The Queen caught the Mississippi political world by surprise when she asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to block the certification of the I65 referendum that will take place Tuesday. She claimed the Secretary of State's certification of the initiative's signatures violated the Mississippi Constitution. The Attorney General gave cover to the certification in a 2009 opinion. <i>JJ</i> covered the lawsuit last week. Perhaps it's time to delve into the opinion itself.
Mayor Mary's petition argues the Mississippi Constitution limits the signatures from each congressional district to 20%. The Constitution states this requirement in no uncertain terms. The sections on initiatives and referendums were added to the Constitution in 1992 when Mississippi enjoyed five congressional districts. However, Mississippi lost a seat under the post-2000 redistricting but the Constitution was never amended to reflect the new political reality.
The Legislature was not unaware of the potential mischief created by Section 273. Seven bills were introduced since 2000 that would have changed the language. Ironically, the current Secretary of State was the author of one such bill in 2015. The bills all died in committee.
Then-Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann's staff could read Section 273 as well as Mayor Mary could. Mr. Hosemann asked the Attorney General to determine whether a sufficient number of signatures submitted for a proposed initiative should be based on four or five congressional districts. Assistant Attorney General Reese Partridge acknowledged the language in Section 273:
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.
Mr. Partridge said the "general purpose of the geographic distribution requirements" for the signatures was so one part of the state would not dominate. He admits the specific language is problematic:
It would be mathematically impossible to satisfy the requirements of Section 273 using just four districts. We note that at least one initiative sponsor has stated their intention to gather sufficient signatures to satisfy the 20%/five-district threshold as well as the 25%/four-district threshold.
That first sentence is the point of law on which Mayor Mary hangs her hat. Her lawsuit contends no further analysis is needed under a strict construction interpretation. The petition posits Section 273 kills I65 as the Legislature never fixed the problem although the introduction of the seven bills means the Solons knew there was a problem but chose not to fix it.
However, Mr. Partridge took another tack and gave a more broad interpretation to Section 273:
It is likewise our opinion that the geographic distribution requirement of Section 273 requires that not more than 20% of the total required number of initiative petition signatures must come from the last five-district congressional district plan which was in effect prior to the adoption of the current four-district plan.
Mr. Partridge doesn't cite any law to support his interpretation. He simply says Section 273 should not be literally followed because it is "mathematically impossible" to meet the 20% requirement. 20% = 25%. No amendment or legislation ever corrected the "mathematically impossible" requirement of Section 273. The Attorney General simply waved his hand and presto, the unambiguous section suddenly meant what it didn't say. (KF note: Hmmm.... Sounds familiar. )
The opinion almost gave it away in the next paragraph when it recommends amending Section 273:
We are aware of the difficulties circuit clerks and their staffs may encounter when attempting to verify the congressional district under a previous redistricting plan of large numbers of initiative petition signers. One remedy to this problem would be to amend Section 273 to reflect four congressional districts.
Mr. Hosemann followed the opinion and certified several initiatives under the A.G.-authorized "25% requirement." Some passed, some failed, and the referendums were all certified thirty days after their respective votes took place per Mississippi law.
Of course, Attorney General opinions carry no weight in court. It will be interesting to see how the Court rules.
30 comments:
Mary Hawkins in response to a press inquiry stated, "The US Air Force must be immediately disbanded. The Constitution allows only an Army and a Navy; two cannot mathematically be three."
10:39 - if you took your conlaw under Steffee, you might could be excused. But if you haven't finished the course yet, you need to get off the blog sites and go back to studying tonihgt.
The Constitution doesn't ONLY allow an Army and a Navy , not even close. It does allow for the congress to raise and support ARMIES, and to provide for and maintain a Navy. It also does provide that the Congress shall make rules for the regulation of the land and naval forces.
The constitution also states that the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy.
But nowhere in the Constitution of the US does it say that ONLY an Army and a Navy are allowed.
Nice try, but come back next time with a better argument. I realize you might think you have the same power that Delbert evidently thought he had when he was Secretary of State and decided he could add words to the existing language of the MS Constitution - on his own without any legislative action. Just like Delbert, your claim adds the little minor detail of the word "ONLY" - which does not exist in the US Constitution.
And the words "as they existed in 1992, or any other modification of the language in the I&R amendment to the MS Constitution authorizes the change that AG Hood suggested should be made. Trouble is, words have meanings, particularly when they are in statute, and even more so when they are incorporated into the Constitution.
A good conservative doesn't want an activist judiciary - one that decides what a phrase SHOULD mean when the language used is clear on its face. And in your case, you can't even sell the concept that the drafters intended for the word ONLY be inserted when considering what the powers of congress were as to the development of an Air Force (or for that matter, the Coast Guard, the Marines, or the Space Force.)
Munch on some cheetoes while you try to find the last page you read in your ConLaw textbook. Better luck next time.
Mere mention of the name Steffee makes me think of Brylcream.
PS: The USAF was first established as the ARMY Air Corps. Dad served willingly.
65 makes it legal to possess MJ up to 2.5 ounces. Potheads won’t be able to buy it unless their doctor writes a medical script.
