MS attorney general files suit against Barbour.
MS attorney general files suit against Barbour.
In light of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) naming Rep. Roger Wicker (R-MS) as a replacement for Trent Lott’s Senate seat, State Attorney General Jim Hood filed a lawsuit today in Hinds County Circuit Court “seeking an injunction to require the special election for Lott’s replacement to be conducted within 90 days”:
In a Dec. 20 proclamation, Barbour set the Nov. 4, 2008 general election as the date for the senatorial special election. If a runoff is required, it will be conducted on Nov. 25, the governor said. But Hood said state statute mandates the governor set the election within 90 days of his proclamation.
“As a result of the governor’s proclamation, the state of Mississippi will be without a popularly elected replacement senator for at least 322 days (10 months and 17 days) and possibly 342 days (11 months and seven days) in the event of a runoff election,” Hood said in his motion for a preliminary injunction.
(HT: Cotton Mouth)
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
CUE THE TROLLS!
Frivolous lawsuits! John Edwards! 4, 3, 2, 1…
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:35 pmGood for the AG to stand up to lawless Barbour! This man is a disgrace to the good people of Mississippi. He needs to be replaced.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pmThat may make a big difference in this one, given that it is such a political battle.
Comment by good_golly
If anybody can read the english language – there will be no ‘battle’. Either the code says one thing or it says another. Only in Bush’s world would simple words need a judge to read them.
GG, can’t we simply read the code and do what it says?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pmIn this new era, it’s obvious that Hood must be a Democrat, a Republican AG would simply go along, regardless of the “law”.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pmcan’t we simply read the code and do what it says?
Comment by StratRat — January 2, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
I think you and I could agree on that, StratRat, but we’re dealing with wingnuts here. And, as wingnut spokestroll Frank M says, “facts can be made to conform to any agenda”.
Their minds simply work differently than ours do, it would appear.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pmYes. I have read the code; but the AG disagrees with the governor. That is not uncommon for two people to read the same code and disagree as to what it means in a given situation.
Comment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
if you’ve read the code, then you know that Barbour is breaking the law. Why do you hate American law?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pmStrat- not to take off topic, but humor me, and read post #56 on the Perino conference. Happy New Year from Clairemont.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pmThat statement is misleading – it makes it seem as though Mississippi would be without any representation for almost a year, when, in fact, MS would be represented as laid out by law.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 pmgoof-gullible:
Lott retired at the end of 2007. The state-wide election is in 2008.
Not the same year.
Pretty simple.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pmAccording to polly_wolly’s citation, the governor screwed himself. The vacancy did not occur in a year with a general election, it occurred in 2007 — so that Lott could get in on the loot a year early.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pmYes. I have read the code; but the AG disagrees with the governor. That is not uncommon for two people to read the same code and disagree as to what it means in a given situation.
Comment by good_golly
As a proud non-lawyer, I too read the code. I’m presuming it came from a credible and sanctioned source. The words are clear as to the timeframe and responsibilities of all the parties. There should be no ‘discussion’ as to the intention of the law. The only – THE ONLY – reason for the discussion would be to further circumvent the law and provide the GOP with another dubious claim of imperial powers – made up on the spot.
Please say you would want the actual rule of law to prevail in this instance, right?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pmAs much as it pains me to say this… if that is truly the code… Then the Gov. is correct.
It would be less than 12 months so no special election is called for. Or am I missing something?
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pmComment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
The vacancy happened in 2007, lott was just re-elected in 2006, so the remainder of his term is 5 more years.
According to the law you cited, the attorney general is correct that the governor is not following the law.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm“The vacancy did not occur in a year with a general election, it occurred in 2007 — so that Lott could get in on the loot a year early.”
Comment by gummitch — January 2, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Maybe this is what I was missing…
Thanks, Gummitch!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:08 pm16. The key is the issuance of the proclamation, which was done on December 20th, 2007. Since that follows the official notice, the official notice was obviously in 2007.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pmIt would be less than 12 months so no special election is called for. Or am I missing something?
Comment by TheRadicalRightisRadicallyWrong — January 2, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
The unexpired portion of the term is more like five years.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:10 pmStrat- not to take off topic, but humor me, and read post #56 on the Perino conference. Happy New Year from Clairemont.
Comment by leftcoast
I read it…It must be exciting to be in Bush’s brain these days.
Say one thing, do another, then send out your mouthpiece to say you did what you didn’t do. I love a good lie.
Happy new year to you too! I am in town this weekend if ya wanna grab a coffee at ‘the bean’. let me know.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pmStrat- sounds good. Talk soon.
