MS Legislature Brief for appeal on #42A ballot initiative

8/9/2019 MS Legislature Brief for appeal on #42A ballot initiative

1/70

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2015-TS-00605

LEGISLATUR E OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLANT

v.

ADR IAN SHIPMAN, et al. APPELLEES

On A ppeal fr om the Circuit Cour t of the

Fir st Jud icial Distr ict of Hind s County, Mississi ppi

______________________________________________________________________________

BRIEF OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF

MISSISSIPPI IN SUPPORT OF THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION ______________________________________________________________________________

Michael B. Wallace (MB #5904) Char les E. Cowan (MB #104478)

WISE CAR TER CHILD & CAR AWAY, P.A.

Post Off ice Box 651Jack son, Mississi ppi 39205-0651

Tele phone: 601-968-5500

Att or neys f or t he Legislat ur e o f t he S t at e o f M ississi ppi

-Filed Document Apr 24 2015 12:49:54 2015-TS-00605 Pages: 29


2/70

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHOR ITIES .......................................................................................................... i

INTR ODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................................2

AR GUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4

I. THIS COUR T MUST DETERMINE DE N OVO ITS OWN JUR ISDICTION AND THE JUR ISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COUR T. .......4

II. THE CIRCUIT COUR T HAD NO JUR ISDICTION UNDER § 23-17-13TO R EVIEW THE BALLOT TITLE COMPOSED BY GENER AL HOOD

UNDER § 23-17-33. ................................................................................................8

A. Or d inar y pr inci ples of statutor y constr uction esta blish that

General Hood ’s title und er § 23-17-33 may not be reviewed

by the Circuit Cour t und er § 23-17-13. ........................................................8

B. Jud icial review of General Hood ’s title und er § 23-17-33

would raise insur mounta ble constitutional pr oblems. ...............................15

III. THIS COUR T HAS JUR ISDICTION OVER THE LEGISLATUR E’S

APPEAL. ..............................................................................................................19

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................22

CER TIFICATE OF SER VICE .....................................................................................................24

Exhi bit 1- I n r e S t oner or d er

Exhi bit 2- I n r e S t oner br ief


3/70

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Allr ed v. Webb, 641 So. 2d 1218 (Miss. 1994) ........................................................................11, 13

American I nt erinsur ance Exchange v. Occid ent al F ir e & C as. C o.,

835 F.2d 157 (7th Cir . 1987) ..............................................................................................7

Atwood C hevr olet -Old s , I nc. v. Aber d een M un. S ch. Dist .,

431 So. 2d 926 (Miss. 1983) ..............................................................................................20

Baker v. C arr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ...............................................................................................17

Bar nes v. Bar nett , 241 Miss. 206, 129 So. 2d 638 (1961) .......................................................16, 17

Belk v. Bean, 247 So. 2d 821 (Miss. 1971) ....................................................................................22

Boar d o f Tr ust ees o f S t at e I nst . o f H igher Lear ning v. Ra y,

809 So. 2d 627 (Miss. 2002) ..............................................................................................15

Bor eri v. F iat S.P. A. 763 F.2d 17 (1st Cir . 1985) ............................................................................7

Br um field v. Br ock , 169 Miss. 784, 142 So. 745 (1932) .........................................................16, 17

Cit y o f H oust on v. Tri- Lakes , Lt d., 681 So. 2d 104 (Miss. 1996) ..................................................13

Cit y o f N at che z v. Sullivan, 612 So. 2d 1087 (Miss. 1992) ...........................................................10

Clar k v. S t at e ex r el. M iss. S t at e Med. Ass’n, 381 So. 2d 1046 (Miss. 1980) .................................9

Cr um p v. Boar d o f Super visors, 52 Miss. 107 (1876) .............................................................19, 21

Derr Plant ation, I nc. v. S war ek , 14 So. 3d 711 (Miss. 2009)..........................................................5

Dismukes v. S t okes, 41 Miss. 430 (1867).......................................................................................21

Ghane v. M id -Sout h I nst . o f S elf -De f ense Shooting, I nc.,

137 So. 3d 212 (Miss. 2014) ..............................................................................................17

Gibbs v. McI nt osh, 78 Miss. 648, 29 So. 465 (1901) ....................................................................16

Gilmer v. S t at e, 955 So. 2d 829 (Miss. 2007) ................................................................................10

H ansbr ough v. S t at e ex r el. Pitt man, 193 Miss. 461, 10 So. 2d 170 (1942) .................................20

H is W a y H omes , I nc. v. M ississi ppi Gaming C omm’n,

733 So. 2d 764 (Miss. 1999) ..............................................................................................12

H ughes v. H osemann, 68 So. 3d 1260 (Miss. 2011) ....................................................14, 15, 16, 17


4/70

iii

I ssaquena W arr en C ounties Land C o. v. W arr en C ount y,

996 So. 2d 747 (Miss. 2008) ................................................................................................5

J . R. W at k ins C o. v. Guess, 196 Miss. 438, 17 So. 2d 795 (1944)...............................................5, 6

J amie S. v. M ilwaukee Pub. S ch., 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir . 2012) .....................................................7

Je ff erson v. M ississi ppi S t at e H w y. C omm’n, 254 So. 2d 181 (Miss. 1971) ..................................6

K ellum v. J ohnson, 237 Miss. 580, 115 So. 2d 147 (1959) ...........................................................21

Lawson v. H oneywell I nt er nat ’l , I nc., 75 So. 3d 1024 (Miss. 2011) .............................................20

I n r e M . E .V . 120 So. 3d 405 (Miss. 2013) .......................................................................................5

M auld in v. Br anch, 866 So. 2d 429 (Miss. 2003) ..........................................................................17

McDaniel v. C ochr an, ____ So. 3d _____,2014 WL 5419723 (Miss. Oct. 24, 2014) ....................................................................16, 21

M ississi ppi Met hod ist H os p. & Rehab. Ctr . v. M iss. Div. o f Med icaid ,

21 So. 3d 600 (Miss. 2009) ......................................................................................9, 10, 12

Power v. Ratliff , 112 Miss. 88, 72 So. 864 (1916) .........................................................................17

Power v. Robertson, 130 Miss. 188, 93 So. 769 (1922) ................................................................16

I n r e Pr oposed I nitiative Measur e N o. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000) .....................4, 14, 19, 22

Sand ers v. S t at e, 63 So. 3d 497 (Miss. 2011) ................................................................................20

Sasser v. Cit y o f Richland , 850 So. 2d 206 (Miss. A pp. 2003)......................................................21

S ewar d v. Dogan, 198 Miss. 419, 21 So. 2d 292 (1945) .........................................................11, 12

S mit h v. Par kerson Lbr ., I nc., 890 So. 2d 832 (Miss. 2003) ...........................................................5

S t at e ex r el. H owie v. Br antley, 113 Miss. 786, 74 So. 562 (1917) ...............................................17

S t at e v. C ount y S ch. Bd., 181 Miss. 818, 181 So. 313 (1938) .......................................................15

I n r e S t oner , No. 1998-M-00945 (Miss. Oct. 14, 1998) ............................................................4, 19

T hor p C ommer cial C or p. v. M iss. Road Suppl y C o., 348 So. 2d 1016 (Miss. 1977) ....................21

U S F &G C o. v. C onser vat orshi p o f Melson, 809 So. 2d 647 (Miss. 2002)....................................14

