tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post7687656996227354280..comments2024-03-28T22:42:45.199-05:00Comments on Jackson Jambalaya: Kellum and Senate raceKingfishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06184990110961727404noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-40729871101127152262014-09-07T17:57:03.681-05:002014-09-07T17:57:03.681-05:005:27, timeline much appreciated. That is pretty m...5:27, timeline much appreciated. That is pretty much how McGehee ruled on the case, as well: that the strict 20-days-from-June-24th deadline applies. I liked McGehee, he seemed a fair judge; I still think the election code is obviously busted (candidate does not have 12 days for box-review if they must file within 20 days). <br /><br />As you point out, the "full" filing by McDaniel lawyers was not completed until 8/7, with supplementals. If the law-as-set-by-Kellum-precedent is strictly followed, candidates would have to file *WOEFULLY* incomplete challenges, based on a box-review of a few biz-days. Also, note that the deadline-slips by Pete Perry at the county-level and Delbert Hosemann at the state-level (not certifying county results within the 4-day-deadline and not certifying state results within the 10-day-deadline) were NOT considered by McGehee as pertinent. That is very worrisome to me, going forward. <br /><br />Anyways, methinks that the state legislature will likely do some election reform effort in the next few years, and sort out the deadlines so they are non-overlapping, and so that failure to perform by actors early in the process, does not unduly penalize actors who are statutorily far later in the process. I expect in the end the affidavit-deadline will be 5 bizdays, the county-cert-deadline will be 2 bizdays after that is finished, the state-cert-deadline will be 2 bizdays after that is finished, the box-review-period will be 10 bizdays, the public-records-review will be 5 bizdays, the challenge-filing-deadline will be 1 more bizday, the SREC meeting will be mandated to occur exactly one week after the challenge-filing, the SREC will be given ~5 bizdays to deliberate, and if the SREC does not act by then, the candidate must file in court. This approach will leave about 4 weeks for courtcases (including all appeals) to be finished before mid-September... which is not really enough time. Maybe the date of primary-elections will be moved up, or maybe the date of ballot-printing will be moved down. There is a furor over the USPS four-day-guarantee about ballot-delivery in DC, that I heard about recently. <br /><br />1:35, not sure what you have against JPH, but he is definitely quite savvy about the MS election code. Your 95-5 wager would have drawn more takers than his 50-50 wager. Personally I was guessing that McGehee would stay the motion to dismiss until after the evidence was heard, without prejudice to the motion (my guess was wrong). In any case, there is now going to be an appeal to the MS supremes. Do you have a wager on that outcome, as upholding McGehee's reading, or overturning it? And what about a wager for whether there is an attempt to appeal at the federal level, either by Garrick (which JPH says that guy has done in the past) or by the McDaniel lawyers? Your prediction of August 28th was good, so I'd be interested to hear your further predictions on these future possibilities & probabilities. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-30375599611922746062014-08-28T13:35:05.927-05:002014-08-28T13:35:05.927-05:007:36 most interesting part of your comments is why...7:36 most interesting part of your comments is why in the world would anybody in GA bother to get JPH to comment on anything - particularly election law of which he knows nothing. <br /><br />While 'rules of evidence and other court procedures' have been overhauled, there have been no court cases since Kellum on the question of a deadline. The election statutes have been rewritten twice since Kellum and neither rewriting or any other minor changes have been made to the relevent code sections. <br /><br />My bet (95-5) is much larger than JPH's based on the Judge looking to see if Kellum is "good law" (nothing different found by MSSC since Kellum).<br />Not John Pittman Heynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-25048421710436339742014-08-27T07:36:23.043-05:002014-08-27T07:36:23.043-05:00John Pittman Hey, who sometimes posts here, gave a...John Pittman Hey, who sometimes posts here, gave an online-radio-interview (with somebody in Georgia named Will Stauff) which discussed the 20-day-deadline question, and Kellum. According to JPH, the current statutes covering local and county elections specify the 20-day-deadline, but the (separate) statutes covering statewide elections do not mention any deadline. Kellum in 1959 was arguing that the 20-day-deadline applies anyway, as I understand it. <br /><br />JPH says the motion to dismiss is a coinflip, 50/50 for dismissal and 50/50 the case will be heard; he specifically mentioned the overhaul of rules of evidence and other court procedures in the 1970s. I believe the motions will be heard on the 28th, so we will see what happens. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-10423764563393121562014-08-26T14:05:55.197-05:002014-08-26T14:05:55.197-05:00The Clarion Ledger is reporting that McDaniel has ...The Clarion Ledger is reporting that McDaniel has filed his response to the motion to dismiss. Looking forward to seeing the actual document, but the report indicates he is making a predictable argument that Kellum doesn't apply because it was decided prior to the current version of the statutes on election challenges.<br /><br />However, since the wording on the time requirements has not changed between the prior and current versions, that argument seems unconvincing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-1512731349921632462014-08-25T17:44:20.415-05:002014-08-25T17:44:20.415-05:00Sounds like McD and Tyner are just SOL on the 20 d...Sounds like McD and Tyner are just SOL on the 20 days from June 24 to challenge the election with the SREC. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-2075522283135009132014-08-25T17:27:56.059-05:002014-08-25T17:27:56.059-05:003:37 - Timeline requested.
