Opinion ID: 1743456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court properly consider evidence concerning the ten suspect names on ladner's qualifying petition?

Text: ¶ 10. We affirm the circuit court as to this issue, as we find it to be without merit. Ladner objected at trial that Necaise should not have been allowed to introduce evidence concerning the suspect names before the circuit court since Necaise had not presented evidence that those signatures were not valid before the election commission. Ladner relies on Shannon v. Henson, 499 So.2d 758, 764 (Miss.1986), where this Court held that matters not first presented to the election commission could not be raised before the Special Tribunal. This case is distinguishable from Shannon v. Henson , where the Court reasoned that the tribunal could only hear matters already presented to the executive committee since the tribunal acted as an appellate court. In this case, the circuit court heard the election contest at issue because the election commission failed to take action on Necaise's challenge to Ladner's petition. Since the election commission failed to take action, Necaise was allowed to present the issue de novo to the circuit court, which does not act as an appellate court. See Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-963(5). At a trial de novo, a court may entertain new evidence. Pearson v. Parsons, 541 So.2d 447, 453 (Miss.1989).