Jackson Jambalaya

So this argument would mean that no petition can ever get on the ballot, right? At least until they amend the constitution or Mississippi gets a fifth congressional seat (ha).

Check it OUT! Mayor...QUEEN Mary doing the work of the legislature, governor, and SOS... DAYUUUUUMMMMM!! Talk about an October surprise!

Good for her. Madison is fortunate to have a leader staying involved and informed at this level and then being willing to put herself out there.

So, all of those previous initiatives are dead and invalid? Like the one that says hunting is a right?

Sooo, McDaniel can quit circulating that stupid initiative about the flag?

That question crossed my mind.

If she is right and they didn't follow the constitution, oh well.

Kingfish stop calling the mayor Queen. Do you call Lubumba King or Dictator or Czar.

The Queen will win re-election in another romp next year.

@9:34, I'd imagine she probably prefers to be called Queen

Hail to the Queen!

This is an asinine filing. The plaintiff's logic would invalidate all initiatives passed since MS lost its fifth congressional district. A petition must have over 20% of total signatures coming from at least one of the current four districts, and one doesn't need a PhD in Mathematics to understand that.

Another question: if, somehow, the petition is invalidated, does the legislatively mandated 65A remain? That is the real question. It seems to me - in that scenario - 65 would be the de facto law of the state.

I feel sorry for Michael Watson. Delbert was SoS when this alleged act occurred. I wonder who the FBI agents will choose to investigate (and whether Queen Mary will run for SoS in 2023). City of Madison taxpayers: keep a tally on how much this litigation costs the brick city.

Actually I do. I call him Little Lord Lumumba from time to time. Want to lie again?

It's ok let her have her temper tantrum. She might even win. It's still going to happen, another amendment will be placed on the ballot for the next statewide election.
Not to mention you can expect it to be legalized on the federal level next year.

SHAME ON THE ELECTED OFFICIALS!! The people of Mississippi that need medical marijuana- Cancer patients, Parkinson's and other diseases that need the relief that marijuana has been shown to provide, are left to suffer.

The fact that she filed this petition this late in the process tells me that 65 has a TON of support and will pass. That's what the polls say. Desperation move by the anti-65'ers

Good God Gertie (Kingfish)- Could you not boil that opening post down to about three or four paragraphs instead of making it what could be a four page document for presentation before the court?

And you could have told us which district was improperly represented with what numbers and percentage.

And we all know Mary did not come up with this challenge. She only gets credit for it, like so much of what goes on in Madison.

Not unexpected. This is the challenge that faces progress in Mississippi.

If this suit was a sure thing, they would have filed it months ago. Its a desperation move and a hail Mary because 65 is polling at about 75%

I don't see any allegation that eliminating the signatures exceeding 20% of the required total (20% = about 21000) from any congressional district would take the total signatures (just over 105,000) below the threshold of about 83,000 required to satisfy the constitutional requirement. I think the emergency petition fails to state a claim on its face.

Now what do I do with a year's supply of Zig Zags for my glaucoma?

9:09 - I don't know what world you live in, but there has not been an initiative filed and voted on about hunting and it being a right.

In fact, there has not been an initiative proposed, much less filed, about hunting.

But - if there had been, and if it had passed, and it had been after 2000, then the answer would probably be yes. But since this evidently exists only in your wet dreams, then its a moot issue.

Come back and try again with something more relevant

Bill Dees, maybe you need to read the constitutional I&R language again. It says all signatures above the 20% from a congressional district cannot be counted. Thus, by their argument, it would be impossible to get enough signatures -- 80% is not equal to 100%.

Its an interesting argument in that the current language of the constitution cannot be met and that the legislature should have fixed the language at some point after 2000. It was, after all, the legislature that wrote the language that created I&R, and when they did it they tried to make it hard for anything to ever make it. Evidently, they did a better job than even they imagined at the time.

Has anyone heard there is a "group" ,per se, that helped our lawmakers write this bill as confusing as it that also helped Arkansas write there's to try and derail it's passing? I've heard that several times.

Oh dear! And the Queen didn't shout " Off with their Heads" before it was on the ballot? Has she gotten slow in her old age? LOL

The potheads had Laremy Tunsil's gas mask on and couldn't see clearly the numbers on Lame Train's calculator for all the smoke.