Found this a couple of days ago.
“The Mississippi secretary of state’s office said early Monday that state law appeared to require a special election within 90 days if Lott retires in 2007. After consulting with lawyers, however, a spokesman said the secretary of state concurred with Barbour based on a technicality in the letter of the law.
In an exception to the 90-day rule, the law says the governor “shall designate†the special election for the same day as the general election if a vacancy occurs the same calendar year as a statewide election. Mississippi had a statewide election earlier this month (Nov.), so Barbour would be setting the special election for the next statewide election in 2008.”
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:16 pmSorry, link did not post.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mississippi-special-election-date-causes-uncertainty-2007-11-26.html
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pmso Barbour would be setting the special election for the next statewide election in 2008.â€
Comment by leftcoast — January 2, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
And not the election that is within the same year as the vacancy, as the law states.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:19 pmherein lies the violation of the law.
Here in MS it is generally thought Barbour will lose in Hinds County court but win when appealed to the High Court since he has appointed so many “like minded” judges.
The end result will be wasted tax payer money and the people losing an elected offical for 11 months.
Barbour will be happy to argue about this for as long as it takes.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pmBarbour had 10 days after receiving official notification of the vacancy to appoint an interim senator pending a special election. Barbour appointed Wicker on December 31, 13 days after Lott’s resignation.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:40 pmhttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Legislative_Transparency_and_Accountability_Act_of_2007
Trent Lott ran for reelection. He said he was doing it to help with Katrina-related Gulf Coast reconstruction. Now he is abandoning the seat after just one year. And he is doing it for a transparently unethical reason. He plans to do something so unethical that it will be criminal on January 1,2008.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmunless the vacancy shall occur in a year that there shall be held a general state or congressional election
Looks to me that the clear intent of the statute is to provide for the replacement to be selected at a subsequent general election.
The fact that there was a general election in the same calendar year PRIOR to Lott’s resignation has no bearing on the vacancy nor on the procedure used to fill it.
It is pretty clearly a dishonest dodge by Barbour to parse the wording of the statute so precisely that he can get away with an appointed Senator for nearly a year, Lott still gets to skip town ahead of the new lobbying rules, all for the greater advantage of the Mississippi Republican Party and to the arguable detriment of the people of Mississippi.
GG is correct as far as it goes, that the statute is open to just enough interpretation that one could squint and hold it up to the light just right and possibly see what Barbour sees.
But if there were no political advantage to be had, I wonder how Barbur (and G-g) interpret the statute. Even more interesting, I wonder if, were the situation somehow reversed and there would be an actual advantage for a delay until November would fall to a Democratic candidate, whether Barbour would still see it the same way.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pmHowever, if he did not “receive official notice†until 2008, than the election would be held at the next general election day in November.
So, when did the governor “receive official notice.â€
Comment by good_golly
The governor “received official notice” the day that Lott announced to the world that he was retiring before the end of 2007. If Barbour want’s to play games with the law by stating that he did not “receive official notice” until 2008, then that’s all he is doing. He is playing fast and loose with the law which is what most Republiscums do so it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:33 pmdoes barbour also appoint a replacement for wicker? see, i think there is some concern on the part of the state republican party as to how to keep the 2-2 congressional split and the senate seat. depending on which candidates the democrats can field for the senate seat, there is a potential contest there (i am thinking bennie thompson, mike espy, ronnie musgrove or ronnie shows). likewise, the strongest politicians in northeast mississippi are all democrats in the state legislature who are strongly opposed to barbour. barbour is trying to finesse the statute to give the republicans incumbency advantages in seats that they will likely have to fight to keep just to maintain the status quo.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:54 pmWhen it comes down to it even though the law is weak in it’s wording it still is clear how it should be followed. Barbour does have an arguement, but in the end it is still a stretch. The overall point that I hope is not lost is that this would NOT be an issue unless Lott was not wanting to slip in under the new lobby law. Barbour is only working with the hand that he was dealt – it is sad that he is doing it, but it is a corner that he was backed in to.
At the end of the day it comes down to Trent Lott who less than a year ago told the state of Mississippi he wanted to run for office again to help those on the gulf coast – look at his record what did he do? We all know what the republicans have done in the Senate this past year. He is getting out because he sees the future and he is getting his while he can – if not then he could have retired today and it would have solved this question hands down.
I am not a fan of Barbour’s by no means but I understand what he is trying to do.
We do not need to forget Lott’s part in this – to me that is the biggest offense.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:26 pm