W . H or ace W illiams C o. v Fed er al Cr ed it C o.,198 Miss. 111, 21 So. 2d 582 (Miss. 1945) .........................................................................6

W helan v. J ohnst on, 192 Miss. 673, 6 So. 2d 300 (1942) .............................................................20


5/70

iv

Statutes:

Miss. Const. § 273 (1890) ................................................................................................1, 9, 17, 22

Miss. Const. § 201 (1890) ..........................................................................................................1, 21

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 1-3-39 (R ev. 2014) ..........................................................................................12

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 9-3-9 (R ev. 2014) ......................................................................................19, 20

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 11-51-3 (Supp. 1999) .............................................................................. passim

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 11-51-75 (R ev. 2012) ................................................................................19, 21

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 11-51-81 (R ev. 2012) ......................................................................................21

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-1 (R ev. 2007) ..............................................................................9, 11, 15

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-9 (R ev. 2007) ................................................................................ passim

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-11 (R ev. 2007) ......................................................................................10

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-13 (R ev. 2007) .............................................................................. passim

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-23 (R ev. 2007) ......................................................................................15

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-25 (R ev. 2007) ......................................................................................15

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-29 (R ev. 2007) ..............................................................................1, 9, 12

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-31 (R ev. 2007) ..................................................................................1, 11

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-33 (R ev. 2007) .............................................................................. passim

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-45 (R ev. 2007) ......................................................................................15

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 51-9-115 (R ev. 2003) ......................................................................................21

Miss. Cod e Ann. § 63-11-26 (R ev. 2013) ......................................................................................21

82 C.J.S. S t at ut es § 252 (1953) ......................................................................................................22

Rules:

M.R .C.P. 54 ...................................................................................................................................20

M.R .C.P. 59 ...................................................................................................................................20

U.C.C.C.R 5.01-5.10 ........................................................................................................................8


6/70

1

INTRODUCTION

Since 1890, Miss. Const. § 273 (1890) has author ized the Legislature of the State of

Mississi ppi to pr opose to the electorate amend ments to the Constitution. In 1998, the voter s

a ppr oved an amend ment to § 273 per mitting the people themselves to pr opose constitutiona

amend ments thr ough the initiative pr ocess. Section 273(6) author izes the Legislature to adopt

amend, or re ject a pr oper ly submitted initiative. Where the Legislature amend s a pr oposed

initiative, § 273(7) requires that both pr oposed amend ments be submitted to the voter s.

Since its most recent amend ment in 1987, Miss. Const. § 201 (1890) has read :

The Legislature shall, by general law, pr ovid e f or the esta blishment,

maintenance and suppor t of free public schools upon such cond itions andlimitations as the Legislature may prescr i be.

In 2014, Secretar y of State Del ber t Hosemann cer tif ied that suff icient signatures had been obtained

to pr opose to the electorate an amend ment which he id entif ied as Initiative Measure No. 42:

To pr otect each child ’s f und amental r ight to educational oppor tunity, the State shall

pr ovid e f or the esta blishment, maintenance and suppor t of an ad equate and eff icient system of free public schools. The chancer y cour ts of this State shall have the

power to enf orce this section with a ppr opr iate in junctive relief .

Doc. 3, Ex. A.1 The Legislature, acting pur suant to Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-29 (R ev. 2007)

amend ed that pr oposal by pr oposal by adopting Alter native Measure No. 42A, which read s:

The Legislature shall, by general law, pr ovid e f or the esta blishment, maintenance

and suppor t of an effective system of free public schools.

Doc. 3, Ex. B. Pur suant to Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-31 (R ev. 2007), both pr oposals will be

presented to the voter s on Novem ber 3, 2015.

The language that will actually a ppear on the ballot consists of the ballot titles com posed

1 The Circuit Cler k has not yet f iled the recor d with the Cour t. However , a f ull copy of the Circui

Cour t File, together with the dock et sheet, is attached as Exhi bit 1 to the Legislature’s pend ing motion to

exped ite, f iled A pr il 17, 2015. This br ief will refer to each document f iled with the Circuit Cour t by the

document num ber it bear s on the dock et, together with a reference to the relevant page, paragra ph, or

exhi bit. The Cour t should note that the dock et begins with document num ber 3; f or some unexplained

reason, num ber s 1 and 2 do not a ppear on the dock et.


7/70

2

by Attor ney General Jim Hood. Acting pur suant to Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-9 (R ev. 2007)

General Hood com posed the f ollowing title f or Initiative Measure No. 42:

Should the State be required to pr ovid e f or the suppor t of an ad equate and eff icient

system of free public schools?

Doc. 3, Ex. C. Acting pur suant to Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-33 (R ev. 2007), he d eclined to acce pt

the ballot title pr oposed by the Legislature f or Alter native Measure No. 42A, and instead com posed

the f ollowing title:

Should the Legislature pr ovid e f or the esta blishment and suppor t of effective free

public schools without jud icial enf orcement?

Doc. 3, Ex. H. Pur por ted ly acting pur suant to Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-13 (R ev. 2007), the Circuit

Cour t f or the Fir st Jud icial Distr ict of Hind s County, the Honora ble Winston K idd presid ing

re jected General Hood ’s title and instead im posed the f ollowing title f or Alter native Measure No

42A:

Should the Legislature esta blish and suppor t effective schools, but not pr ovid e a

mechanism to enf orce that r ight?

Doc. 16.

The question presented by this Cour t’s or d er of A pr il 17, 2015, is whether this Cour t has

jur isd iction to review the Circuit Cour t’s f inal judgment.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On March 24, 2015, Ad r ian Shi pman f iled an unswor n petition, invok ing § 23-17-13 and

alleging that the ballot title com posed f or Alter native Measure No. 42A byAttor ney General Hood

failed to satisf y the requirements of § 23-17-33. Doc. 3. She named no adver se par ties, but alleged

that she had d elivered a copy of her petition to General Hood, Secretar y Hosemann, Lieutenant

Gover nor Tate R eeves, and S peak er of the House of R e presentatives Phili p Gunn. She ask ed that

the Cour t adopt its own ballot title, but sought no d eclarator y or coercive relief against anyone.


8/70

3

Although not named as a par ty, on March 27, 2015, General Hood f iled a res ponse to the

petition, asser ting that his ballot title met the requirements of § 23-17-33, as well as those im posed

by § 23-17-9. Doc. 6. General Hood explained how his ballot title met those stand ar d s:

In twenty wor d s, the ballot title f or Legislative Alter native 42A highlights

the essential d ifferences between the pr oposals in a fair , im par tial, non- pre jud icial,

and non-ar gumentative way:

a. The title f or Alter native 42A s pecif ies that the amend ment

im poses an obligation on “the Legislature” while the title f or Measure 42 ref lects the im position of an obligation on “the

State.”

b. The title f or Alter native 42A d escr i bes the nature of the

school system required by that measure as “effective free public schools” as opposed to the language in the title f or

Measure 42, “ad equate and eff icient system of free public schools.” In add ition, the “effective” ver sus “ad equate and

eff icient” ter minology ref lects the exact language used in the

f ull text of each pr oposed amend ment.

c. The phrase in the title f or Alter native 42A, “without jud icial

enf orcement,” highlights that the f ull text of Measure 42 pr ovid es f or a s pecif ic mechanism of jud icial enf orcement,

while Alter native 42A does not.

Doc. 6 at 6-7.

