I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - EC - 0 0 9 2 8 - S CT DI M P POW ELL
v. MUNIC I P A L EL E C T

ION C OMMI

S S ION OF T HE TOW N O F I SOLA, M

I SS I SS I PPI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 30/ 2013 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . JA N N IE M . L E W IS T R IA L C O U R T A T T O R N E Y S : A N D R E W N . A L E X A N D E R , III SAM UEL L. BEG LEY COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HUM P HREYS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : K A T E M A R G O L IS A N D R E W N . A L E X A N D E R , III ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: SAM UEL L. BEG LEY N A TU RE O F TH E C A SE: CI V I L - ELE CT I O N CO N TEST D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 11/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E W A L L E R , C . J. , C H A N D L E R A N D K I N G , JJ. CH AND LER, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. D emocr at i c candi dat e B obbi e M i l l ers ucce s s f ul l y chal l enged i ndepende nt i ncumbent D i m p Pow el l f

orthe of f i ce of mayorof I s ol a, M i s s i s s i ppi . Pr i ort o the el ect i on, the M uni ci pal E lec tio n C o m m iss io n o f Is o la a p p ro v e d th e p lac e m e n t o f M ill e r’s n a m e o n th e b a llo t d e sp ite th e f a c tth a ta De mo c r a t i c M u n i c i p a l Ex e c u t i v e Co mmi t t e e wa s n o ti n e x i s t e n c e b y th e t i me o f th e q u ali fyin g d ea d li n e fo r ca n d idates. P o w ell ch all en g ed the E lecti o n C o m m issio n ’s decis i on i n ci r cui tcourtvi a a w r i tof m andamus, r eques t i ng the courtt o or dert he C om m i s s i on nott o pl ace M i l l er ’ s name on the bal l otor , i n the al t ernat i ve, t o or derthatany

### Th is was th e first electionthe clerkhadhan dledin h er official cap acity. 1 

### Two of the thre e munic ipa l e le ction c omm is si oner s we real so ne w at thejob and, 2 

### at that time, h ad n ot y et attend ed train ing for th e po sition . 2 vot es cas tf

orM i l l ernotbe count ed. A f t eran em er gency evi dent i ary hear i ng, hel d the w eek p rio r to the e lecti o n , the c o u rtd en ied re li ef. Po w ell ap p ea ls. W e h o ld tha t th e c ir cu itco u rt d id n o t h a v e ju risd ictio n to h e a r P o w e ll’s c h a llen g e v ia a w rit o f m a n d a m u s. T h e a p p ro p ria te p ro c e d u ra l m e c h a n ism fo r ch a llen g in g the d e c isio n o f a m u n icip a l au th o rity is th ro u g h a b ill
o f e x c e p tio n s u n d e r M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -5 1 -7 5 . F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S B E L OW ¶ 2 . B o b b ie M ill e r, w h o ra n a lo c a l d a y c a re ce n ter in Is o la, d e c id e d to ru n a s a D e m o c ra tic candi dat e f

orm ayor , chal l engi ng i ndepende nti ncumbentD i m p Pow el l . M i l l er f i l ed her
s t at ementof

i nt entand $10 ca s h f

i l i ng f ee w i th t he m uni ci pal cl erk on Janua ry 21, 2013. T he
m u n icip a l cle rk ac c e p ted the d o c u m e n ts. Iso la d id n o t at tha t t im e h a v e a D e m o c ra tic M uni ci pal E xecut i ve C om m i t t ee. O n M ar ch 6, the cl erk c ont act ed M i l l era nd i nf or m ed her thats he coul d notacc eptcas h f orthe f i l i ng fe e. M i l l eri m m edi at el y excha nged the ca s h f or a money or der . A tt hatt i m e, M i l l eras ked i f any otheract i on on herpartw as neede d, and the
c ler k sa id n o . T h e c ler k a lso a c c e p ted a sta tem e n t o f in ten t an d filin g f e e f ro m P o w e ll. M i l l er ’ s money or dera nd Pow el l ’ s c heck w er e m ade payabl e t o the “M uni ci pal E xecut i ve C o m m itte e .” ¶3. T he ci ty cl erk, un cert ai n w here t o send the can didat es’ st at em ents of i ntentand fees , 1
se n t b o th P o w e ll’s a n d M ill e r’s p a p e rs a n d fe e s to th e S e c re tar y o f S tate a fte r c o n su lti n g w ith one of the i ncomi ng ci ty el ect i on comm i s s i oner s . The Sec r et ary of St at e s entback a l ett er 2