"Did you say Math, or Meth? Is 25K a lot of pennies, or what?"

This proves its not about who has the most money, its not even about who has the best lawyer, its about who has a lawyer that is willing to do a little reading without assuming they know the law.

good news.

If they weren't confident 65 will pass, they would have saved this BS for an ace up the sleeve in case it did. This is desperate, and I bet several more prominent political folks passed on being the face of this lawsuit before Mayor Mary gleefully agreed to get ready for her closeup.

Sounds like the fix is in. Once again, the slimy right will thwart the will of the people. Mary is making a lot of enemies with this one.

The clear intent in the constitution is to allow for ballot initiatives to be petitioned for by the voters, so to interpret this rule literally means that no ballot initiative could be approved ever, or at least until we get another district. No way this passes. It is not within the intent or spirit of exactly what is written into the state constitution.

P.S....the SOS could/should have brought this up a long time ago in order for the petitioners to go find more signatures. If this somebody does get over turned, expect the state to incur millions in legal fees.

Weaponized pearl clutching, you're welcome.

If you know you can't win, attach the process. This "Hail Mary" will come up short. A few lawyers will get a quick check for a perfunctory effort though. They should refocus ban liquor stores, not weed stores! Weed smokers don't become violent like drinkers.

@11:30, yes I understand that. But to so interpret the constitution would result in an absurdity, a result courts avoid if at all possible. I certainly could see an opinion (I think the issue isn't ripe for adjudication until the initiative passes)that upholds the SOS's reasoning, solely to avoid an absurd result - that no initiative could ever be placed on the ballot.

Bill Dees, that would be what a liberal court would do. Interpret the language like they 'think it should mean' and not what it says. Also, that seems to be not looking at the precedent.

The other approach is for the court to recognize that the legislature was aware of this failing of the statute and refused to address it - and therefore it (like many other outdated statutes) fail on their face.

As to being ripe, any adjudication would come about after November 3rd in all likelihood, so that issue seems to me to be moot.

And it is not that no initiative could ever be put on the ballot - the court could easily say basically to the legislature that they need to fix their mistake; that is, if the legislature wants to have future initiative led changes to the constitution.

Whether we should have those initiatives is not up to the court, but rather to the legislature --- and a good court would acknowledge this, not try to 'fix' it as they think it 'should' be.

The difference in an activist court and a literal court.

I can't wait to open up my Pot shop in the middle of Madison next door to the CVS. :)

65 is a bad bill. Mississippi taxes alcohol and cigarettes profusely, marijuana a should be taxed as a Vice too. Proponents know that it will legalize possession. It’s why they favor it over 65A.

Screw the potheads. I’ll vote 65A

That's what we need, another way for the scatterbrained to legally slow their cognitive process. That's what we really.

Republicans in Mississippi just seem to hate personal freedom. What a buck of arses.

You have to remember the constitution of 1890 prohibits women from owning land also.

"...Mary is making a lot of enemies with this one."
October 27, 2020 at 1:51 PM

Not in OUR town. In Madison, Mary IS reflecting the will of The People. And if you don't like Madison, stay-the-pluck-OUT. We don't need you. We don't want you. And we probably moved here, TO GET AWAY FROM people like you.

Queen Mary about to body slam Watson!!! Coast boy is about to learn what it is all about. Josh Gregory wont save his ass...

4:19 I’m gonna open up a shop right in front of your house.

The flag vote is not the result of an initiative...

These are three truly excellent attorneys, unfortunately (I support Initiative 65). Very, very excellent. Andrew Harris was valedictorian of my class at Ole Miss Law School and Adam Stone and KAYTIE (correct spelling) Pickett are damn good.

I hope that the City of Madison is not picking up the tab of the Jones Walker invoices, however.

I do wonder why this petition was filed so close to the election.

I agree with a comment that sometimes the lawyers who read the law beat far superior lawyers. I am not sure how this issue was not raised until now, though. Kudos to Adam, Kaytie, and Andrew for reading the law. But I hoope that they lose.

The same thing that's happened in North Carolina and is happening in Texas and Georgia is going to happen to Madison.

33 states have approved medical marijuana. When has Mississippi EVER been in the top 35 to adopt something sensible or new? I know. Never. Never have, never will. Mayor Mary would have been leading the anti crowd in 1860, 1910, and 1960 and she and her kind would gladly return to any of those days. Same for Congressperson Granny Clampett.