On March 30, 2015, the Legislature of the State of Mississi ppi moved to inter vene, Doc

7, and f iled a motion to d ismiss the petition on multi ple gr ound s. Doc. 8. On A pr il 1, 2015, Bobby

Moak and 49 other mem ber s of the House of R e presentatives moved to inter vene and ask ed the

Cour t to d eny inter vention to the Legislature. Doc. 12.

On A pr il 2, 2015, the Circuit Cour t conducted a hear ing at which no evid ence was

presented. In its judgment entered A pr il 6, 2015, Doc. 16, the Cour t per mitted inter vention by the

Legislature and the 50 ind ividual R e presentatives. The Cour t overr uled the Legislature’s motion

to d ismiss, f ind ing itself with jur isd iction over the petition “ pur suant to Miss. Cod e Ann. §§ 23-

17-33, 23-17-9, and 23-17-13.” The Cour t f ound that General Hood ’s title was not “tr ue and


9/70

4

im par tial,” as required by § 23-17-9, even though Shi pman mad e no such contention. The Cour t

also f ound that it failed to “ind icate as clear ly as possi ble, the d ifferences in the measure,” as

required by § 23-17-33. The Cour t gave no explanation of either f ind ing. The Cour t adopted a

d ifferent title pr oposed by Shi pman.

The Legislature f iled its notice of a ppeal on A pr il 16, 2015. Doc. 18.

ARGUMENT

I. THIS COURT MUST DETERMINE D E NOV O ITS OWN JURISDICTION AND

THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT.

This Cour t’s instr uction to the par ties in its or d er of A pr il 17, 2015, to “add ress whether

the Or d er entered by the Circuit Cour t of the Fir st Jud icial Distr ict of Hind s County on A pr il 6

2015, is a ppeala ble” must be consid ered in light of its hold ing in an ear lier case involving § 23-

17-13 that “the circuit cour t’s or d er was a f inal judgment und er Miss. Cod e Ann. § 11-51-3 (Supp

1999) and that, theref ore, ‘the pr oper mod e of review … is by way of d irect a ppeal, and not by

wr it of mand amus.’ I n r e S t oner , No. 1998-M-00945 (Miss. Oct. 14, 1998).” I n r e Pr oposed

I nitiative Measur e N o. 20, 774 So. 2d 397, 399 (Miss. 2000).

2

The d iff iculty is com pound ed by

Shi pman’s failure bef ore the Circuit Cour t to give ser ious attention to that Cour t’s jur isd iction

saying only, “The a ppeal pr ocedures f or the ballot title of a voter-s ponsored initiative measure also

a pply to a legislative alter native measure. Miss. Cod e Ann. §§ 23-17-33, 23-17-9.” Doc. 4 at 5

n.2. In that same paragra ph, Shi pman d eclared, “The d ecision of the Circuit Cour t is f inal. Miss

Cod e Ann. § 23-17-13.” Doc. 4 at 5.

Although she has never said so, presuma bly Shi pman will ar gue that the last sentence of

§ 23-17-13 d e pr ives this Cour t of the a ppellate jur isd iction it has already held to be availa ble

und er § 11-51-3. However , bef ore this Cour t can consid er Shi pman’s invitation to overr ule I n r e

2 A copy of the I n r e S t oner or d er is attached hereto as Exhi bit 1.


10/70

5

Pr oposed I nitiative Measur e N o. 20, it must d eter mine whether § 23-17-13 vested the Circuit Court

with jur isd iction to review the ballot title f or Alter native Measure No. 42A com posed by Genera

Hood und er § 23-17-33. If § 23-17-13 d id not vest the Circuit Cour t with jur isd iction in the f ir s

place, then it cer tainly cannot d ivest this Cour t of jur isd iction to rever se the Circuit Cour t’s

unauthor ized judgment. The resolution of this a ppeal, then, requires this Cour t to d eter mine both

its own jur isd iction and that of the Circuit Cour t.

The A pr il 17 or d er exem plif ies the r ule that this Cour t must d eter mine its own jur isd iction

S ee , e.g., I n r e M . E .V ., 120 So. 3d 405, 407 (Miss. 2013) (“Whether the par ties raise the issue or

not, we must d eter mine whether the judgment bef ore us is an a ppeala ble one.”). Accor d, S mit h v

Par kerson Lbr ., I nc., 890 So. 2d 832, 834 (Miss. 2003). Because the Circuit Cour t d id not and

could not mak e any r uling on this Cour t’s jur isd iction, jur isd iction here must necessar ily be

d eter mined d e novo.

This Cour t a pplies the same r ule when it reviews the judgment of a lower cour t

“Jur isd iction is a question of law, which this Cour t reviews d e novo.” Derr Plant ation, I nc. v

S war ek , 14 So. 3d 711, 715 (Miss. 2009), quoting I ssaquena W arr en C ounties Land C o. v. W arr en

C ount y, 996 So. 2d 747, 749 (Miss. 2008). Or d inar ily, of cour se, this inquir y concer ns which

lower cour t pr oper ly had jur isd iction over a civil action.

Shi pman, however , inf or med the Circuit Cour t at the hear ing that her petition does not

constitute a civil action gover ned by the Mississi ppi R ules of Civil Pr ocedure. She said that the

pr oceed ings d escr i bed in § 23-17-13 constitute an a ppeal of a d ecision by the Attor ney General

While the issue rarely ar ises, this Cour t lik ewise reviews the jur isd iction of an inter med iate

a ppellate cour t on a d e novo basis.

In J . R. W at k ins C o. v. Guess, 196 Miss. 438, 17 So. 2d 795 (1944), a plaintiff a ppealed

fr om the judgment of a Circuit Cour t which had rever sed an ear lier judgment entered in its favor


11/70

6

by a justice of the peace. Defend ants, however , had failed to f ile a pr oper bond f or their a ppeal to

the Circuit Cour t. This Cour t held, “The requirement as to bond is mand ator y and jur isd ictional

… The a ppeal was a nullity. The circuit cour t had no jur isd iction.” 17 So. 2d at 796 (citations

omitted ).3 Because the Circuit Cour t had no a ppellate jur isd iction “to hear this case on the mer its,”

this Cour t conclud ed that “we have no such jur isd iction, and can only enter here the judgment

which the Circuit Cour t should have rend ered, i.e., d ismiss the a ppeal to the Circuit Cour t, leaving

the judgment of the justice of the peace in f ull f orce and effect.” I d.

A similar issue ar ose the next year in W . H or ace W illiams C o. v. Fed er al Cr ed it C o., 198

Miss. 111, 21 So. 2d 582 (Miss. 1945). A County Cour t rend ered judgment in favor of a d efend ant

on its cr oss- bill, and the adver se par ties a ppealed to the Circuit Cour t. The Circuit Cour t d ismissed

the a ppeal, and this Cour t agreed that a ppellate jur isd iction pr oper ly lay in the Chancer y Cour t

This Cour t acce pted jur isd iction of the a ppeal and r uled that the Circuit Cour t instead should have

transferred the a ppeal to the Chancer y Cour t. 21 So. 2d at 583. This Cour t d eclined to “touch

upon the mer its of the case,” but limited itself to “mak ing the or d er which the Circuit Cour t should

have mad e.” I d. at 584.

