Opinion ID: 1117343
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Parker's Petition to Contest Provided Sufficient Grounds for Contesting the Election

Text: ¶ 12. The two errors raised alleging violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 23-15-921 are considered together. This code section provides the procedure for contesting a primary election. The contestant must within twenty (20) days after the primary election, file a petition with the secretary, or any member of the county executive committee in the county in which the election was held, setting forth the grounds upon which the primary election is contested. Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-921 (Rev.2001). ¶ 13. Moore contends that Parker filed two petitions to contest, the handwritten note on May 4, 2005, and a more formal, more specific petition on May 11, 2005. Moore asserts that Parker did not file [his May 4, 2005,] petition with the secretary, or any member of the county executive committee in the county in which the election was held . . . as required by Mississippi Code Annotated Section 23-15-921. Indeed, Parker filed his May 4, 2005, petition with the Houston City Clerk. However, on May 11, 2005, he personally served one of the members of the Houston Democratic Executive Committee with his second petition. Thus, while Parker did not file his May 4, 2005, petition with a member of the Houston Democratic Executive Committee pursuant to Mississippi Code Section Annotated XX-XX-XXX, Parker filed a petition with the Houston Democratic Executive Committee. ¶ 14. Further, Moore contends that the May 4, 2005, petition did not set forth sufficiently specific allegations as required by Mississippi Code Section 23-15-921. The language of the contest or petition or complaint before the Executive Committee must be reasonably specific in its charges and may not be mere general language. Harris v. Stewart, 187 Miss. 489, 507, 193 So. 339 (1940) (citing Shaw v. Burnham, 186 Miss. 647, 191 So. 484, 486 (1939)). ¶ 15. Moore directs the Court to the handwritten document Parker submitted to the Houston City Clerk on May 4, 2005, which read I, Stacey W. Parker, hereby contest the mayoral election of Houston, MS. May 3, 2005. Parker responds and Moore concedes that Parker submitted a petition on May 11, 2005, containing more specific allegations. However, the parties further dispute the validity of the petition submitted on May 11, 2005. While Moore accurately notes that Section 23-15-921 does not provide for submission of a second petition, as Parker responds, the statute also does not prohibit submission of an additional petition. Therefore, Moore's argument concerning the specificity of the May 4, 2005, petition is irrelevant since Parker submitted a more specific petition on May 11, 2005, the specificity of which Moore does not challenge.