Source: https://janeslawblog.com/2015/06/09/oral-arg-miss-s-ct-june-9-2015/
Timestamp: 2018-10-20 04:35:16
Document Index: 513025077

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 201', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23', '§ 23']

Oral arg. – Miss.S.Ct. – June 9, 2015 | Jane's Law Blog
Jane Tucker / June 9, 2015
At 10:00 a.m. the Court will hear argument in the case of Legislature of the State of Mississippi v. Adrian Shipman and the Attorney General’s Office which is a dispute over the title of a ballot initiative to amend Miss. Const. § 201 (1890). That provision currently reads:
The law allows the AG to give the initiative a title and AG Jim Hood chose “Should the State be required to provide for the support of an adequate and efficient system of free public schools?”
The Legislature appealed raising the following issues:
Whether § 23-17-13 grants the Circuit Court authority to review a ballot title composed by the Attorney General under MCA. § 23-17-33 (Rev. 2007) for a proposed amendment to the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 adopted by the Legislature under MCA § 23-17-29 (Rev. 2007).
In the alternative, whether § 23-17-13, if construed to permit the Circuit Court to review the Attorney General’s composition under § 23-17-33 of a ballot title which “indicate[s], as clearly as possible, the essential differences in the measure” is unconstitutional under the political question doctrine and the ban on advisory opinions.
Whether, in composing his title for Alternative Measure No. 42A, General Hood acted “without reason, in a whimsical manner, implying either a lack of understanding of or a disregard for the surrounding facts and settled controlling principles.” Mississippi State Dept. of Health v. Natchez Cmty. Hosp., 743 So. 2d 973, 977 (Miss. 1999).
Whether the title imposed by the Circuit Court is untruthful, in violation of § 23- 17-9 (Rev. 2007), for declaring that the constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature does “not provide a mechanism to enforce that right” to effective public schools.
The legislature’s brief.
Intervenors’ brief.
AG’s brief.
Shipman’s brief
Legislature’s rebuttal.
Looks like Mike Wallace is arguing for the Appellants. He is always worth watching.
This AP article in the Jackson Free Press explains the issues.
← Ex MBN agent’s cases draw scrutiny
Decisions – COA – June 9, 2015 →