First primary Tuesday ...3:37 - Timeline requested.<br /><br />First primary Tuesday June 3rd.<br /><br />Any contest would have to be filed by Monday, June 23rd. (The basis I believe for the 20 day time limit - to have contests filed before the runoff election.)<br /><br />Second primary Tuesday June 24th.<br /><br />Certification must happen by statute within 10 days, or July 4th. But because July 4th is a holiday, it moves to the next day, which in this case was a Saturday; thus the deadline was July 7th.<br /><br />Certification by State Executive Committee occurred July 7th.<br /><br />Examination of ballot boxes can begin after certification and after having given the opposing candidate(s) 3 days notice. In this case, the notice was given to Cochran prior to the certification, so the 12 days time frame began on July 8th (after certification) and ended July 19th. Examination time of 12 days includes Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.<br /><br />Any contest must be filed within 20 days of the election - in this case - July 14th.<br /><br />Statute was changed in last couple of years requiring that any appeal of the state committee (or if committee refuses to act) must be filed within 10 days of filing with committee. Law used to say it must be filed "forthwith" and much case law over how many days "forthwith" meant. <br /><br />McDaniel filed with State Committee on August 4th - although he actually didn't file complete petition with attachments until three or four days later. <br /><br />As to when he filed with the Circuit Court, if you assume that he could ignore the first requirement (20 days of the election) the only timeline left was that he file with the Court by August 14th - or if you consider the 'complete petition' - I guess it would be August 17th.<br /><br />The reasons for these deadlines is quite clear as has been explained in Kellum and many many other SC rulings. The point is to complete the contest period in time for the remainder of the election process to proceed. In this case:<br /><br />Ballots must be printed and mailed 45 days prior to the general election; September 22st.<br /><br />If a judge were to rule a new election from the contest, the election would have to be held at the latest by September 16th, in order for the results to be certified and get ballots printed - and that would be a push.<br /><br />If a new election were ordered, the candidates would need time to campaign - lets say a minimum of three weeks. That being the case, the trial would need to be completed by August 25th. And in this case, the judge is anticipating a several weeks trial.<br /><br />Ergo, the reasons for all these deadlines and a strict compliance with them. And while we are at it, other court cases that say these laws are to be strictly followed and cannot be extended by the courts. <br /><br />Hopefully this timeline answers what you were look for and helps.Timeline here.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-9413059924165583722014-08-25T17:10:50.148-05:002014-08-25T17:10:50.148-05:004:02, BS. Absolute BS. Just like your earlier co...4:02, BS. Absolute BS. Just like your earlier comments here. You use Ricky Cole - ED of the state democrat party - statement about what 'he had heard' as your evidence? Yes, he pointed to Scooby Doo, a long-time Dem operative he is evidently quite familiar with as working for folks associated with the PAC. But that was a get-out-the-vote effort. Not vote buying. Totally different, even if Chrissy says differently.<br /><br />Campaigns have been using paid workers to get-out-the-vote (GOTV) for years. People walking the street canvassing neighborhoods; passing out literature; working ballgames and shopping centers; holding signs on election day; hauling voters to the polls. <br /><br />Not vote buying - just good campaigning. And Chrissy's campaign did it as well - just not as good evidently. As I said, Scoobby Doo's involvement does not equate to "vote buying". One is totally legal and normal electioneering. The other is a criminal act. You accuse folks of the criminal act based on Ricky's assertion that Scooby Doo was involved?<br /><br />Yes, Ronnie Cruddep was involved. The PAC worked with Cruddep's PAC in GOTV efforts. Again - vote buying? Not at all. No evidence, just charges made by Chrissy, and repeated by you and other idiots that believe everything he says as gospel.<br /><br />The 'text message' shown by Fielder? Hardly evidence. Fielder was paid $300, with another $300 after performance, for carrying voters to the polls, which he didn't perform. But the $15/voter in envelopes is part of his lies. Workers were being paid - in cash - for walking the neighborhoods and GOTV. That's why they wanted names, addresses and SSNs. To be able to report the workers. Why would they want that info for illegal vote buying efforts?