### 3

dat ed M ar ch 14, 2013, expl ai ni ng that“the of f i ce of the Secr et ary of

St at e does notr ece i ve norf i l e qu al i f

yi ng pet i t i ons of

m uni ci pal candi dat es , ” and that“[ a] bs enta muni ci pal
e x e c u tiv e c o m m itt e e , the m u n icip a l c ler k c a n n o t ac c e p t th e sta tem e n t o f in ten t o f a c a n d id a te s eeki ng t o qual i f

y as a party nom i nee i n a pr i m ary el ect i on, and ca nnotacc eptthe $10. 00 f i l i ng f ee r equi r ed by s t atut e . . . [ u] nf or tunat el y, M s . M i l l erc annotbe a candi dat e f orM ayor s in c e th e q u a lif

y in g d e a d lin e fo r a ll m u n ic ip a l c a n d id a te s w a s la s t F ri d a y , M a rc h 8 , 2 0 1 3 .” T he l ett erf

ur thernot ed thata f

i l i ng f ee a nd n om i nati on thr ough a muni ci pal exec ut i ve comm i t t ee i s notr equi r ed f ori ndepende ntcandi dat es , thatPow el l ’ s f ee s houl d ther ef

or e be
r e turne d t o h i m and hi s qu a l i f yi ng do c umen t s f

orw a r de d t o the I s ol a M un i c i pa l El e c t i on C o m m is s io n . ¶ 4 . A fte r th e c ity c ler k sh a re d c o p ies o f th is lette r w ith th e re le v a n t p a rties a n d p u b lic of f i ci al s , M i l l eri m m edi at el y cont act ed t he C ounty D emocr at i c Execut i ve C om m i t t ee. T hat
co m m ittee a p p rov ed M il ler’s ca n d idac y an d no ti fi ed th e E lecti o n C o m m issi o n an d city clerk of M i l l e r ’ s c e r t i f

i c a t i on b y l e t t e ro n M a r c h 22 . The Coun ty Exe c ut i ve Comm i t t e e ha d not been a w ar e of

M i l l er’ s candi dacy pr i ort o the qual i f yi ng deadl i ne, and di d notnot i f y the
m u n ici p al clerk p ri o r t o the q u ali fyin g d e a d lin e that itw o u ld b e a cti n g as a tem p o rary m u n ic ip a l e x e c u tiv e c o m m itte e . ¶5. T he C i ty reque st ed an op i nion fr om the A t t orney G ener al , as ki ng w hether , un der these ci r cumst ance s , M i l l ercoul d be pl ace d on the bal l ot . T he A t t orney G ener al ’ s of f i ce i s s ued an of f i ci al opi ni on dat ed A pr i l 22, 2013, of f er i ng thatM i l l erw as nota t i m el y qual i f i ed

### See A shfo rd, Mi ss . A. G. Op. # 14-00121, 2013 WL 22 00 41 7 (April22, 2013) . 3 

### Whether a party e xec utive commi tt eemust bein pl ac e by the qua li fying dea dline involve s a que stion of

st at utor y int er pre tati on thi s Cour

t ha s ne ver

addr es se d. TheAtt orne y Gene ra l’ s off ic e c onsi st ently ha s t ake n theposi ti on that t he r el evant s tatutes re quire the e xis te nceof an e xec utive o r temporar y exe cutivecommi tt eeby thequal if ying de adl inebec aus e, inter alia , s uch c ommittees havere spons ibi li ti es re late d to c ar rying out t

he party pri mary that cannot rea sona

bly beper for

me d if thecommittee is not in e xis te nceby thequal if ying dead line. Id . 4 candi dat e bec aus e the C ount y D emocr at i c Execut i ve C om m i t t ee had notmade the dec i s i on t o actas the t empora r y m uni ci pal exec ut i ve comm i t t ee unt i l af t erthe qual i f

yi ng deadl i ne. 3 ¶6. T he I s ol a M uni ci pal E l ect i on C om m i s s i on m eton M ay 24, 2013, and vot ed t o acc ept the C ounty D emocr at i c Execut i ve C om m i t t ee’ s cert i f i cat i on of M i l l er , i n s pi t e of

the opi ni on f r om the A t t orney G ener al . T he C om m i s s i on i s s ued a w r i t t en s t at ement , not i ng thatthe err or w as on the partof

the cl erk, thatthe l ack of a ( t empora ry) muni ci pal e xecu t i ve co m m i t t ee w oul d have be en r es ol ved pr i ort o the qual i f yi ng deadl i ne had a del ay notbeen c r eat ed by the document s havi ng been mai l ed err oneous l y t o the Secr et ary of St at e, and thatM i l l er s houl d notbe penal i zed w hen she had done everythi ng she thoughtw as r equi r ed t o qual i f y. ¶ 7 . P o w e ll fil e d a n E m e rg e n c y C o m p lain t fo r W rit o f M a n d a m u s, a sk in g th e c irc u it c o u rt:

. . . . to issue a W ri t of M a n d a m u s to the T o w n o f Isola, M issi ssipp i’ s M u n icip a l E lec tio n C o m m iss io n req u irin g th a t th e y re m o v e c a n d id a te B o b b ie M i l l er ’ s name f

r om the M uni ci pal B al l ot f or t he June 4, 2013 el ect i on f or M ayor . I n t he al t ernat i ve, P l ai nt i f f pra ys thatthi s C our ts houl d i s s ue a W r i tof Pr ohi bi t i on t o the Tow n of I s ol a, M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s M uni ci pal E l ect i on C o m m iss io n p ro h ib iti n g th a t C o m m iss io n fro m p lac in g c a n d id a te B o b b ie M i l l er ’ s name on t he bal l ota s a D emocr at i c candi dat e f orthe of f i ce of M ayor o f th e To wn o f

I s o l a o r , i f

s u c h n a me a p p e a r s o n th e b a l l o tb e c a u s e o f t i me re s tr a in ts , p ro h ib itin g a n y v o te s fo r M s . M ille r f ro m b e in g c o u n te d . . . A t t ache d as exhi bi t s t o t he pet i t i on w er e t he l ett erf r om the Secr et ary of

St at e r eturni ng t he
s t at ement s of

i ntentand f

i l i ng f ees t o the muni ci pal cl erk, the l ett erf r om the H um phr eys

### 5

C ounty D emocr at i c Execut i ve C om m i t t ee c ert i f yi ng B obbi e M i l l er a s a ca ndi dat e, t he A t t orney G ener al ’ s opi ni on of f er i ng t hatM i l l erw as nota t i m el y qual i f i ed ca ndi dat e, and the I s ol a M uni ci pal E l ect i on C om m i s s i on’ s l et t ert o the muni ci pal cl erk f i ndi ng thatM i l l er s h o u ld b e p la c e d o n th e b a llo t. ¶8 . T h e co u rt h eld an em erg en cy ev iden ti ary h ea ri n g o n M ay 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 , the w ee k b efo re the el ect i on. T he courthear d the t es t i m ony of the muni ci pal cl erk, B obbi e M i l l er , a nd of t he three m em b ers o f th e M u n ici p al E lecti o n C o m m issi o n . T h e tr ial co u rtd en ied P o w ell ’s
r eques tf orr el i ef and per m i t t ed M i l l ert o r emai n on the bal l ot . T he courtnot ed thatM i l l erhad done al l s he thoughtthats he w as r equi r ed t o do to qu al i f y and s houl d be perm i t t ed t o run s i nce the err orw as on the partof the ci ty cl erk. M i l l erw on the el ect i on, w hi ch t ook pl ace on Ju n e 4 , 2 0 1 3 . P o w e ll t im e ly a p p e a ls to th is C o u rt. T h is C o u rt d e n ied P o w e ll’s m o tio n s to e x p e d ite th e a p p e a l. DI S CU S S I ON ¶9. J ur i s di ct i on is a qu est i on o f l aw thi s C our tr evi ew s de novo. I s s aquena W

ar r en Counties L and Co. , L L C v. W ar r en Cnt

y. , 9 9 6 S o . 2 d 7 4 7 , 7 4 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶10 . W e fi nd that the ci rcui t cou rt l acked j uri sdi ct i on t o hear P ow el l ’s chall eng e beca use Pow el l f ai l ed t o pr oper l y appea l the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on by obt ai ni ng a bi l l of e xcept i ons as provi ded fori n M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 11 -51-75. S ect i on 11 -51-75 p rovi des: A ny person ag gri eved b y a judgm ent or decis i on o f the bo ard of s up ervi sors , o r m un i ci

pa lau tho ri t i es of

a ci ty, t ow n, o r vi l l age, m ay appe al w i thi n ( 10) d ay s fro m the d ate o f ad jou rnm en t atw h ich s essio n the b o ard o f sup erv isors orm uni ci pal author i t i es r ender ed s uch j udgm entordeci s i on, and m ay em body the f act s , j udgm ent

