Jackson Jambalaya

Um, I thought the statute said there was no appeal?

"The court may hear arguments, and, within ten (10) days, shall render its decision and file with the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ballot title or summary as it determines will meet the requirements of Section 23-17-9. The decision of the court shall be final."

Are you making a book on this one Andy?

Kidd can't handle one courtroom but wants to handle state education. Good grief that is obsurd. Just think, a democrat with billions at his disposal. Looks like D. C. all over.

Don't think "final" means "not appealable." Most judgments that are appealed are final judgments. In fact, isn't being "final" a prerequisite to appeal?

Anderson, surely the legislature didn't intend to use ordinary English words in their ordinary sense. Take your statutory interpretation of the plain meaning of this statute elsewhere!

8:10, that has to be the argument, but then the language becomes surplusage ... why even say that, if it's just "final" like any judgment is "final"? And it's a rule that one tries not to write off a statutory phrase as surplusage.

I would be interested what other statutes refer to "final" decisions like that.

Well...initiative 42 wouldn't be necessary if our legislature didn't want to gut public education in general, take over complete control of education and be able divert or eliminate education funding.

They certainly do not like checks and balances on their power.

And, they wouldn't want to be forced to spend any portion of a surplus on education when it could be better spent on a " venture capital" or " meat packing" project!

We certainly don't want courts to protect us from corrupt government.

We all know that government rather than professional educators are better at educating our children, that's why our educational system has improved so much since every citizen and elected official thinks they are experts now.

The days when parents told kids to respect their teachers , behave in class and listen and learn are over.

We don't want our children to be smarter than we are or learn things we don't want them to know or think for themselves when we could control their thoughts! To hell with independence or freedom of thought and certainly knowledge is dangerous!

Bottom Line:

Republican leadership in the Legislature will spend $400 million more on public education in Mississippi this year than the Democrat leadership spent 4 years ago. Of that money, Republican leadership in the Legislature will spend $275 million more on K-12 public education than the Democrat leadership spent 4 years ago.

That is a FACT.

Seek out a mental health professional as soon as you can 7:15 AM. Your comment is delusional.

"We all know that government rather than professional educators are better at educating our children, that's why our educational system has improved "

Um, reminder here - if this "government takeover" is so recent, how do you explain the "worst in the entire country" rating the state's educational system enjoyed for about a century before that, when Democrats and "professional educators" controlled everything.

If we had gone from "first to worst" in the last 10 years or so you might have a valid point. But we didn't, so you don't, so move along.

Anderson - looks to me like the language you refer to speaks to the "initiative" itself, not the alternative of the legislature. Guess this is what lets lawyers make a living, applying different interpretations of statutes. For my money, I'm betting on this actually being appealable and that this language only applies to the ballot language for the initial I&R petition.

Another interesting aspect - the re was a suit filed against the initial language and it was thrown out of (Hinds County) court last year on a technicality. As is the norm, it obviously depends on what Judge you draw in our capital county.

Damn. Guess this makes me question what I read in the CL and hear on their opposite, the JT show. They have been telling me that this is final and can't be appealed.

Pass the popcorn, please.

This is Winston Kidd.

The guy who, on the open carry law in 2013, worked with the Southern Poverty Law Center to get cameras and supporters set up in the courtroom before the AG's office was even notified that a lawsuit had been filed, gave the AG folks 30 minutes to show up, then conducted a farcical 1 hour ambush proceeding in which he struck down the law, finding it unconstitutionally vague because it gave a MORE detailed definition of "concealed" than had ever appeared in MS law.

He will be summarily slapped down by the Supreme Court here just like he was there.

"Final" means "appealable" in the Mississippi Code.

See Miss. Code 9-3-9:

"The Supreme Court shall have such jurisdiction as properly belongs to a court of appeals, and shall hear and determine all manner of pleas, complaints, motions, causes, and controversies, civil and criminal, which are now pending therein, or which may be brought before it, and which shall be cognizable in said court; but a cause shall not be removed into said court until after FINAL judgment in the court below."

The reason the ballot initiative review statute says "final" is to make it explicit that it IS appealable -- i.e., to satisfy 9-3-9. If you think the Supreme Court is going to read it any other way, you've never practiced before them.

When the legislature means to say something is not appealable, the Code uses the words "not appealable." See, for example, sections 63-11-26 and 51-9-115.

For any licensed lawyer to argue that the word "final" precludes an appeal is laughable.

For non-lawyer PR employees in the secretary of state's office to go on record to the media saying that the decision is not appealable is just sad.

Well, well,well...just got a robo call that describes initiative 24 as allowing the sale of marijuana to fund education.

Sleaze...just sleaze!

Should be ALL anyone needs to know to be sure to vote FOR 24!

Guess 5:27 needs the legislature to hurry up on the dyslexia bill...

4:07 - we all know from previous statements from King Dilbert's office that whenever he 'opines' on anything it probably is going to be wrong. Remember last year in the McD campaign for contest when the SOS 'opined' on the timeframe for filing a contest? Didn't bother to read (or didn't understand) the statutes then. No reason to believe that he understands this any better now.

Dilbert thinks he ought to open his mouth and comment on everything, and once he does it should be the law because of his dictate. Once this hits the Supremes, it will be more egg on his face (and all the others that spouted the 'non-appealable' bs.)

5:27: Initiative "24"??? Sounds like the robo caller is concerned about the wrong initiative. Marijuana may have struck again!