<br /><br />And then, of course, is that hard evidence of what someone says she heard her mother say that her mother heard another poll worker say, and how her mother interpreted it. Obviously good clear evidence there. Why not go to the mother, and to the other poll workers? Probably because they wouldn't get the storyline that they wanted - just like all their other "evidence".<br /><br />Grow up. Understand that your boy is making up stories so that fools like you will keep on sending in your $75, or $50, or now $35 - too keep his ego growing. Despite any truths. Reality check here...noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-56498937408797572012014-08-25T16:59:55.555-05:002014-08-25T16:59:55.555-05:003:37 - the 20 day time limit is the requirement to...3:37 - the 20 day time limit is the requirement to file a challenge. The statute says that the challenge would be first filed with the State Ex Committee - the deadline applies to that filing, not the filing with the Court.<br /> <br />Once filed with the Ex Comm, the contestant has ten days in which to file with the court. <br /><br />As to the 12 days for examination of the ballot boxes, that cannot begin until after certification. It can overlap with the 20 days for filing the challenge. Yes, they can overlap, but they do not conflict. If more issues were found during the exam after the filing with the State Committee, then they could be raised during the contest by amending the pleadings.<br /><br />The federal law that you say the TTV folks raised have no contriadictions with the state law on redactions. The fed law deals with registration procedures, not with voting. The TTV folks are evidently just as inept as the McDaniel legal team.<br /><br />There are no contradictions in these state laws, despite the claims made by McD or any of the various commentators on blog sites. This is not the first election contest we have seen in this state - just one of the few that has drawn statewide attention. There are many problems with our election laws in MS, but these issues over the timing and requirements for election contests are not one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-33407289198932729612014-08-25T16:04:13.460-05:002014-08-25T16:04:13.460-05:001:31
Wow. That's huge. If Cochran has the let...1:31<br />Wow. That's huge. If Cochran has the letter of transmittal to both sides from Nosef enclosing Kellum, I can see that being brought out. No excuses then for McD. Hope that is made clear to the Judge. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-8328805293932189892014-08-25T16:02:59.861-05:002014-08-25T16:02:59.861-05:002:12,
I don't know what Nosef sent to McDaniel...2:12,<br />I don't know what Nosef sent to McDaniel, but presumably as a lawyer, not to mention Chair of the Mississippi Senate Committee on Elections, McDaniel was or should have been familiar with both the statutes and Kellum. I don't really see that he can plead ignorance, and unless Nosef told him something that was clearly wrong and upon which he could rely, I don't think it much matters what Nosef told him. I assume, if there was something in error in Nosef's communication, that will come out at the motion hearing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-33223694689318220542014-08-25T14:33:44.516-05:002014-08-25T14:33:44.516-05:001:31, my understanding is that when Nosef became a...1:31, my understanding is that when Nosef became aware of Kellum, he sent copies of it both camps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-67710602907096643262014-08-25T14:12:15.741-05:002014-08-25T14:12:15.741-05:0012:40,
You have to read the Kellum case as it appl...12:40,<br />You have to read the Kellum case as it applies the election challenge statutes that are the predecessor statutes of the current statutes and are essentially unchanged as to the issue before the court now. 23-15-921 sets forth the twenty day period to challenge for county elections. 23-15-923 covers state, congressional and judicial elections, but does not mention a time limit for a challenge. The court in Kellum read the similar statues in that case as incorporating the 20 day limit for district and congressional elections as well. Since the statutes in Kellum are essentially the same as the current statutes on this point, Kellum appears to apply unless the Miss. Supreme Court overrules Kellum. Hence the challenge is too late.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-1809654414164592682014-08-25T13:31:44.290-05:002014-08-25T13:31:44.290-05:0012:40