and decis i on i n a bi l lof exc ept i ons w hi ch s hal lbe s igned by the per

s on act i ng as pr es i dent of the boar d of

s uper vis ors orother m u n icip a l a u th o rities . T h e cle rk the re o f sh a ll tra n sm it th e b ill

o f ex c e p tio n s to

### This Court dec ide d Town of Ter

ry on a proce dura l ques ti on, and, a s in theca seat 4 

### han d, d id n ot ad dress th e merits of th e commissio n’s d ecision . 6 the ci r cui tcour tatonce , and t he cour ts hal l ei theri n t erm t i m e ori n vaca t i on hearand det erm i ne the s ame on t he ca s e as pr es ent ed by the bi l l of exce pt i ons as an appe l l at e court , and s hal l af f i r m orr ever s e the j udgm ent . If t he j udgm ent be r ever s ed, t he ci rcui tcourts hal l r enders uch j udgm entas the boar d or m u n ici p al au tho ri ti es o u g h t t o h av e re n d ere d , an d certi fy the sam e to th e b o ard o f s u p e rv is o rs o r m u n ic ip a l a u th o ri tie s . . . . M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -5 1 -7 5 (R e v . 2 0 1 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶11. T hi s C our t hel d that a m uni ci pal el ect i on comm i s s i on i s a “muni ci pal author i ty” f or purpos es of

s ect i on 11- 51- 75 i n T

o w n o f T e r ry v. Sm ith , 4 8 S o . 3 d 5 0 7 (M iss. 2 0 1 0 ). In T ow n of T

erry , the T e rry M u n icip a l E le c tio n C o m m iss io n d isq u a lified a d e m o c ra tic candi dat e f

orm ayoron a f

i ndi ng thatthe D emocr at i c Execut i ve C om m i t t ee ha d been i m pr oper l y f

or m ed, and, “[ b] eca us e ther e w as ‘ no comm i t t ee i n pl ace t o qual i f y hi m ’ and he had notqual i f

i ed as a n a t - l ar ge ca ndi dat e, [ he] w as , by ext ens i on, di s qual i f i ed. ” Id . at508. 4 T he ca ndi dat e and the comm i t t ee appeal ed thr ough an i nappl i cable s t atut e thatpr ovi ded
e x c lu s iv e re lie f f

o r c o n te s tin g th e q u a lif

ic a tio n s o f a c a n d id a te in a p ri m a ry e le c tio n . Id . T h is C our taf f i r m ed the tr i al court ’ s pos i t i on thatthe appr opr i at e met hod of appea l w as thr ough
a p p e a l b y b ill o f e x c e p tio n s u n d e r S e c tio n 1 1 -5 1 -7 5 . W e sta ted :

. . . th e C o m m ittee ca m e to circu itco u rtno t to ch all en g e an electi o n , b u t to chal l enge the deci s i on ( m ade by a m uni ci pal author i ty) thatthe comm i t t ee w as im p ro p e rly fo rm e d a n d n o n e x iste n t. T h e trial c o u rt, rely in g o n th e p lain lan g u a g e o f M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 1 -51 -75 , said that ap p ea l by b il l [ o f] exce pt i ons w as the appr opr i at e vehi cl e f orre m edy. . . W e agr ee w i th the tr i al courtthatappea l by bi l l of exce pt i ons . . . w as the appr opr i at e mechani s m f or reli ef.

### “Theprope r f unction of

mandamus is to supply a re me dy for ina ction on the part of 5 

### an o fficial or co mmissionto who m it is directe d . Iti s n o t a sub stitute fo r, no r inten dedto serve, th e purpo se of o ther mo des o f review . It cand ir ec t anofficial o r commissio n to per for m it s of fi ci alduty or

to pe rf orm a m ini st eria l a ct , but

it cannot proje ct

it se lf int o the dis cr etionary f

unction of

theoff ic ia l or the c omm is si on. St at ed di ff er ently, it can direc t ac ti on to betaken, but i t c annot direc t t he out com e of

themandate d function. . . [t ] hus, a c ourt coul d, i f ne ce ss ar

y, c ompe l by mandamus an el ec ti on comm is si on or exe cutivecommi tt ee to pe rf orm it s s tatut ory duty upon it s f ai lure t o do so, or

prohibi t it

by way of injunc ti on or wri t of prohibition f

rom exc ee ding i ts st atuto ry authori ty in som e r es pec t; useof an extra ordinar