Desperate.

@4:19 PM - spot on! Mayor Mary is doing her job and doing it well. In a previous life I was a supervisor in the nation's largest marijuana eradication program. You don't want cultivation anywhere near residences and within any city limits. The smell is obnoxious and spreads quite a distance.

Cultivation also brings thefts, armed robberies, and in general crime, regardless of what the money people/politicians are telling the sheeple.

It also creates a black market with the accompanying crime.

I am not against medical marijuana, but it has to be done the right way.

2:26. They may not be violent, but they forget how to think and eventually just quit thinking because they start to believe thinking is just too damn difficult. Seems like you had one too many before you commented.

I personally know of 2 people in Madison who have said today they will not vote for Mary again after this. One is a cancer patient and the other severe epilepsy - both are successful professionals who are longtime residents and struggling with their health. She is on the wrong side of this big time and it’s going to make it tough for her politically anywhere in the state after this stunt.

Mayor Mary is turning into an inspiration for a comic book villain. Rename her Mayor Karen Butler and dress her up like Cruella de Vil. She could sue the sick and poor for fun all at the pleasure of an evil cabal of real estate developers.

For the Pro 65ers, are you for legalization of marijuana for any reason or are you only for true medical use? I ask this as I see a place, albeit pretty limited, for medical marijuana but a place for certain patients. However, this bill allows much more than that. If it was truly a "medical marijuana bill", it would require a prescription by a physician and be filled in a pharmacy. This bill does not do that. For that reason, I am a "no" vote on 65. Also, you guys do realize this is a change to the state constitution, not merely just an initiative that can easily be changed if you find out you were hoodwinked. This is not something that can just be undone the next election. Think long and hard about this.

Now we can have a debate whether recreational use of weed should be allowed but let's make it an honest debate rather than hiding or cloaking your true intent by using "medical marijuana" and taking advantage of some folks who have suffered tragedy in their lives. It is unfair to use them when they think they are supporting a pure medical bill.

@4:19 - speak for yourself. I would venture to say I’ve lived in Madison much longer than you. All my life in fact. From the days when Madison was a wide spot in the road to Canton. And I completely support 65. This will hurt Mary more than she realizes.

There's some backwards assed people spreading mess on the internet about how we are going to have pot shops on every corner and everybody is going to be high all the time.

65 is for PRESCRIPTION ONLY medical use of marijuana.

These are the same bunch of hypocrites that fought craft beer for over a decade and wanted to mandate that you drink Budweiser. Why? Because the Bud distributors were huge donors.

So Lynn has to defend Michael against Mary; priceless! And Bomgar and his minions that are behind 65 may see their millions invested so far go up in smoke.

She will fit right in to whatever that place is called where you go after death if you are Ros Barnett or Theodore Bilbo.

5:29, this one ain't, but McDaniel is circulating a petition for another vote in the future to include the confederate symbolism.

Good point 6:25. We were the last state to kill prohibition. Why would we shoot to be in the top 40 on something to help terminally ill people?

And of course, the elite always had access to alcohol during prohibition.

7:16 - I live in Madison, enjoy a little reefer myself, and will gladly vote to keep Mary as Mayor. I will also vote for 65A. A good idea written as a bad (actually, f*cking terrible) law is not something to support. None of the tax revenue for schools, infrastructure and communities. No local control. No way for the legislature to amend it (well, that one might be ok). And what’s the fun in smoking something legal, anyway?

Its all about who gets their palm greased. Contribute enough and you can get state money for a beef plant. Contribute enough money and you can squash scientifically proven pain relief that is less addictive than the prescription crap that is crushing America.

You Madison ignoramuses have no idea what your sweet, innocent kids are doing at this VERY SECOND. How many MC kids have gone to the ER in the last year for vaping who knows what kind of poisonous Mexican heroin-laced junk? But a cancer patient can't get a PRESCRIPTION for effective relief? Oh, hell no. Can't have that. Time to protest.

@7:16 This is laughable..2 people...Mayor Mary is shaking in her boots. Go look at the returns from the past several elections. Mayor Mary will be mayor of Madison as long as she chooses to do it. You may not like her or her position but the one thing about her is she always stands up for what she thinks is right no matter the pressure it may bring. She didn't build Madison by backing down from a tough issue. Mayor Mary gets things done which is why she ruffles feathers of those who are on the opposing side of an issue with her.