In the pr ocess of d eter mining its own jur isd iction, then, this Cour t will necessar ily

d eter mine whether the Circuit Cour t had jur isd iction over Shi pman’s petition. If the Circuit Court

lack ed a ppellate jur isd iction, then this Cour t will or d er the petition d ismissed, as the Circuit Cour t

should have done. If § 23-17-13 d id not vest the Circuit Cour t with a ppellate jur isd iction over

General Hood ’s d ecision, there can be no ar gument that any pr ovision of that ina pplica ble statute

d ivests this Cour t of its jur isd iction to correct the err oneous judgment of the Circuit Cour t, as

pr oper ly exercised in J . R. W at k ins and W . H or ace W illiams.

3 The Cour t re jected the ar gument that the Circuit Cour t could per mit a subsequent cure of the

failure to post a pr oper bond, a hold ing overr uled by Je ff erson v. M ississi ppi S t at e H w y. C omm’n, 254 So

2d 181, 182 (Miss. 1971).


12/70

7

To preser ve the Circuit Cour t’s judgment, then, Shi pman must per suad e the Cour t on both

issues. Fir st, Shi pman must esta blish that § 23-17-13 entitled her to a ppeal to the Circuit Court

the ballot title com posed by General Hood. Second, she must convince the Cour t that the last

sentence of § 23-17-13 d ivests this Cour t of jur isd iction to consid er the Legislature’s a ppeal

Failure to per suad e the Cour t on the second question requires this Cour t to pr oceed to the mer its

failure to convince the Cour t on the f ir st question resolves the mer its and requires rever sal of the

Circuit Cour t’s judgment. Because a pr oper constr uction of § 23-17-13 d eter mines both

jur isd iction and the mer its, this Cour t may wish to consid er post ponement of the jur isd ictiona

question f or d eter mination along with the mer its. Such a cour se of action will allow this Cour t to

consid er its jur isd iction with a f ull und er stand ing of all as pects of the case.4 That may be

par ticular ly im por tant here, where the wr itten recor d is so s par se. Much was said by the par ties at

the hear ing to clar if y their positions, but the hear ing has not yet been transcr i bed. The f ull recor d

may assist with the resolution of all issues.

Never theless, if this Cour t wishes to d eter mine its jur isd iction without a f ull set of br ief s

on the mer its and oral ar gument, it may cer tainly do so. The answer , as d emonstrated hereaf ter , is

that § 23-17-13 vests no jur isd iction in the Circuit Cour t to consid er General Hood ’s d ecision

und er § 23-17-33, nor , even if it d id, does § 23-17-13 d ivest this Cour t of jur isd iction to review

the Circuit Cour t’s f inal judgment.

4 It is not uncommon in the fed eral a ppellate system f or questions of jur isd iction to be consid ered

at the same time as the mer its. When a jur isd ictional issue ar ises, a ppellate cour ts will of ten instr uct the

par ties to br ief both jur isd iction and the mer its and will consid er those questions together af ter ora

ar gument. S ee, e.g., J amie S. v. M ilwaukee Pub. S ch., 668 F.3d 481, 485 (7th Cir . 2012); American I nt erinsur ance Exchange v. Occid ent al F ir e & C as. C o., 835 F.2d 157, 158-59 (7th Cir . 1987); Bor eri v

F iat S.P. A., 763 F.2d 17 (1st Cir . 1985).


13/70

8

II. THE CIRCUIT COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION UNDER § 23-17-13 TO

REVIEWTHE BALLOT TITLE COMPOSED BY GENERAL HOOD UNDER § 23-

17-33.

Shi pman’s petition mad e clear what she wanted the Circuit Cour t to do, but she gave no

clear statement of the basis of the Cour t’s jur isd iction. She invok ed the Cour t’s jur isd iction by

f iling a document entitled “PETITION APPEALING THE ATTOR NEY GENER AL’S BALLOT

TITLE FOR LEGISLATIVE ALTER NATIVE MEASUR E 42A.” Doc. 3. Paragra ph 9 of the

petition sim ply d eclared, “This a ppeal is tak en within the time allowed by Mississi ppi Cod e § 23-

17-13 f or a ppealing a ballot title f or mulated by the Attor ney General.” Although she f iled no

notice of a ppeal und er U.C.C.C.R . 5.04,

5

she announced at the hear ing that she was pur suing an

a ppeal and not a civil action gover ned by the Mississi ppi R ules of Civil Pr ocedure.

Here, General Hood com posed a ballot title f or Alter native Measure No. 42A und er the

author ity d elegated to him by the Legislature und er § 23-17-33. The Circuit Cour t’s jur isd iction

in this case d e pend s upon whether the Legislature in § 23-17-13 author ized the Circuit Cour t to

review General Hood ’s d ischar ge of his duties und er § 23-17-33.6 Or d inar y pr inci ples of jud icia

constr uction d ictate that § 23-17-13 does not author ize jud icial review of General Hood ’s conduct

und er § 23-17-33. In add ition, the pr inci ple of constitutional avoid ance d ictates that § 23-17-13

must be constr ued as not per mitting jud icial review of a d ecision und er § 23-17-33.

A. Ordinary principles of statutory construction establish that General Hood’s

title under § 23-17-33 may not be reviewed by the Circuit Court under § 23-

17-13.

Acting und er § 23-17-33, General Hood com posed a title f or the Legislature’s Alter native

5 Ind eed, she com plied with none of the r ules gover ning a ppeals set f or th in U.C.C.C.R . 5.01-5.10

6 It is not necessar y to d eter mine whether some other pr ovision of law might also author ize jud icia

review of General Hood ’s ballot title adopted und er § 23-17-33. The last sentence of § 23-17-13, which

ar gua bly d ivests this Cour t of a ppellate jur isd iction, can a pply only to Circuit Cour t pr oceed ings conducted

und er § 23-17-13. Even if jud icial review could be conducted und er some other pr ovision of law, there is

no language anywhere which would d ivest this Cour t of its or d inar y a ppellate jur isd iction und er § 11-51

3.


14/70

9

Measure No. 42A. The Circuit Cour t re jected Hood ’s title and substituted its own und er the

pur por ted author ity of § 23-17-13, even though § 23-17-13 does not, and was never meant to

pr ovid e f or a ppeal of ballot titles f or legislative alter natives. The r ight to a ppeal ballot titles und er

§ 23-17-13 is unam biguously limited to a “measure,” which is d ef ined in Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-

17-1(1) (R ev. 2007) as “an amend ment to the Mississi ppi Constitution pr oposed by a petition of

qualif ied elector s und er Section 273, Mississi ppi Constitution of 1890.” Section 23-17-13 on its

face author izes a review of “the title or summar y f or mulated by the Attor ney General” and requires

a petition “setting f or th the measure.” Ser vice of the petition must be mad e “upon the per son

pr oposing the measure.” The statute requires the Circuit Cour t “to examin[e] the pr oposed

measure” and, if d issatisf ied with the Attor ney General’s wor k, to d evise “such ballot title or

summar y as it d eter mines will meet the requirements of Section 23-17-9.” The wor d “measure”

a ppear s three times in § 23-17-13, and each time it bear s the meaning prescr i bed by § 23-17-1(1)

At no point does § 23-17-13 refer to the alter native “constitutional initiative” which may be

adopted by the Legislature und er § 23-17-29. There is no am biguity whatsoever on the face of §

23-17-13.