y wri t, howeve r, cannot beext ende d to a ct ual ly t el ling thecommi ss ion what ac ti on to t ake .” Id . at 69 5-6 95 , 77 4. 7 Id . at 51 0 -51 1 . S im il arly , h e re , th e c h all en g e is t o a m u n ici p al election co m m issi o n ’s d e c is io n re g a rd in g th e tim e lin e s s o f t h e c a n d id a te ’s q u a lif ic a tio n . ¶12. T he bi l l of exce pt i ons s erves as the obj ect i ve recor d of the pr ocee di ngs bel ow , and th e re fo re m u st b e ex a m in e d an d c e rtified fo r a u th e n ticity b y b e in g sig n e d a n d d e liv e re d to the ci r cui tcourtby t he author i ty w ho m ade the deci s i on. The r es pons i bi l i ty of a muni ci pal author i ty w hen pr es ent ed w i th a bi l l of exce pt i ons i s t o r evi ew i t , not e any as pectof i tt hat
a p p e a rs to b e ina c c u ra te o r in c o m p lete , a n d th e n sig n it as th e c o rre c t re c o rd fo r th e c irc u it
c o u rt to re v ie w . R e e d

v. A da ms , 111 So. 2d 222, 340 (M i s s . 1959) . H er e, i ns t ead of goi ng thr ough thi s pr oces s of

obt ai ni ng a r ecor d, Pow el l s oughti nj unct i ve r el i ef thr ough a w r i tof
m a n d a m u s . ¶ 1 3 . A p e tit io n fo r w rit o f m a n d a m u s is a p ro c e d u ra l to o l a p a rty c a n se e k u n ilate ra lly to p ro m p t o ffic ials to p e rfo rm th e ir re q u ire d d u ties w h e n th e y fa il t o a c t. Hin ds Cnt y. D em ocr ati c E

xec. Com m . v. Muir head , 259 So. 2d 692, 695- 695 (M i ss. 1972). For 5
e x a mp l e , i f

P o we l l h a d p r e s e n t e d a b i l l o f e x c e p t i o n s t o th e Co mm i s s i o n f o ri t s r e v i e w, sig n a tu re , an d d e liv e ry to th e c o u rt, an d th e C o m m iss io n h a d re fu se d to p e rfo rm its

### 8

m i ni s t er i al dut y t o r evi ew , s i gn, and del i veri t , then a w r i tof m andamus w oul d be an
a p p ro p ri a te m e c h a n is m to p ro m p t th e a u th o ri ty to p e rf o rm th a t ta s k . R eed , 11 So. 2d at399; R oach v. T

al lahatchie Cnt

y. , 29 So. 93 ( M i s s 19 01 ). B ut, w hen a muni ci pal author i t y has act ed, and a party w i shes t o ch al l eng e the m eri t s of that dis cret i on ary decis i on , the p arty m ust obt ai n a bi l l of

exce pt i ons t o serve as t he r ecor d forthe ci r cui tcourt . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 5 1 -7 5 (R e v . 2 0 1 2 ); T

o w n o f T e r ry v. Sm ith , 48 So. 3d 507 ( M i s s . 2010) . A party cannot sid e ste p th is p ro c e ss o f, in e ss e n c e , d e sig n a tin g th e re c o rd fo r a p p e a l, b y a sk in g th e a p p e llate
courtt o r el y on the pot ent i al l y s el ect i ve pr es ent at i on of fact s and exhi bi t s cont ai ned i n a u n ila te ra l p e titio n fo r i n ju n c tiv e re lie f. ¶ 1 4 . T h e u se o f a w rit o f m a n d a m u s a lso w a s in a p p ro p ria te in th is c a se b e c a u se P o w e ll i s nota l l egi ng a vi ol at i on of hi s due
- pr oces s r i ght s ora s s ert i ng a n opportuni ty t o be hear d. R ather , hi s s ol e r eques tf orr el i ef i s a c hal l enge t o a di s cr et i onary deci s i on the C om m i s s i on m ade a f t ervery thor ough cons i dera t i on of Pow el l ’ s pos i t i on. I n W al lace v. T

ow n of E dw ar ds , 118 So. 3d 568 ( M i s s . 2013) , a pot ent i al candidat e soughta w r i tof m andamus
as ki ng the ci r cui tcourtt o compel a mu nici pal el ect i on comm i s s i on t o gr anthi m a hea r i ng and i s s ue a rul i ng on hi s chal l enge t o i t s s ucce s s i ve r ej ect i on of hi s candi dacy due t o l ack of
s uf f i ci ents i gnatur es . A m aj or i ty of the C our tj oi ned an or dergrant i ng hi m r el i ef . T hr ee j us t i ces j oi ned a s epar at e s t at ementdi s agr eei ng thatthe appe l l anthad bee n deni ed an oppor tuni ty t o be hea r d be f or e the comm i s s i on a nd thata bi l l of e xcept i ons w oul d ha ve bee n th e a p p ro p ri a te w a y to c h a llen g e th e c o m m iss io n ’s d e c isio n to re jec t h is m u lti p le a ttem p ts to q u a lif y .