First, the legislative intent is clear from the face of the Constitution: that for such an initiative, 12% of the number of voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election, relatively evenly spread across and about the state, are required to sign. It is also obvious that the "1/5" is derived from having 5 districts (5 / 100 percent). Now, if arguendo, there had been a district added rather than subtracted, 1/6 per district would have been the "proper" number but the "1/5" wording would not "shock the conscience" of either a court or a reasonable person insofar as it being within the clear intent as well as mathematically-possible situation. Therefore, I would suggest that attempting to torture the wording into something it was not intended to convey simply because it became 4 rather than 6 districts, and therefore now subject to semantic torture and mathematical happenstance rather than truly objective legal wanting, is unreasonable.

The MS Constitution doesn't say that if there are more than 1/5 of the signatures from one or more districts, the initiative cannot be certified, it says "The signatures of the qualified electors from any congressional district shall not exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of signatures required to qualify an initiative petition for placement upon the ballot. If an initiative petition contains signatures ***from a single congressional district*** which exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of required signatures, the excess number of signatures from ***that congressional district*** shall not be considered by the Secretary of State in determining whether the petition qualifies for placement on the ballot." It DOES NOT SAY "...if the signatures from any district exceeds 1/5, all of the signatures from ALL OF THOSE districts shall not be considered..."

The intent is clear but number of districts is not. The clear intent is that whether 4, 5, or 10 districts, the real requirement is that the supporting signatures from each are at least proportional in number per district. However, if one wants to argue semantics as well as parse, given the "a single district" wording, if ***MORE THAN ONE*** district, i.e., not ***A SINGLE district***, exceeded 1/5 of the number required per district, that in and of itself would not trigger the caveat. But that conflicts with the preceding sentence and it isn't a reasonable presumption that legislative bodies have the intent to do such things. So the proper wording and that reflecting the reasonable intent would have been "a percentage equal to 100% divided by the number of districts apportioned at the time the initiative is certified" or some such rather than a fixed percentage.

That said, if the number of signatures per district isn't roughly equivalent, then the petition's argument is reasonable. However, if the numbers are pretty close to 25% per district, the argument is "tortured." The real problem appears to be that legal pot is *apparently* supported a significant majority of voters so trying to defeat that *apparent* large majority supporting this, especially with, er, "technicalities," isn't smart politics on a state-wide basis. They ought to be prepared to win small and lose big.

I'm sure Mayor Mary will be filing a retroactive lawsuit against the Voter ID measure any minute now too, right?

I don't agree with the "mathematical certainty" bit though, because the former 5th district overlapped the others, primarily the 4th. You need 17K signatures from each of the 5 districts, or 21.5K signatures from each of the 4. A signature doesn't get completely thrown away if you've got enough signatures in that district, it just doesn't get run up into the overall signature count or offset shortfalls in other districts.

So if I formerly lived in 5 and was redistricted into 4, my signature counts either toward that 17K if we're playing by the old rules, or toward the 21.5K for the new district. If I and 17K of my neighbors in former-5 sign, and if 17K voters in former-4 also sign, it's covered both ways. You've got 34K voters from new-4, 17k voters from old-4, and 17k voters from old-5; as long as you get 21.5K from 1, 2, and 3 for a total of 98.5K, you are good to go.

The folks who submit the initiatives do know this, because it came up in reference to Initiative 26 in 2011 (and I think for voter ID that year as well?). Unless Bomgar and crew *completely* failed to do their homework, I'd assume they have canvassed appropriately and kept tallies of the folks in old-5 to make sure they're covered under both scenarios.

Anyone who thinks this will cost MHB even a lick politically in Madison simply doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.

7:16

Because I’m sure that lotto money is going to infrastructure!

9:12PM wrote, "Anyone who thinks this will cost MHB even a lick politically in Madison simply doesn't know what the hell they are talking about."

On its face, will it cost her Madison? Maybe, maybe not. But imagine a strong negative viral reaction. It could easily cost her. It's a strange new world and even in the "old" world, things could and often did change dramatically in a heartbeat. Nowadays, it doesn't take much to go from royalty to outcast. Or from outcast to royalty. Think even 5 years ago - no to the flag and yes to pot wouldn't have even been up for marginally-serious consideration. And now, with a truly open vote, there is good chance the flag would now look like a Cheech and Chong album cover.

