to. Not pretty please with sugar on top. MUST. That is a directive.

Now, what you great legal minds are failing to do is look at the ramifications of a failure to comply with the law. Should the ballot be allowed to stand with the special election listed separately from the rest of the national election races, in direct contravention of plain-english statute, then the election could be declared null and void on those grounds.

The legal hair that was split by the MSSC was that the governor must uphold and adhere to the law, but by precedent and inclination they they cannot tell him how he must go about upholding and adhering to the law. So long as the statutes are followed, the governor is free to act as he wishes. However, the court did find that in placing the special election separate from the rest of the national elections that the governor was in violation of the law.

Looks like somebody gets it. You win a virtual cigar.

Objective Voice · 09-19-08, 12:32 PM

And the Impartial Clarification Award goes to...

... Prrriiide...

I understand where danarhea was coming from. In essence, the law was (...broken...violated... circumvented...pick one) and the govern wisely decided to comply.

Next topic, please.

RightinNYC · 09-19-08, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prrriiide

You should have kept reading. On p. 9 the ruling says:

MUST. Not should. Not ought to. Not pretty please with sugar on top. MUST. That is a directive.

I'm not saying that the outcome isn't the same. I was merely pointing out that dana's claim that this decision "upheld the decision of the lower court to force the Wicker-Musgrove race to the top of the ballot" wasn't exactly accurate. The decision upheld the interpretation of the law requiring it to be at the top, but it overturned the lower courts writ forcing the governor to actually do it. Further, the lower court's decision ordered the governor to organize the ballot in one particular way, while this decision merely says which class of races must be listed first, and leaves it up to the governor to determine how to list the races within that framework.

Quote:

Now, what you great legal minds are failing to do is look at the ramifications of a failure to comply with the law. Should the ballot be allowed to stand with the special election listed separately from the rest of the national election races, in direct contravention of plain-english statute, then the election could be declared null and void on those grounds.

Is there anything in the opinion that indicates that's the available remedy?

Quote:

The legal hair that was split by the MSSC was that the governor must uphold and adhere to the law, but by precedent and inclination they they cannot tell him how he must go about upholding and adhering to the law. So long as the statutes are followed, the governor is free to act as he wishes. However, the court did find that in placing the special election separate from the rest of the national elections that the governor was in violation of the law.

Completely true.

prrriiide · 09-19-08, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightinNYC

Is there anything in the opinion that indicates that's the available remedy?

You mean nullifying the election? It's not mentioned in the ruling, however, courts of appeal and constitutional law (which is what the MSSC is) are loathe to depart from precedent. And there are scores of examples of elections being vacated due to improprieties.