Opinion ID: 1919304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: amendments to the pleadings

Text: ¶ 6. On the second day of the hearing, Boyd attempted to amend his pleadings (1) to challenge votes cast during the second primary by absentee voters who had obtained second primary ballots without submitting a second application and (2) to question the votes of absentee voters who submitted applications for absentee ballots more than forty-five days prior to the second Democratic primary. Additionally, Boyd raised an ore tenus motion to amend to question the validity of absentee votes that lacked the signature of either the voter or attesting witness across the flap of the absentee ballot envelope. [1] The special tribunal's order reflects that the formal and ore tenus motions to amend were denied. [2] Boyd argues these denials were error. ¶ 7. The special tribunal in an election contest has jurisdiction only to hear those issues that a party raised before the executive committee: So it is then that Sec. 15, Sec. 3182 [ now Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-927 ], requires that the petition for a judicial review shall exhibit as an essential part of the petition a sworn copy of his protest or complaint theretofore made before the executive committee, from which it follows that if the contestant made no protest or contest in writing before the executive committee, there can be no jurisdiction in the special tribunal to review the action of the executive committee, and further that unless a sworn copy of his said protest or contest before the executive committee is made a part of his petition for a judicial review, the said petition will present no cause of action for such a review. Darnell v. Myres, 202 Miss. 767, 772-73, 32 So.2d 684, 685 (1947) (Emphasis & statutory reference added). Because the issues Boyd attempted to argue through amendment were not brought before the executive committee, the special tribunal was correct in denying Boyd's written and ore tenus motions to amend. ¶ 8. While the procedural bar applies to Boyd's failed motions to amend, we will discuss the merits of two issues he raises to prevent another incorrect application of the law as these issues have great potential to reoccur. Concerning whether signatures on the back of an absentee ballot envelope must actually cross the envelope's flap, Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-633 (Rev.2001), provides that on any envelope where the elector's signature and the signature of the attesting witness are required, the signature lines and the signatures shall be across the flap of the envelope to insure the integrity of the ballot.  (Emphasis added). Because the Legislature found these requirements to be essential to the guarantee of a ballot's integrity, absentee ballots with signatures failing to cross the envelope's flap should be invalidated. ¶ 9. We also note that a second primary election is not a continuation of the first election permitting a bypassing of the statutory requirement that each absentee ballot may only be received upon proper application by an absentee voter. While Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-625 (Rev.2001) does not specifically state that a second application is required for an absentee run-off or second primary ballot, the lack of legislative language is telling. In Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-683 (Rev.2001), the Legislature specifically exempted the necessity of requiring second applications, or even second ballots, of those voters qualified under the Armed Services Absentee Voting Law. Also, Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-629 (Rev.2001) entitles permanently, physically disabled voters to automatically receive absentee ballots for all elections. It is obvious, then, that the Legislature intended separate applications for each election unless specific exemptions are provided. There is no such legislative exemption for a second application for absentee voters under Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-625 (Rev.2001) or surrounding statutes. ¶ 10. The requirement for separate applications is strengthened by other legislative language clearly delineating the different elections. Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-801(a) (Rev.2001) defines an election as either a general, special, primary, or runoff election further separating a primary election from a runoff by definition. When describing the duties of the registrar, Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-625 (Rev.2001) instructs a registrar to fill in dates and mail out applications for a particular election. Thus, we find that a second primary is not a continuation of the first. Each primary requires a separate application unless otherwise exempted by voting law.