Jackson Jambalaya

Good Article:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-activists-were-behind-controversial-klan-ads-in-mississippi/article/2551630

Mississippi Code 97-13-35 says:

• “Any person who shall vote at any election, not being legally qualified, or who shall vote in more than one county, or at more than one place in any county or in any city, town, or village entitled to separate representation, or who shall vote out of the district of his legal domicile, or who shall vote or attempt to vote in the primary election of one party when he shall have voted on the same date in the primary election of another party, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be fined not exceeding two hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months, or both.”

Sounds to me like a plain English reading of the law does not prohibit voting in an election on June 3 and they voting again in another election of any type on June 24.

I can hear the fat lady warming up her vocal cords.

is it over or did it ever start? did he mean 2:30 mountain time?

just began.

Sounds like they are about to offer up all those incident reports that Judge Atlas threw out.

I like the McD people with the tape over their mouths at the NCF last week. That's the only time I have ever seen them shut up...love it!!!!!

Ahhhhh, did he just say that McDaniel actually won by 25,000 votes? What the?!?!?!?! Did I just hear that correctly?

Can't get it on my computer. Pls keep us posted.

The thunder is cracking me up. Someone get McDaniel inside before God sends a bolt of lighting for his constant invocations

"tell me when to suck it in"

Now. Do it now!

His numbers didn't add up...

For the lawyers on here: Is there ANY basis in law to declare McDaniel the winner?

Even duct tape can't fix stupid But it can muffle the sound #mssen #derpshow #taskforcedouchecanoe

J333

Sound the Capital Resources echo chamber.....yawl wake up.

Fidel Idithun

"The evidence is clear." Yes, you can see right through it.

Crazy Chrissy at it again? I voted for the guy and I think he has lost it.

I'm not a McDaniel supporter, but for the record, the law which they are using to justify this was cited @2:33pm, 97-13-35. A 1988 AG opinion (not the law), stated that the primary and the runoff are the same process and therefore interpreted to occur at the "same time."

We'll see if a Court interprets it the same way.

there is no set time in days for a deadline to file these type challenges. however, the statute and case law does say that it has to be filed "forthwith". case law tells us that this is not nine weeks. this should be over with pretty soon. of course, the party will reject it as being tardy and not consider it on any merits, however slim and imaginary Chrissie McDenial claims he has, and the Courts will then dismiss on the same grounds: waited to long to put. can forget the shut up part, he can't.

The 59 case stated that the two statutes (one with a 20 day timeframe for local offices) and the other with no timeframe for multi-county state and congressional primaries, had to be read in para materia. The court held:

The two sections here under consideration are parts of the same statute, and the Act must be considered as a whole. See 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, Section 352, pp. 350-4, as follows: "The different parts of a statute reflect light upon each other, and statutory [7] provisions are regarded as in pari materia where they are parts of the same act. Hence, a statute should be construed in its entirety, and as a whole. The general intention is the key to the whole act, and the intention of the whole controls the interpretation of its parts. The fact that a statute is subdivided into sections or other parts should not obstruct or obscure the interpretation of the law as a whole. All parts of the act should be considered, compared, and construed together. It is not permissible to rest the construction upon any one part alone, or upon isolated words, phrases, clauses, or sentences, or to give undue effect thereto. The legislative intention as collected from an examination of the whole as well as the separate parts of a statute, is not to be defeated by the use of particular terms, but, to the contrary, will prevail over the literal import thereof."

When one faces reality, it is obvious that primary election contests, if they are to be allowed and the favorable results thereof come to full fruition, must be conducted speedily. The names of party nominees, if they are to be of any avail, must go on the ticket for the general election, which is [8] required by Section 102 of the Constitution of 1890, to be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Unless this course can be vouchsafed, there would be no virtue in holding primary elections to choose nominees of the parties. It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to limit the time in which contests could be filed where [587] a county or beat office was involved, and yet fix no time limit whatever for that purpose in regard to all other offices. So to hold would convict the Legislature of unaccountable capriciousness and result in endless uncertainty and confusion. The two sections are in pari materia, and all contests therefore must be begun within twenty days after the primary. To hold otherwise would be senseless.