Not a statute limitations, but the requireme...12:40<br />Not a statute limitations, but the requirement from 23-15-921 of 20 days applied as a condition precedent to a statewide election challenge under 23-15-923 by the MS S.Ct. in Kellum because the two statutes have to be read together as part of the same act, all under the same time requirement. <br /><br />But exactly what did Nosef send McD: a copy of Kellum? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-47628232063966125682014-08-25T13:07:18.911-05:002014-08-25T13:07:18.911-05:00That is what the Kellum case is about. The next se...That is what the Kellum case is about. The next section 23-15-923 is the successor to 3144 referenced in Kellum. It puts no time limit on state or Congressional primaries. But the Supremes held in Kellum as you can from KF posting the case that 3143 and 3144 that the two sections have to be read "in para materia" Team Cochran took it one step further and provided a case that basically says that if a code section is materially unchanged from a previous version, then caselaw based on the previous version flows through to the new version. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-45832996429257797812014-08-25T12:40:08.640-05:002014-08-25T12:40:08.640-05:0023-15-921 deals specifically with county elections...23-15-921 deals specifically with county elections based on my reading. Is there a statute that places a time limit on a statewide election contest?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-88937747488028125642014-08-25T11:10:55.866-05:002014-08-25T11:10:55.866-05:00Aug 22 at 1:48pm
I do not understand what Nosef se...Aug 22 at 1:48pm<br />I do not understand what Nosef sent to the McD folks: was it just the statute, or the Kellum case or both? Does anyone know? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-91010832724235091362014-08-25T07:50:14.975-05:002014-08-25T07:50:14.975-05:0023-15-92123-15-921Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-4132477554319456202014-08-25T07:48:39.830-05:002014-08-25T07:48:39.830-05:004:02am The idea that you can pay anyone to vote fo...4:02am The idea that you can pay anyone to vote for your candidate is a fool's game.<br /><br />You can pay people to go vote but you can't rely on them to vote for your candidate. And, you couldn't be sure the person you give money is even registered and does anything other than walk in and walk out. You can't be sure they are literate enough to read the candidate's name! Are these " walker's " conducting literacy tests on the streets so they'd know the person can accurately pick out names? Are the walker's hauling around registration books for every voter to verify names? And you have to check for voter photo ID? <br /><br />Where are these interrogations taking place?<br /><br />If the walker's are just handing over money to some guy like Fielder, they the money is in Fielder's pocket and stays there! The vote isn't compromised, the candidate's staff is throwing away money!<br /><br />It's a fool indeed who would use campaign money to try to " buy votes" in this way.<br /><br />In getting out the vote, people are often given money to transport others to the polls who otherwise have no means of getting there. Preachers are often given money to organize transport for members of their congregation, particularly the elderly. That some many pocket some of that money wouldn't surprise me. That some of the people they transport don't vote for the person they are told to cast their vote for is a certainty.<br /><br />How is it that you think this works? Somebody just walks the streets hoping to find a registered voter? If they are, they are going to find that half the people eligible to vote aren't registered and another 25% of those voting age are ineligible to vote. So they are out there looking for that 1 in 4. And, of that 1 in 4, 5-10% would take your money and not do what you told them!<br /><br />And " registered" is a key word here. Getting people registered is something that might involve expense to get them to a courthouse. That's part of getting out the vote.<br /><br />I love lawyers, I really do but try not to get so caught up in case law that you miss the basics. There is no need to cite case law because there is no evidence illegal voting took place! There are no credible witnesses. There is no physical evidence. And, the claims of fraud are incredible especially with a photo voter ID law!<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-41434008480692095682014-08-25T07:47:21.898-05:002014-08-25T07:47:21.898-05:00Can someone give me a citation for the code sectio...Can someone give me a citation for the code section that replaced 3143? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-33354240656890553532014-08-24T21:50:18.770-05:002014-08-24T21:50:18.770-05:00I don't know, but it's ironic nobody has m...I don't know, but it's ironic nobody has mentioned the clear violation of the Constitution he's talking about in the fundraising letter when he says McGehee could remove Thad from office. Article 2, Section 4; yet the Constitutional Conservatives parade on after ignorance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-41570088174012876372014-08-24T21:04:57.784-05:002014-08-24T21:04:57.784-05:00When someone hands you binding precedent warning y...When someone hands you binding precedent warning you of a deadline, and you still file your complaint well after that deadline, then YES, I think politics may be in play. Anyone who passed the bar knows what a procedural defect is. The court has no choice but to follow the law. The "evidence" was never there. Tyner