### 9

¶15. T he due- pr oces s chal l enge thats pl i tthi s courti n W al lace i s not pr es ent i n thi s cas e. W e n o te th a t, i n th is c a se , th e C o m m iss io n d o e s n o t a p p e a r to h a v e h e ld a fo rm a l h e a rin g in
w hi ch Pow el l f

or m al l y pr es ent ed hi s cas e. H ow ever , Pow el l does notchal l enge the abs ence of a hea r i ng ora l l ege thatpr ocee di ng be f or e the C om m i s s i on deni ed hi m due pr oces s . T o t he
c o n tra ry , the re c o rd re fle c ts th a t th e p a rties h a d e x ten siv e tra n sp a re n t co m m u n ica tio n w ith each o ther and that the C om m i ssi on t oo k the process of i t s deci si on very seri ou sl y, go i ng so f aras t o r eques tand cons i der an A t t orney G ener al ’ s opi ni on on the i s s ue. W hethert he C om m i ssi on m ade the ri gh tdecis i on i s a quest i on foran ap peal vi a a bil l of excep t i on s. ¶ 1 6 . F in a lly , the p roc ed u ral de fi cien c y h e re c a n n o t b e c o n sid e re d h a rm les s. A c irc u it c o u rt, sittin g a s a n a p p e llate c o u rt, sh o u ld n o t h o ld a n e v id e n tiary h e a rin g w h e n c o n sid e rin g a b ill
o f e x c e p tio n s . Falco L im e, In c. , v. Mayo r a n d A lderm en o f Cit y o f V i cksbu rg , 836 So. 2d 7 1 1 , 7 2 0 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). W e h av e p erm itted h arm less-error rev iew w h ere a c irc u it co u rt e rr o n e o u s ly h e ld a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g w h e n re v ie w in g a b ill o f e x c e p tio n s . Id . at720- 721 (h o ld in g th a t th e e v id e n tiary h e a rin g w a s h a rm les s e rro r b e c a u se su ffic ien t ev id e n c e w a s in the bi l l of

exce pt i ons f

orthe ci r cui tcourtt o have r eache d the s ame r es ul tas i f the hea r i ng ha d n ott a ke n p l a c e ) . Butunl i ke Falco , the a p p e a l h e re d id n o t o rig in a te w ith a p ro p e r b ill of exce pt i ons . W e decl i ne t o e xt end harm l es s - err orr evi ew t o the f undament al j ur i s di ct i onal pos tur e of

the ca s e. W e dec l i ne t o m ake i tourt as k t o revi ew the pet i t i on and exhi bi t s f or re tr o a c tiv e a u th e n tic a tio n o f t h e p ro c e e d in g s b e lo w . CO NC L US I ON ¶17. Pow el l ’ s pet i t i on f orw r i to f m and am us w as i neff ect i ve t o appeal the M uni ci pal E lecti o n C o m m issi o n ’s de cisi o n that M il ler sho u ld b e p lac e d o n the b all o t. T h e statuto ry

### 10

m ethod of

appea l f r om the dec i s i on of

a muni ci pal author i ty i s t o obt ai n a bi l l of exce pt i ons u n d er M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 1 1 -51 -75 . W e a ffirm th e o u tcom e o f th e c ir cu itco u rt ’s h o ld in g , b u t o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e c irc u it co u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n to h e a r th e c h a llen g e v ia
a w rit o f m a n d a m u s. B e c a u se w e a ffirm o n ju risd ictio n a l g ro u n d s, w e d o n o t re a c h th e m e rits of w hetherM i l l er ’ s name shoul d nothave be en perm i t t ed on the bal l otw hen ther e w as no D emocr at i c M uni ci pal E xecut i ve C om m i t t ee i n exi s t ence a tthe t i m e of the qual i f

yi ng d e a d lin e . ¶ 1 8 . AFF I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , P . JJ. , LA M A R , K I TC H EN S, P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.