3:38
Well, what about Kellum v. Johnson, 115 So.2d 147 (1959)which construed what is now 23-15-921 (contests must be filed within 20 days county and legislative offices) with 23-15-923 (State, congressional offices, but no mention of limits) and states:
"It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to limit the time in which contests could be filed where *587 a county or beat office was involved, and yet fix no time limit whatever for that purpose in regard to all other offices. So to hold would convict the Legislature of unaccountable capriciousness and result in endless uncertainty and confusion. The two sections are in pari materia, and all contests therefore must be begun within twenty days after the primary. To hold otherwise would be senseless."
Better pray hard Cat, Rat and Watson their dog, because this is going to get you, if the boils around the butt visited upon Thee don't get Thee first!

@August 4, 2014 at 3:38 PM
The "forthwith" language applies to petitions for judicial review pursuant to MCA 23-15-927; thus, after a challenge is filed and denied by the state executive committee, the petition for judicial forthwith, after filing with the appropriate committee, here the state executive committed.

MCA 23-15-923 is the statute setting forth the procedure to file the initial contest with the state executive committee, and, unfortunately, it does not appear to have a time limit.

In case anyone is wondering, the 1959 decision everyone is talking about is: Kellum v. Johnson, 237 Miss. 580, 115 So.2d 147 (1959).

Does this holding even apply? The statute has been revised since 1959.

4:26
The two statutes are now 23-15-921 and 23-15-921, and the first one still says 20 days and the second is still silent on a time limit. To be read together according to the case.

McDaniel - "I don't have any brothers or sisters" That explains A LOT!

Take a look at the MS GOP State Executive Committee membership I count at least 5 people who have worked for Senator Cochran among the names that I recognize and at least 33 people whose pictures could appear in the dictionary to define the term 'Establishment Republican.'

Re 4:26 Sorry, I meant the 2nd statute is 23-15-923, to be read in pari materia (together) with 23-15-921 which sets out the 20 day limitation. Someone better looking at their legal malpractice insurance! McD may have a claim yet against someone close to him!

August 4, 2014 at 4:34 PM
Thanks. It is difficult to navigate westlaw next from the phone.

If McDaniel manages to survive the timeliness issue, i think a plain reading of MCA 97-13-35 will be the deal breaker. "On the same day" is pretty clear and unambiguous.

Do the Barbourites ever tire of slamming McDaniel and his constitutional right to challenge. Again we have Kingfish doing the cheerleader dance for failure with his 'right to appeal' comment. What if his initial challenge is accepted by the party? Ever think of that KF?

And for those of you who REALLY want to see a hick-goober, catch Cochran's attorney, Mark Garriga commenting on the challenge. He mispronounces the challenger's name, calling Mack-Dan-U-Uhl. Garriga is one damned embarrassing hayseed of a Mississippi attorney.

The "forthwith" in 23-15-927 was tightened up in 2012, when the legislature added this sentence about the timing of appeals to the circuit court:

"A petition for judicial review must be filed within ten
(10) days after any contest or complaint has been filed with an executive committee."

So it looks like no matter what happens, McDaniel will have to appeal to the Circuit Court in 10 days, regardless of how far along the Executive Committee is in considering his contest.

I want to propose a new JJ poll: What do you think the outcome of the McDaniel appeal will be?

1) McDaniel will win because the law is on his side
2) McDaniel will win because God is on his side
3) McDaniel will win because the Tea Party has that much influence over the MS GOP.
4) McDaniel will lose because his argument has no legal weight
5) McDaniel will lose because he has no evidence
6) McDaniel will lose because the Barbours and the MS GOP have conspired against him
7) This will never, ever end, with the McDaniel children and grandchildren being raised to carry the election challenge banner into eternity

If not this, then some kind of poll?

5.06
You are right, I worked tirelessly at the County level to win my seat on the State committee.

Here's the 20 day limitation of 23-15-921 (read into 23-15-923 that follows it as to Congressional races):
"Except as otherwise provided by Section 23-15-961, a person desiring to contest the election of another person returned as the nominee of the party to any county or county district office, or as the nominee of a legislative district composed of one (1) county or less, may, within twenty (20) days after the primary election, file a petition with the secretary, or any member of the county executive committee in the county in which the election was held, setting forth the grounds upon which the primary election is contested; and it shall be the duty of the executive committee to assemble by call of the chairman or three (3) members of said committee, notice of which contest shall be served five (5) days before said meeting, and after notifying all parties concerned proceed to investigate the grounds upon which the election is contested and, by majority vote of members present, declare the true results of such primary."