Even if this Cour t should f ind that § 23-17-13 is am biguous on its face, as it must bef ore

engaging in statutor y constr uction, M ississi ppi Met hod ist H os p. & Rehab. Ctr . v. M iss. Div. o f

Med icaid , 21 So. 3d 600, 607 (Miss. 2009), the gover ning r ules com pel a f ind ing that § 23-17-13

does not author ize revision of ballot titles of legislative alter natives. An examination of § 23-17-

13’s text d emonstrates that it was never the Legislature’s intent to allow a cour t, f or the f ir st time

und er the Constitution of 1890, to review the ballot titles of its own pr oposed constitutiona

amend ments. The Hind s County Circuit Cour t erred by allowing Shi pman’s challenge.

The pr imar y consid eration in inter preting § 23-17-13 is the Legislature’s intent in craf ting

it, and the best evid ence of that intent “is t he t ext o f t he st at ut e.” I d . (em phasis add ed ). S ee Clar k


15/70

10

v. S t at e ex r el. M iss. S t at e Med. Ass’n, 381 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Miss. 1980) (“The pr imar y r ule of

constr uction is to ascer tain the intent of the legislature fr om the statute as a whole and fr om the

language used therein.”). This is tr ue irres pective of whether the statute is am biguous. Cit y o f

N at che z v. Sullivan, 612 So. 2d 1087, 1089 (Miss. 1992). One maxim of statutor y constr uction is

par ticular ly relevant here. As this Cour t has said bef ore: “When reasona ble, this Cour t is obliged

to reach an inter pretation that gives e ff ect t o all of the statutor y language.” M ississi ppi Div. o f

Med icaid , 21 So. 3d at 608 (em phasis add ed ), citing Gilmer v. S t at e, 955 So. 2d 829, 835 (Miss

2007). By read ing § 23-17-13 to a pply to General Hood ’s com position of a ballot title und er § 23-

17-33, the Circuit Cour t reached an inter pretation that gives no operative effect to multi ple par ts

of the statute.

The f ir st ma jor por tion of the statute given no effect whatsoever und er the Circuit Cour t’s

read ing is the “time f or a ppeal” pr ovision, which d eter mines, pr ocedurally, whether an ind ividual’s

challenge of the Attor ney General’s ballot title is timely. Section § 23-17-13 pr ovid es that any

per son “d issatisf ied with the ballot title or summar y f or mulated by the Attor ney General . . . may

. . . wit hin five (5) da ys fr om t he publications o f t he ballot title and summar y b y t he o ffice o f t he

S ecr et ar y o f S t at e” a ppeal to the Hind s County Circuit Cour t. (Em phasis add ed.) Und er Miss

Cod e Ann. § 23-17-11 (R ev. 2007), the Secretar y of State must “ publish the title and summar y f or

an initiative measure within ten (10) d ays af ter f iling such title and summar y in a news pa per or

news pa per s of general circulation thr oughout the State of Mississi ppi.” There is, however , no

corres pond ing requirement that the Secretar y of State publish the title d raf ted by the Attor ney

General und er § 23-17-33 f or a legislative alter native.7 To the contrar y, once “ascer tained,” the

ballot title f or “the measure adopted by the Legislature” must be sent to the counties f or pr inting

7 Because Shi pman failed to name Secretar y Hosemann as a par ty to her petition, he had neither

the duty nor the oppor tunity to explain his view of the publication requirement.


16/70

11

on the ballots. Miss. Cod e Ann. § 23-17-31 (R ev. 2007).8

The lack of any notice requirement f or the titles of legislative alter natives begs the question

of when exactly an ind ividual would br ing a challenge to a legislative alter native’s title und er the

Circuit Cour t’s err oneous inter pretation. For voter initiatives, § 23-17-13 pr ovid es a str ict d ead line

of f ive d ays fr om publication to br ing an a ppeal. However , since there is no publication

requirement f or the title of legislative alter natives, there is no way to d eter mine whether an a ppea

und er the statute is timely or not. “When constr uing a statute, all possi ble re percussions and

consequences should be consid ered.” Allr ed v.Webb, 641 So. 2d 1218, 1222 (Miss. 1994) (citation

omitted ). Without a publication requirement, the “time f or a ppeal” pr ovision in § 23-17-13 has no

effect whatsoever when a pplied to legislative alter natives. The Circuit Cour t should not have

attr i buted this result to a sim ple mistak e on the par t of the Legislature. “Unless it is unavoid a ble

and clear ly manifest, cour ts must not im pute inadver tence to the Legislature ….” S ewar d v

Dogan, 198 Miss. 419, 21 So. 2d 292, 294 (1945). The Legislature could not have intend ed f or

the Circuit Cour t to sim ply read the “time f or a ppeal” pr ovision out of the statute and ignore the

statute’s reliance on a pr ocess that a pplies onl y to measures as d ef ined in § 23-17-1(1).

A second ma jor por tion of § 23-17-13 has no effect und er the Circuit Cour t’s read ing of

the statute. The notif ication pr ovision of the statute requires that a copy of the a ppeal, along with

a notice that an a ppeal has been tak en, be ser ved to three interested par ties: (1) the Secretar y of

State; (2) the Attor ney General; and (3) the person pr oposing the measure “if the a ppeal is initiated

by someone other than that per son.” This pr ovision f unctions effectively when a pplied to a

“measure,” as d ef ined in § 23-17-1(1), which is pr oposed by a single “qualif ied elector of the state”

und er § 23-17-1(2) (also known as a “s ponsor” or “ per son pr oposing” und er § 23-17-1(3) and (4))

8 The fact that the Legislature d id not institute a notice per iod f or the title given to legislative

alter natives is str ong evid ence that it d id not intend f or the general public to be per mitted to challenge those

titles as Shi pman d id here.


17/70

12

This pr ovision, however , cannot be a pplied to a legislative alter native. Legislative

alter natives are not the pr oduct of one “ per son” or one “s ponsor .” R ather , they are the pr oduct of

the legislative body as a whole. Legislative alter natives must be adopted by a ma jor ity vote of

each house of the Legislature, und er § 23-17-29. The Legislature is not a “ per son” as

author itatively d ef ined by Miss. Cod e Ann. § 1-3-39 (R ev. 2014), which read s:

The ter m “ per son,” when used in any statute, shall a pply to ar tif icial as well

as natural per sons; and when used to d esignate the par ty whose pr oper ty may be the sub ject of offense, shall includ e the United States, this state, or any other state,

terr itor y, or countr y, and any county, city, town or village which may lawf ully own

pr oper ty in this state; also all public and pr ivate cor porations, as well as ind ividuals.

The Legislature is neither an ar tif icial nor a natural per son, nor is it a public or pr ivate cor poration

Lieutenant Gover nor R eeves and S peak er Gunn do qualif y as “ per sons,” but neither one of them

is the “ per son pr oposing the measure,” within the meaning of § 23-17-13.

Thus, a signif icant por tion of § 23-17-13’s “notif ication” pr ovision has no effect und er the

Circuit Cour t’s read ing of the statute. Section 23-17-13’s reference to this thir d interested par ty

the person pr oposing the measure, evid ences the Legislature’s intent that § 23-17-13 a pply only to

initiative measures and not legislative alter natives. Again, to the extent the Circuit Cour t attr i buted

this to some inadver tence on the par t of the Legislature in d raf ting § 23-17-13, that view is not

favored. S ee S ewar d , 21 So. 2d at 294; H is W a y H omes , I nc. v. M ississi ppi Gaming C omm’n, 733

So. 2d 764, 769 (Miss. 1999) (“Presum ptions are indulged against … inadver tent omissions or

over sights.”). In sum, no one per son is pr oposing the Legislature’s alter native measure, and, unless

one read s “ per son” in § 23-17-13 to includ e the Legislature, its “notif ication” pr ovision has no

effect with res pect to the thir d interested par ty listed. The Legislature could not have intend ed this

result.