Forget marijuana
Forget politics
Forget taking sides

This is an easy constitutional question. The people made the constitution. Not the legislature. So forget the legislature too.

If the logic in the petition is followed then the people have made a constitution that they themselves cannot now possibly change. That in and of itself would be unconstitutional and antithetical to our form of government which derives all of its power from the people. If the people wanted to change it to what they intended to begin with based on proportion of total districts in the state, how prey tell would they do that? It’s not legally possible according to the Petition. The only thing the court can do is construe constitutional provision based on “original intent” as Scalia would have said. If the petitioners are right, it would be akin to filing a petition against God if God decided to change his mind about anything he ever said. The people cannot make a constitutional provision that says they are precluded from changing their own constitution later. For that reason, the petition must fail regardless of ones confirmation bias for either side of the outcome of the measure itself.

"Mary is making a lot of enemies with this one."

She's worked mighty hard over the years to perfect that talent.

Those who work at her will and pleasure are posting, above, in interesting numbers.

Yep voter ID is illegal too, if she succeeds with this lawsuit. I am a plaintiff every election held that required an ID must be thrown out.

On its face, will it cost her Madison? Maybe, maybe not.

Nope. In Madison it won't cost her a lick. You don't know nothing.

65 will pass. This challenge will be tossed. Legislators and elected officials waking up late realizing people want this.

That being said the Queen is doing what is best for her city. If I were opening a dispensary I would do it at Renaissance or the Madison exit. Mary doesn’t want pot shops in her city. But they’re coming and the best, cleanest most law abiding dispensary will make a fortune in Madison

Good point on the voter id law getting wiped out by this also. I guess that means none of our recent elections were constitutional and we don’t have any elected officials. I guess Mayor Mary is just plain old Mary the bitch now. Who wants to go lock her out of city hall?

@ October 27, 2020 at 6:26 PM

@4:19 PM - spot on! Mayor Mary is doing her job and doing it well. In a previous life I was a supervisor in the nation's largest marijuana eradication program. You don't want cultivation anywhere near residences and within any city limits. The smell is obnoxious and spreads quite a distance.

Cultivation also brings thefts, armed robberies, and in general crime, regardless of what the money people/politicians are telling the sheeple.

It also creates a black market with the accompanying crime.

I am not against medical marijuana, but it has to be done the right way.

You contradicted yourself so many times in that little soliloquy.

Listening to Too much Gallo and rewatching "Reefer Madness" too many times.

It's 2020 not 1951

We don't have a representative government in Mississippi? What intellectual midget, or is it an extremist, that says the constitution can't be amended? We, the people, are forbidden to lobby our representatives to meet our wishes? My biggest question is why does this issue require an amendment to the constitution? Wouldn't simple legislation do?

Maybe people should read this.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-true-cost-of-marijuana-a-colorado-town-that-went-all-in_3546091.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-10-27-4

We don't have a representative government in Mississippi? What intellectual midget, or is it an extremist, that says the constitution can't be amended? We, the people, are forbidden to lobby our representatives to meet our wishes? My biggest question is why does this issue require an amendment to the constitution? Wouldn't simple legislation do?

Mississippi politicians on the federal, state, and local levels have paternalistic attitudes in regards to what's best for the citizens of this state.

From the lottery to marijuana, to alcohol (sales and distribution), to casinos, anything the citizens push for the state to partake in, they'll tell us we don't know any better. Too many of our elected officials lack conventional wisdom and it is a hindrance to helping this state get out of the dark ages.

Stop with the comparisons to Colorado. They have recreational use. This vote is just for medical use with a doctor's prescription.

@9:17, do you realize the source you just posted is blatant fiction? It’s a propaganda arm of q anon. Posting crap like that doesn’t help move a conversation forward.

Who cares? Weed is SO easy to get. And I know because I buy it every week from a person that I have known for years. We both are educated professionals with careers, families and morals. The war on drugs is a joke. A black hole for tax dollars.

Thanks, 9:17AM! I was wondering if Epoch Times was any good. It's not bad, although the article was more optimistic than I expected. Still, it confirmed most of my fears about marijuana and legalization.