Attempting to prove that there were improper votes based on a "poll" after the votes were cast will not work because the poll is not admissible evidence. Present intent to vote for another party's candidate in the general election as a bar to voting is unenforceable and is not going to be the basis of any decision overturn the runoff results, even if you could prove it, and he can't based on anonymous responses to a poll taken after votes were cast.

Press reports and social media reports likewise are not going to be admissible to prove McDaniel's case.

Hearsay about vouchers is likewise inadmissible, not the least of which is the fact that the voters are not named and they are not parties.

Not having seen the other "evidence," I can't say there is nothing there, but based on the Clarion Ledger report, the "evidence" the case looks extraordinarily weak. And the chance that the state executive committee will overturn the results to endorse McDaniel is nil.

5:48 - Close the poll. It's going to be #7.

5:30- are you serious about talking about Garriga mispronouncing McDaniel's name when McDaniel doesn't talk right? He's probably making fun of how he talks and you didn't catch it.

"We FART hard!"

Listen to him say the Republican primary wasn't decided by Republican voters.

Get out of here with that, you cannot have a straight face and say that.

To add to the above comment- you can consider him hayseed or not, but his comments were strong, to the point, and he looks like he sounds like he's about to beat their asses. Mitch sounds like a girl next to him.

Get ready.

Election law expert Rick Hasen says Chris Mack Daniel has a weaker case than he originally thought.

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=63977

He is still a loser and will never be a senator for Mississippi. He has no chance to change what has happened but if he did he will get smoked in the general. The africian americians will come out in droves.

From Rick Hassen's informative post at electionlawblog.org after looking at McD's documents today:
"In sum, I’d reiterate the point I made earlier before I could see this filing. At most, what McDaniel alleges should lead to a new election. Surely any election lawyer with some experience who would say that McDaniel will be declared with winner with this dossier is smoking something which I believe is still illegal in the state of Mississippi."

How are a car up on cinderblocks and Chris McDaniel pert near the same? Ain't neither one of em goin nowheres any time soon.

Read the 1st paragraph of the complaint and try not to laugh.

I was in one of the counties in the McD report. Exaggerated crap by his volunteers that made no difference to the count and will not withstand scrutiny.

More from electionlawblog.org:
"UPDATE: The McDaniel campaign has now posted its election contest papers. I have put them up on Scribd in a 13 mb file (instead of the original 104 mb file). The contest presents an even weaker claim than was described at the press conference. This will almost surely fail before both the MS Republican party and in court."
Probably be tossed as untimely without having to reach the unwarranted stuff and exaggerated but meaningless crap of what his volunteers wrote up.

I have seen names in the report that I can say with absolute certainty voted in the GOP primary on 6/3 and 6/24, yet are listed as crossover votes. Many of the Chris Mack Daniel volunteers were obviously not up to the job they were tasked with. This is about to get embarrassing and ugly for the Chris Mack Daniel legal team.

I have seen names in the report that I can say with absolute certainty voted in the GOP primary on 6/3 and 6/24, yet are listed as crossover votes. Many of the Chris Mack Daniel volunteers were obviously not up to the job they were tasked with. This is about to get embarrassing and ugly for the Chris Mack Daniel legal team.

This petittion and its evidence is laughable.
1. Sorry Mitch, but I don't beleive the results of your "poll"
2. Even if I did, that is not evidence. You should have had them all signing affidavits.
3. 25,000? HAHAHAHAHA
4. If I accept that you uncovered 3,500 cross over votes, and if I pretend you some how know that they all voted for Cochran, then you have 3,500 cross over votes, you are still shy of 21,500 illegal votes. Are they all in the 3 or 4 holdout counties.
5. Bottom line, we don't need to speculate about AG Opinions (WHICH MEAN NOTHING TO ANYONE) or about timeliness and all that other stuff, this thing does not pass the common sense test.

I can't read the complaint without the X-Files theme song playing in my head. Anyone else?

I read the first few pages of this complaint. Polling 443 democratic voters? Not a lawyer but seems a lot like throwing things at the wall to see if any of it sticks.

Wonder what the explanation for this taking so long to prepare and file is?