The Circuit Cour t’s read ing of § 23-17-13 fails to give effect to both the “time f or a ppeal”

and “notif ication” pr ovisions present in the statute. S ee M ississi ppi Div. o f Med icaid , 21 So. 3d at


18/70

13

608 (“When reasona ble, this Cour t is obliged to reach an inter pretation that gives e ff ect t o all of

the statutor y language.”) (em phasis add ed ). These pr ovisions are not mere technicalities. They

ser ve an im por tant pur pose. The Legislature could not have intend ed this statute to a pply in such

a piecemeal fashion. “[T]his Cour t cannot omit or add to the plain meaning of the statute or

presume that the legislature failed to state something other than what was plainly stated.” Cit y o f

H oust on v. Tri- Lakes , Lt d., 681 So. 2d 104, 107 (Miss. 1996). The Circuit Cour t ignored the “time

f or a ppeal” and rewr ote the “notif ication” pr ovision in adopting its inter pretation of § 23-17-13

The more reasoned inter pretation a pplies the plain language of the statute, limiting the pr ocess of

a ppeal und er § 23-17-13 to ballot titles belonging to “measures” rather than legislative alter natives

There is another nota ble pr oblem with the Circuit Cour t’s read ing of § 23-17-13. By

hear ing Shi pman’s a ppeal, it had to cer tif y that Alter native Measure No. 42A had a ballot title that

“me[t] the requirements of Section 23-17-9,” as § 23-17-13 requires.9 Its review, pur por ted ly

und er § 23-17-13, ignored whether General Hood ’s title f or the legislative alter native com plied

with the add itional requirement im posed by § 23-17-33, which pr ovid es that a legislative

alter native’s ballot title “ be d ifferent fr om the ballot title of the measure in lieu of which it is

pr oposed, and [that it] ind icate, as clear ly as possi ble, the essential d ifferences in the measure.” It

d ef ies logic that the Legislature would have intend ed f or the Circuit Cour t to ensure that a

legislative alter native ballot title com plies with § 23-17-9, but not § 23-17-33. “When no valid

reason exists f or one of two possi ble constr uctions of a statute, the inter pretation with no valid

reason ought not be adopted.” Allr ed , 641 So. 2d at 1222 (citation omitted ). Section 23-17-13

limits the Circuit Cour t’s review to com pliance with the requirements in § 23-17-9, which str ongly

suggests that the Legislature never meant § 23-17-13 to a pply to the f or mulation of ballot titles f or

9 Section 23-17-9 requires that a measure’s ballot title be a “tr ue and im par tial statement of the

pur pose of the measure” and that the title not “intentionally be an ar gument, nor lik ely to create pre jud ice

either f or or against the measures.”


19/70


20/70

15

2011). It limited per missi ble pre-election review of the “suff iciency of petitions” to issues ar ising

und er Miss. Cod e Ann. §§ 23-17-13, -23, and -25 (R ev. 2007). I d., at 1265 n.7. R eview und er §

23-17-13 of issues ar ising und er § 23-17-33 is not availa ble because § 23-17-33 a pplies only to

legislative alter natives, and not to “ petitions” circulated by qualif ied elector s.

For all of these reasons, § 23-17-13 author izes review only of the titles, pre pared und er

§ 23-17-9, of “measures,” as d ef ined in § 23-17-1(1). No review is author ized of the titles of

legislative alter natives und er § 23-17-33.

B. Judicial review of General Hood’s title under § 23-17-33 would raise

insurmountable constitutional problems.

As d emonstrated in Par t II.A, a pplication of or d inar y r ules of statutor y constr uction lead s

inexora bly to the conclusion that the Legislature d id not pr ovid e f or jud icial review und er § 23-

17-13 of the title f or Alter native Measure No. 42A d raf ted by General Hood und er § 23-17-33

Should this Cour t have any doubt on the sub ject, it must a pply the r ule of constitutional avoid ance

An am biguity in a statute will not be resolved in a way that requires the resolution of a

constitutional question. Instead, a per missi ble constr uction will be adopted that mak es it

unnecessar y to add ress the constitutional issue. “When one constr uction of a statute would

end anger its constitutionality, it will be constr ued in har mony with the Constitution if , und er the

language of the statute, this may reasona bly be done.” Boar d o f Tr ust ees o f S t at e I nst . o f H igher

Lear ning v. Ra y, 809 So. 2d 627, 636 (Miss. 2002), quoting S t at e v. C ount y S ch. Bd., 181 Miss

818, 181 So. 313, 315 (1938).

Clear ly, the Legislature viewed General Hood ’s d ischar ge of his duty to com pose a title

f or Alter native Measure No. 42A und er § 23-17-33 as par t of a br oad er initiative to educate the

public. Und er § 23-17-45 (R ev. 2007) Secretar y Hosemann must includ e General Hood ’s ballot

title in a pam phlet which must be published in ever y county in the State. The pam phlet must also

includ e the f iscal analysis pre pared by the Chief Legislative Budget Off icer and “the ar gument or


21/70


22/70

17

Cour t relied on Br um field when it took all Mississi ppi cour ts out of the business of congressiona

red istr icting. M auld in v. Br anch, 866 So. 2d 429, 433-34 (Miss. 2003), citing Br um field , 142 So

at 746. All of these cases would require caref ul examination if this Cour t were to conclud e that

the Legislature had ignored them, vesting the Circuit Cour t with the power to ed it the title adopted

by General Hood und er § 23-17-33.

The fed eral stand ar d s gover ning political questions were generally a ppr oved by this Cour t

in Ghane v. M id -Sout h I nst . o f S elf -De f ense Shooting, I nc., 137 So. 3d 212 (Miss. 2014)

Par ticular ly im por tant here is the pr inci ple announced in Baker v. C arr , 369 U.S. 186 (1962). A

case presents a non justicia ble political question where there is “a lack of jud icially d iscovera ble

and managea ble stand ar d s f or resolving it.” I d., at 217, quoted in Ghane, 137 So. 3d at 217. The

stand ar d s set f or th in § 23-17-9 f or the title of an initiative pr oposed by the public may ver y wel

be managea ble. Cour ts ever y d ay attem pt to d eter mine the tr uth, and their constant exper ience

with the adver sar y system gives them some exper tise in d istinguishing a par tial statement fr om an

im par tial statement. An add itional factor , however , is add ed by § 23-17-33. When d evising a title

f or an alter native measure pr oposed in con junction with a popular initiative, the title “shal

ind icate, as clear ly as possi ble, the essential d ifferences in the measure.” Cour ts have some

exper ience in constr uing statutes and constitutions, but the id entif ication and explanation of the

essential as pects of a mere pr oposal are matter s of opinion and politics, not law.