and McD needed something else to keep this whole thing going. The "Us against them" argument is not as far-fetched as some may think. Amazing that people are still following him and refusing to question the motives behind this farce. Can someone please explain what is so appealing about this clown? Surely not the bagpipes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-28102765039306132642014-08-24T20:51:52.132-05:002014-08-24T20:51:52.132-05:00Anonymous 4:02: I've listened to the recording...Anonymous 4:02: I've listened to the recording of Julie Patrick. The complaint characterizes her recording as her observation whereas the recording is her description of what her mother told her that she thought she might be<br />seeing. It is the rankest form of hearsay, and it isn't <br />even clear whether the interview is taking place where<br />the nonwitness Ms. Patrick is speaking in lieu of an affidavit. Is there an explanation why the mother hasn't submitted an affidavit herself? The Barbour mafia dumped<br />her in the Yazoo? I don't think I need a judge to sort out<br />that one for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-38619474130116606032014-08-24T14:35:51.279-05:002014-08-24T14:35:51.279-05:00I don't think they're smart enough to hatc...I don't think they're smart enough to hatch a plot like that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-70441454795737885882014-08-24T12:58:57.083-05:002014-08-24T12:58:57.083-05:00I think they intentionally filed late so it would ...I think they intentionally filed late so it would be thrown out on process rather than on the merits because this is a political "us against them" argument that has no basis in the law. They wasted a lot of time chasing political accusations that have no prayer in court - vote-buying, race-baiting, etc. - because it is obvious to everyone that there are not nearly enough ineligible votes in a true legal sense to affect the outcome. Having it tossed on process busts proves their case to the paranoid fringe. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2447438783001404385.post-34465269876991682812014-08-24T04:02:55.133-05:002014-08-24T04:02:55.133-05:002:10, on the question of whether there was vote-bu...2:10, on the question of whether there was vote-buying, I have no "new" evidence for you, or the cops for that matter. But you may not be aware of what evidence already exists, methinks, since you seem to believe Fielder's internally-contradictory verbal allegations are the whole of it. This is what I have seen: <br /><br />1. mid June, verbal allegations from Rickey Cole, that people like Scooby Doo Warren were being hired, and that the likely reason was "walking around money". Later, FEC confirmation that Scooby Doo Warren was in fact hired, and paid five digits by Ronnie Crudup, using money provided by Henry Barbour (some of which came from sitting repub Senators). You can do some googling, and read the top few hits for these keywords: scooby doo warren henry barbour tea party case study. This is mostly in Hinds/Rankin/Madison counties (Jackson area), as I understand the geography, but may have been more widespread. <br /><br />2. late June, allegations by Fielder, later partially retracted, and even later inverted. You can discount his VERBAL statements if you wish, but you cannot ignore the text-message from Saleem, and the confirmation from Russell that policy was to pay walkers w/ cash-in-envelopes. The only question is, how MANY walkers were paid in cash, and how much were they paid; I expect the lawsuit to answer such questions, during the discovery-phase. This is Lauderdale county. See gotnews.com for most of the coverage of Fielder/Saleem/Shook in a one-stop-shopping-convenience format (or if you have an aversion to Chuck Johnson's sensationalism then just do some googling for the names). <br /><br />3. sometime in August (or earlier but I missed it perhaps), an affidavit from pollworker Julie somebody, in Marshall county, that she heard people explicitly discussing how to spend the vouchers they were given for voting. See mcdaniel2014.com (search the 243-page pdf for 'voucher' or if you cannot find it I will dig up the pdf-page-num) <br /><br />That is three different sets of allegations, in three different areas. Maybe it is *all* smoke with no actual fires... but I want McGehee to decide that, based on evidence presented before the court, as opposed to you and I trying to guess the answer here in the blog-comments. <br /><br />More importantly, these are just allegations, at the moment. Whether there is any truth to the allegations, will require a court case, with testimony under oath, subpoena of communications amongst the parties, and a determination of how many people were paid exactly how much for what specific acts. Only that will tell us whether the allegations are provably true, maybe true but not beyond a reasonable doubt, or just noise. Time will tell (unless the case is dismissed). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com