8:24 pm: I tried. Couldn't do it. Not sure what's more comical, the content or the multiple grammatical errors.

Years of product liability defense work, and it never occurred to me to have a client conduct a poll at the grocery store "my product isn't dangerous, I asked 443 shoppers and they all swore it was grand!"

Where are the rest of the exhibits? I didn't see 443 sworn affidavits.

Dear Republican Party,

I voted for this guy... I found anti-incunbamcy to be that compelling. I acknowledge that they are both conservative, but I felt like a change was needed. I wished my choice was better, but I felt like McDaniel was my only option. I don't think I am alone. More of the same didn't seem prudent.

I have never regretted a vote more in my life. This guy is a narcissistic loony tune. If I had it to do over again I'd have voted for Thad. McDaniel makes Cliff Finch look like Winston Churchill.

It's a shame our party leadership made this a choice between Thad and a complete fucking idiot. I respect Mr. Cochran, but what if we had been able to choose some fresh minded business person or energetic wonk? What if we had a debate about ideas instead of a silent incumbent and a regressive nobody degenerate talk-radio hack?

I am now hoping for Thad, but as a lesson for our party leadership...... Please give us something to believe in. Thad served this state, but his time has passed. Give us something to be excited about. We don't want an asshole like Sarah Palin or McDaniel. Is it too much to ask that we get an open forum of ideas... Some fresh perspective not caught up in mythology and bullshit?

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen

Kinda bummed the McDaniel camp didn't have the theme from "Curb" playing at this presser.

Something else I noticed today: Chris McDaniel sounds like a grown-up Stewie Griffin. Maybe there's some VoiceOver work in his future.

Amen, 9:50.

The old days are over. Our current predicament is because the GOP old guard can't let go. That's the reason that a nobody peckerwood like McDaniel has been able to paralyze the process. If we weren't protecting sacred cows, then maybe we would have credible people to challenge our incumbents instead of scum like MCDaniel.

right on 9:50 !!!!!

Is it too late to draft Gil Carmichael??

Laughable that two of you come out of the woodwork (one of you being his wife) to support that goofy-trooper Garriga. And do you really propose that he appears less goofy because you also say Mack-Dan-You-Uhls is goofy? Fallacy much?

Cochran should have retained John Arthur, the elder. At least we could have imagined Pat Boone waving from a Corvette convertible.

Were all the Barbour family lawyers in Destin or at Orange Beach for the week? Or sunning on Bee Lake?

"He (Garriga) looks like he sounds like he is about to beat their asses." What does that even MEAN?

Totally agree with 9:50.

Did anyone even proof this? The affidavits on pages 46 and 48 both feature a "drivers license" that personally appeared to swear before the notary. Apparently they have some pretty darn sophisticated ID's in Texas. Biometric identification that even swears out your affidavit for you!

Yawn. Unfortunately, they didn't have a mount from which McDaniel could sermonize, but he made due.

What's sad is that a lot of these pissed off tea party idiots will refuse to vote for Thad in the general election. I've already hears lots of them actually talking about voting for the (D). That's how dumb some of these folks are. They would sacrifice control of the United States senate for getting their point across. A point that has no merit anyway.

These people are absolute republican party terrorists. They claim to be hardcore conservatives but would still go vote for Childers just to get their point across? Are they serious? Wake up Mississippi... we have even more dumbasses in our midst than we thought.

JONES COUNTY STRONG!!!!!

5:48AM- Person you made fun of right here. I was drinking last night and enjoying this shit show.

Paraphrased from the great Winston Churchill: "I may have been drunk last night and messed up on a sentence, but I woke up sober and coherent today. You, on the other hand, are still dumb."

Garriga's about to slaughter Mitch and his terrible "challenge". You can call him a hick all you want while he takes your sacrificial lamb of a lawyer to the woodshed if it makes you feel better about yourself.

11:04 am Republican party terrorists? Are you kidding me? Stoop to the liberal level of accusing voters of being terrorists? In my opinion - the people soliciting votes from the dems are the real terrorists in this situation. Did ya see where A. Barbours roomie at Ole Miss was given a large amount of 'walking around money' not accounted for? FYI, I will not vote in November and more than likely tens of thousands will do the same.

6:45 pm Please, please promise me you will never vote again!