In Shi pman’s opinion, Initiative Measure No. 42 has f our essential features:

i. It d ef ines the education that it guarantees: an ad equate and eff icient system

of free public schools.

conclud ed that the initiative amend ment had been adopted by means that violated § 273 of our Constitution

as it then read, and it theref ore overr uled S t at e ex r el. H owie v. Br antley, 113 Miss. 786, 74 So. 562 (1917)

which had err oneously a ppr oved the initiative amend ment’s add ition to the Constitution. This Cour

recognized in H ughes that cases lik e Bar nes and Power v. Ratliff , 112 Miss. 88, 72 So. 864 (1916), had

consistently re jected jud icial interference with legislative pr oposals placed bef ore the electorate. H ughes68 So. 3d at 1263. Here, there is no reason to think that the Legislature intend ed in § 23-17-13 to d e par

fr om that trad ition by allowing pre-election jud icial review of its pr oposed amend ments f or the f ir st time.


23/70

18

ii. It d ef ines the nature of the r ight it creates, and the hold er s of that r ight: each

child possesses a f und amental r ight to educational oppor tunity.

iii. It places res ponsi bility f or guaranteeing that r ight on the State, and not on

any one branch of gover nment or state agency.

iv. It creates a s pecif ic enf orcement mechanism should the State fail to

d ischar ge its constitutional obligation.

Doc. 4 at 10. Not sur pr isingly, she over look s its pr inci pal essential feature – the re peal of the

Legislature’s duty and power to pr ovid e free public schools by general law and the investiture of

all such power in the Chancer y Cour t. Even on her own ter ms, at most two of her f our essentia

features were incor porated into the title d evised by General Hood und er § 23-17-9. That title

d escr i bed the nature of the education and ar gua bly the placement of res ponsi bility on the State. I

said nothing a bout creating an enf orcea ble r ight or an enf orcement mechanism, but, of cour se

General Hood had no res ponsi bility f or d ef ining its essential elements; tr uth and im par tiality are

enough und er § 23-17-9.

The d eter mination of the supposed essential features of Alter native Measure No. 42A is

equally sub jective. Moreover , the res ponsi bility to contrast those features with the supposed

essential features of Initiative Measure No. 42 is com plicated by the failure of § 23-17-9 to require

the inclusion of those essential features in its ballot title. Add the res ponsi bility of doing all of that

in 20 wor d s, and the lack of “ jud icially d iscovera ble and managea ble stand ar d s” should be

obvious.

It is sim ply inconceiva ble that the Legislature ever intend ed to im pose such an inesca pa bly

sub jective and political duty upon any cour t of this State. Section 23-17-13 should be constr ued

so as to exclud e review of General Hood ’s d ischar ge of his duty und er § 23-17-33. However

should this Cour t constr ue that statute to author ize review of General Hood ’s title, then it r uns

af oul of the political question doctr ine and must be f ound unconstitutional.


24/70

19

III. THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE LEGISLATURE’S APPEAL

Although the petition itself gives no such ind ication, Shi pman’s counsel d eclared at the

hear ing that she had tak en an a ppeal fr om a d ecision of Attor ney General Hood much lik e the

a ppeals author ized fr om infer ior tr i bunals by Miss. Cod e Ann. § 11-51-75 (R ev. 2012). Fur ther

a ppeals in such matter s fr om the Circuit Cour t to this Cour t have been recognized at least since

Cr um p v. Boar d o f Super visors, 52 Miss. 107 (1876). Ind eed, as noted in Par t I a bove, I n r e

Pr oposed I nitiative Measur e N o. 20 held that the resolution of a pr oceed ing initiated und er § 23-

17-13 constitutes a f inal judgment which must be a ppealed und er § 11-51-3.12

The pr opr iety of this statutor y constr uction cannot be questioned. Section 11-51-3

unam biguously pr ovid es that “[a]n a ppeal may be tak en to the Supreme Cour t fr om any f ina

judgment of a circuit or chancer y cour t in a civil case.” The judgment entered by the Circuit Cour t

in this case br ought und er § 23-17-13 unquestiona bly constitutes a “f inal judgment … in a civi

case.” The statute creates an exce ption f or “a judgment by d efault,” but it allows no other

exce ptions fr om the r ight of a ppeal. There is no statutor y am biguity f or this Cour t to resolve.

The last sentence of § 23-17-13 read s, “The d ecision of the cour t shall be f inal.” Ind eed it

is. Ever y judgment a ppealed to this Cour t is f inal; that is what § 11-51-3 requires. Similar ly, Miss

Cod e Ann. § 9-3-9 (R ev. 2014) preclud es consid eration by this Cour t “until af ter f inal judgment

in the cour t below.” Here, nothing remains to be done in the Circuit Cour t; its hand iwor k is ready

f or review here, as in any other case. This Cour t has recognized that legal conce pts lik e f inality

should be given their esta blished meaning in statutor y constr uction. “In constr uing a statute

relating to legal pr oceed ings, the legislature will be presumed, when using a legal ter m, to have

12 R emar k a bly, one of Shi pman’s own lawyer s mad e exactly that ar gument in I n r e S t oner , signing

the br ief in suppor t of the motion to d ismiss the petition f or wr it of mand amus, a copy of which is attached

as Exhi bit 2. Af ter advising this Cour t on page 7 of the language of the last sentence of § 23-17-13, counse

add ed on page 10 that there was “no statute or case author ity that suggests an a ppeal of Judge R ussell’s

Or d er (July 24, 1998), is not per mitted by law.”


25/70

20

em ployed the ter m in the sense as und er stood in the law a pper taining to that ter m.” H ansbr ough

v. S t at e ex r el. Pitt man, 193 Miss. 461, 10 So. 2d 170, 171 (1942). Accor d, W helan v. J ohnst on

192 Miss. 673, 6 So. 2d 300, 303 (1942). (“[W]or d s which have a clear and d ef inite meaning at

common law should be given that meaning when used in a statute ….”). In § 23-17-13, “f inal”

has the same “clear and d ef inite meaning” it does in § 9-3-9, § 11-51-3, and M.R .C.P. 54; it means

that the Circuit Cour t’s d ecision can be a ppealed.

Should this Cour t never theless perceive an ar gua ble conf lict between § 11-51-3 and § 23-

17-13, it must attem pt to constr ue them har moniously. “When statutes are in pari mat eria

although a pparently conf licting, they should, if possi ble, be constr ued in har mony with each other

to give effect to each.” Sand ers v. S t at e, 63 So. 3d 497, 507-08 (Miss. 2011), citing Atwood

C hevr olet -Old s , I nc. v. Aber d een M un. S ch. Dist ., 431 So. 2d 926, 928 (Miss. 1983). Here, f ul

effect can be given to the closing sentence of § 23-17-13 by constr uing it to mean that the d ecision

rend ered by the Circuit Cour t is not sub ject to f ur ther revision there. That mak es sense, given the

s peed required by § 23-17-13. The statute d emand s a d ecision be rend ered within 10 d ays af ter

the f iling of the petition. Here, the petition was f iled on March 24, 2015. Doc. 3. The hear ing

took place nine d ays later , on A pr il 2, 2015, and the d ecision was entered on the thir teenth d ay

A pr il 6, 2015. Doc. 16. Or d inar ily, any par ty would be entitled to f ile a motion f or a new tr ial or

to amend the judgment f or another 10 d ays af ter its entr y, pur suant to M.R .C.P. 59. Given the

im por tance of s peed in resolving d is putes over constitutional amend ments being presented to the

electorate, it would mak e sense f or the Legislature to bar post- judgment pr oceed ings in the Circui

Cour t so that the f inal resolution in this Cour t may not be d elayed.