And Mississippi will not be able to tax or regulate the sale like they do liquor or tobacco. I-65 was written by MJ growers for MJ users. The. Number of dopey potheads thinking they will be able to buy it at their kratom stores is shocking.
Thankful that 65 was written in a way that keeps the legislature from fouling it up as bad as ABC. You want the same people who pick our wine to tell us how to treat our diseases?
The plain meaning of the Constitution is being upheld by calculating the percentages using the then-existing congressional districts (which have defined geographic boundaries). That’s a sound legal analysis and not just “making something up”.
Voter ID is illegal, it must be abolished.
AG opinions carry some weight in court. It will be interesting to see how the Court rules. Methinks if 65 fails they will not care.
This is how the medical Rx will work. Using Kalifornia as an example, when the medical marijuana law went into effect, physicians of all types set up offices for the sole purpose of writing "medical" marijuana prescriptions.
Almost overnight hundreds and hundreds of these "medical" offices appeared all around the state, with physicians making a fortune writing these prescriptions for whatever ailment was recognized in the statute.
If you can't get board certified, make a fortune writing marijuana prescriptions. It's easy - take your BP, temperature, and fill in the blanks with whatever ailment - wink, wink, nudge, nudge - qualifies.
Low rent office, minimal malpractice insurance, no NP, no RN, no X-ray, no lab, low overhead.
If you don't believe that this could happen here, put down your bong and wake up.
If the legislature did not intend 273 to be used as provided in initiative 42 and 65 (4 Cong. Districts), why did they pass a bill to propose an alternative to a citizen-driven initiative certified by only 4 CDs?
November 2, 2020 at 8:59 AM = Nonsensical question
Have no real opinion on 65 and don't care. Marijuana will be in state forever, just like our blessed Covid.
"The USAF was first established as the ARMY Air Corps. Dad served willingly." Please tell your Dad Thank You from myself, a Vet and child of a 32 year Vet. If he is deceased, please accept in his stead.
"Voter ID is illegal, it must be abolished." I bet you drive without carrying a DL and/or Proof of Insurance. Those two are required by law to ID you as a driver etc. Guess you may feel no requirement is needed for the man to know about you. Have a blessed day.
As for taxing, we don't tax prescriptions. 65 treats it the same as prescription drugs when it comes to taxes.
Don't really care one way or the other, but it is just very difficult for me to believe that as advanced as science, drug science, is in the year 2020 that the only safe and effective method of treating pain for so many is marijuana.
Convenient that the powers to be forgot to mention that prescriptions weren't taxed either. I've been waiting to see if anyone would make the connection and once again, Kingfish has to show you the light. As for reefer shops being everywhere, the horror, the horror, anywhere you can put a drug store, you can put a reefer store. So, what't the big friggin" deal?
8:39, you are either ignorant or deliberately trying to mislead people. California is legal for recreational use. There is no way that will happen in Mississippi. A better comparison would be Florida, which is medical only. I know a lot of JJ readers frequent the panhandle. I can't say that I've ever seen a distributor in Florida although I know they have a handful.
9:21. Opioids. Those treat pain. Big problem
just relax and toke up with a God created natural substance. cheap effective and non addictive!
I know one thing for sure, Joel Bomgar is one of the most diligent, hard working people I've ever come across and there is absolutely no way that this constitutional thing is a surprise to his team. I guarantee this issue was well-vetted many months ago. Mary is desperate and this is a hail Mary
Pew says about 75% of Americans support legalizing marijuana and close to 90% support it for medical reasons. So, of course that means its a little early for Mississippi.
Tomorrow's vote is about one thing...sticking it to the legislature and this corrupt political system we have here in Mississippi.
MM bills have been introduced in the legislature year after year after year and they never come out of committee. Why? Because our leaders are addicted to the thousands and thousands of campaign contributions who tell them how to think and how to vote. Now all of a sudden, they want to be a part of the solution. Screw them. And screw Mary.
Pew says about 75% of Americans support legalizing marijuana and close to 90% support it for medical reasons.
Link?
Lifelong conservative Republican here... Absolutely voting for 65.
Lifelong conservative independent here... Absolutely voting for 65.
12:26 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/%3famp=1
Thanks for the link. I knew you were exaggerating.
I'm voting for 65 tomorrow, regardless of Queen Mary's lawsuit.
If only we had a visionary governor and legislature who would have acknowledged the people's desire to see some level of marijuana legalization here as other states have, and shown some goddamn leadership in order to get ahead of this thing, they could have crafted legislation that might have satisfied most of the concerns from both sides. But no, we have to force a constitutional change that admittedly may not be the best solution. But its something. Yet again Mississippi's ruling class has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the few progressives committed to advancing this backwards state.
91%. Can you read?
Calm down fellers. That Pew poll is all over social media this week. It mainly discusses the fact that the majority of Americans actually support legal recreational use of weed. Over 60%.. But yes, it references 91% support medicinal use.
Never heard of a 'kratom store'. Do they exist in Superman Comic Books or elsewhere?
11:51 - Is your sense of sarcasm stunted?
The first commenter is putting words in the Mayor's mouth. Judging by the hook in the your overreactive mouth, satirical misdirection has landed another victim.
Post a Comment