Jackson Jambalaya

Justice served!! Finally we the righful winner is seated.

Pickard is an unseated loser who’s taking out his frustrations on white people. The SC will overturn it.

Pickard is white so why would he be taking out his frustrations on white people? He was defeated by an African American female.

Madison County will be Madison County....

If anyone would bother to learn what is involved in registering to vote and how the rolls of registered voters are checked to identify the dead , no one would fall for these voter fraud hysterics.

The biggest vulnerability is hacking the voting machines.

Not sure which one is worse, Pickard or Banks

Round and round she goes where she stops... Banks like Archie learned his lesson, JUST WIN BABY! How you do it is secondary. JUST WIN!

This is the very worst ruling in an election contest I have ever read. Even though Harreld proved, for example, that over 100 people who did not live in the district voted in the district, Pickard dismissed the claim because, in effect, "nobody had complained about it before."

A true atrocity, in my view. I hope the SC overturns this.

@11:08 How you do it is not secondary It's irrelevant. Just ask Pickard.

KF - your post is incorrect. Pickard did not rule that the number of votes in question was enough or not. He ignored that altogether in his ruling.

What in fact he said was that he didn't want to "disenfranchise" anybody, and that the errors in the system were not the fault of the voters.

But what in fact he did was disenfranchise all the voters in District 4 by letting almost 200 people who do NOT reside in District 4 vote - thus negating legal legitimate voters in the district.

And further, he totally disenfranchised over 150 voters who do live in District 4 but were not allowed to vote in that district but rather in either 2, 3, or 5.

Pickard has now ruled on three election cases since he has left the bench - and all three are being appealed to the Supreme Court because his rulings in each case totally ignored both the facts and the law.

Picard's problem is - he doesn't believe that there is ever a case for overturning an election - no matter what illegalities occur. In his previous case, the Circuit Clerk in cohoots with the incumbent supervisor literally made over 400 ballots "disappear" prior to the election contest. And that was in an election where there were only 900 total votes (500 of which were voted by absentee, and half of those voted after the noon Saturday deadline. But as he said, there was clearly some criminal activity involved, but it was not in his purview as the Judge to deal with that!

His ruling in Hinds, Madison, and Kemper will all be overturned by the Supreme Court - its just a shame that candidates have to put up with incompetent Judges in these cases.

@ 3:49, I suspect I know who you are, but whomever you may be, you are absolutely right in everything you wrote.

Pickard needs to be put on the list of special judges NOT to hear election contests. Simply put, he is legally incompetent to rule on those matters.

Pickard is almost single-handedly responsible for Mississippi’s “judicial hellhole” reputation back when he was on the bench during the height of the asbestos litigation.

After reading these comments, I decided to read the opinion and see how accurate you legals scholars are. Although he is not very artful in his opinion drafting, if Pickard’s characterization of the evidence presented or not presented is factually accurate, there’s no way the SC overturns it.

Lessee. It took the judge right at four years to rule against Banks in his contest with Bishop. Will it take the supremes four years to rule on Harreld's appeal of Pickard's ruling? The wheels of justice don't turn slowly - They're flat locked-up.

Meanwhile Madison County will remain the virtual epi-center of corruption in Mississippi.

It’s really hard to overturn a chancellor - especially when the people you are asking to do that are elected themselves.

Almost 200 people who do NOT reside in District 4 vote were allowed to vote in District 4. Meanwhile, over 150 voters who do live in District 4 but were not allowed to vote in District 4.

Pickard pointed out that assuming the lines were incorrectly drawn, 1) it had happened before and no one raised this issue. But more importantly, Harreld did not raise this issue before the election. 2) Additionally, when the votes were counted, he still did not exercise his right to object to the votes from those precincts that either had non-district 4 voters or which omitted non-district 4 voters. Again, it was no secret this alleged error would occur because it had occurred in the previous election. For what it’s worth, I bet the Supremes affirm saying Harreld failed to object timely.