This Cour t may not assume that the Legislature intend ed an unpreced ented d enial of the

r ight of a ppeal. “In general, ‘a new statute will not be consid ered as rever sing long-esta blished

pr inci ples of law and equity unless the legislative intention to do so clear ly a ppear s,’” Lawson v


26/70

21

H oneywell I nt er nat ’l , I nc., 75 So. 3d 1024, 1029 (Miss. 2011), quoting T hor p C ommer cial C or p

v. M iss. Road Suppl y C o., 348 So. 2d 1016, 1018 (Miss. 1977). There is no statute in Mississi pp

jur is pr ud ence pr ovid ing that the f ir st cour t to add ress a matter should also be the last cour t to

add ress it. As already noted, a ppeals fr om infer ior tr i bunals to the Circuit Cour t und er § 11-51-75

are sub ject to f ur ther a ppeals to this Cour t.13 A ppeals fr om Justice Cour ts and Munici pal Cour ts

may be tak en to the County Cour t and the Circuit Cour t und er Miss. Cod e Ann. § 11-51-81 (R ev

2012). With regar d to non-constitutional issues, § 11-51-81 says that “there shall be no a ppea

fr om the circuit cour t to the Supreme Cour t,” d emonstrating that the Legislature knows how to

pr ohi bit an a ppeal without am biguity when it so intend s.

14

Even in those cases, f ur ther a ppeal to

this Cour t is per mitted by the statute where “in the d eter mination of the case a constitutiona

question be necessar ily involved.” S ee, e.g., Sasser v. Cit y o f Richland , 850 So. 2d 206 (Miss

A pp. 2003).

Ever y question in this case, of cour se, is a constitutional question. The d is pute concer ns

the ballot to be presented to the electorate f or its d eter mination of whether and how to amend § 201

of the Constitution. The question of the Circuit Cour t’s jur isd iction is necessar ily constitutional

Its d isregar d of the political question doctr ine is constitutional. Its substitution of its own judgment

in place of the d iscretion d elegated to General Hood by § 23-17-33 is constitutional.

13 In 1867, this Cour t inter preted an 1857 statute as preclud ing f ur ther a ppeal in such cases af ter

resolution by the Circuit Cour t. Dismukes v. S t okes, 41 Miss. 430 (1867). The Legislature pr om ptly

exclud ed the offend ing language fr om the 1871 Cod e, as this Cour t recognized in Cr um p, where it per mitted

f ur ther a ppeal fr om the Circuit Cour t’s review of a boar d d ecision. 52 Miss. at 110. The Legislature’s pr om pt re jection of the Dismukes opinion stand s in star k contrast to its a ppr oval of K ellum v. J ohnson, 237

Miss. 580, 115 So. 2d 147 (1959), when it reenacted without per tinent change the statute constr ued therein

McDaniel, 2014 WL 5419723 ¶¶ 23-27. When adopting § 23-17-13 in 1993, the Legislature would

cer tainly have expected its language to be inter preted in light of similar statutes and r ules then in existence

not by a statutor y inter pretation pr om ptly re pud iated by the Legislature in 1871.

14 S ee also Miss. Cod e Ann. § 51-9-115 (R ev. 2003) (“such or d er f or an election shall be

inter locutor y and not a ppeala ble”); Miss. Cod e Ann. § 63-11-26 (R ev. 2013) (“the per son shall not be

entitled to any jud icial review … or a ppeal”).


27/70

22

It beggar s belief to suggest that the Legislature intend ed to create an exce ption to the

jur isd ictional grant of § 11-51-3 to prevent this Cour t’s review of such im por tant constitutiona

questions.15 Any suggestion that the jur isd ictional grant of § 11-51-3 has been amend ed by

im plication is contrar y to general pr inci ples of statutor y constr uction. Belk v. Bean, 247 So. 2d

821, 827 (Miss. 1971), citing 82 C.J.S. S t at ut es § 252 (1953). This Cour t pr oper ly conclud ed in

I n r e Pr oposed I nitiative Measur e N o. 20 that a notice of a ppeal perfected its jur isd iction over a

case involving § 23-17-13. That jur isd iction must be exercised here.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, this Cour t should r ule that it has jur isd iction over the

Legislature’s a ppeal. In add ition, this Cour t should r ule that the Circuit Cour t had no jur isd iction

over Shi pman’s petition, and it should theref ore rever se the judgment of the Circuit Cour t and

or d er the d ismissal of her petition. Alter natively, this Cour t should or d er f ull br ief ing on the

mer its, at which time the Legislature will also d emonstrate that General Hood ’s title f ully satisf ied

the requirements of § 23-17-33, while d emonstrating that the title im posed by the Circuit Cour t is

both false and par tial, in violation of § 23-17-9.

15 This is es pecially tr ue in light of the “or iginal and exclusive jur isd iction” conferred on this Cour

by § 273(9) of the Constitution to review “[t]he suff iciency of petitions.” There is no reason to suppose

that the Legislature would d eny this Cour t author ity to review the titles that actually go on the ballot.


28/70

23

This the 24th d ay of A pr il, 2015.

R es pectf ully submitted,

LEGISLATUR E OF THE STATE

OF MISSISSIPPI, A ppellant

By: s/ M ichael B. W allace

Michael B. Wallace (MSB #6904) Char les E. Cowan (MSB #104478)

WISE CAR TER CHILD & CAR AWAY, P.A.

Post Off ice Box 651Jack son, Mississi ppi 39202-0651

Tele phone: 601-968-5500

m bw@wisecar ter .com

Att or neys f or A ppellant


29/70

24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the und er signed counsel, do here by cer tif y that I have this d ay electr onically f iled the

f oregoing with the Cler k of the Cour t using the MEC system, which sent notif ication of such f iling

to the f ollowing:

Hon. Jim Hood James A. Keith

Paul Eld r idge Bar nes ADAMS AND R EESE, LLP

MISSISSIPPI ATTOR NEY 1018 Highland Colony Par k wayGENER AL’S OFFICE Suite 800

Walter Siller s Build ing Ridgeland, MS 39157

550 High Street, Suite 1200 jim.k eith@ar law.com

Jack son, MS 39201 pbar [email protected]

Carr oll R hod es Danny E. Cupit LAW OFFICES OF CARR OLL R HODES LAW OFFICE OF DANNY E. CUPIT

Post Off ice Box 588 304 Nor th Congress Street

Hazlehur st, MS 39083 Jack son, MS 39225cr hod e@ bellsouth.net d [email protected]

Latr ice West br ook s THE LAW OFFICE OF LATR ICE

WESTBR OOK S, LLC

Post Off ice Box 14203Jack son, MS 39236

west br ook [email protected]

I f ur ther cer tif y that I have mailed a copy, via United States mail postage pre- paid to the

f ollowing:

Hon. Winston K iddCircuit Cour t Judge

Post Off ice Box 3027

Jack son, MS 39205

This the 24th d ay of A pr il, 2015.

s/ M ichael B. W allace

Michael B. Wallace


30/70


31/70


32/70


33/70


34/70


35/70


36/70


37/70


38/70


39/70


40/70


41/70


42/70


43/70


44/70


45/70


46/70


47/70


48/70


49/70


50/70


51/70


52/70


53/70


54/70


55/70


56/70


57/70


58/70


59/70


60/70


61/70


62/70


63/70


64/70


65/70


66/70


67/70


68/70


69/70


70/70

MS Legislature Brief for appeal on #42A ballot initiative

Documents

Transcript of MS Legislature Brief for appeal on #42A ballot initiative