MS-Sen-B: MS Supreme Court Says Barbour’s Ballot is Illegal, But Refuses to Enforce Compliance

This is just unreal:

The Mississippi Supreme Court has given a split ruling in a dispute about the ballot placement for Trent Lott’s old Senate seat.

A majority of justices ruled Thursday that state law requires the special election between Republican Roger Wicker and Democrat Ronnie Musgrove to be near the top of the November 4th ballot.

But they stopped short of ordering Republican Gov. Haley Barbour to elevate the race off the bottom.

So let’s get this straight: The Mississippi Supreme Court (stacked with Barbour allies) says that the ballot is illegal, but stops short of ordering Haley Barbour to comply with the law?

I’m shaking my head in disbelief.

Update: The full decision, including the scathing dissent of Justice Diaz, is below the fold.

Here are a few quotes from the dissent:

Given the governor’s recent success at convincing seven members of this Court that a year is sometimes not a year, see Barbour v. State ex. reL Hood, 974 So. 2d 232 (Miss. 2008), one cannot fault him for daring to return to our chamber and insisting that the top is sometimes not the top.

But on the other, by holding that Judge Green exceeded her authority by ordering Governor Barbour and Secretary of State Hosemann to comply with state law, we send out from our chamber little more than a dressed-up request that this now settled law be complied with.

Later Update: Does anyone care to to tell me what the hell this means?

Barbour released a brief statement Thursday after the decision.

“The Supreme Court has spoken; so be it,” Barbour said.

12 thoughts on “MS-Sen-B: MS Supreme Court Says Barbour’s Ballot is Illegal, But Refuses to Enforce Compliance”

  1. “We find that that the special election for United States Senator must be listed in the first category of the ballot, along with all other national elections…”

    The court dissolved the circuit’s judge’s order to move the race to a specific place, but does make kind of an unambiguous ruling here.  We’ll see if Barbour tries more trickery.

    I am guessing this decision was influenced, at least in part, by John Conyer’s request to get DOJ involved.  I’m betting no one wanted DOJ to supervise a MS election and air the state’s old, bad racial history.

  2. circular logic going on here. The majority states that judicial review will apply once the governor and SoS have actually done something. That, in itself, makes it sound like they will enforce the law once the Governor violates it.

    Of course, once the Governor and Secretary act, their decisions and actions are then subject to judicial review.

    But it seems to me like they have acted: i.e. they printed up their ballots and made them public. There’s really nothing more acts for them to do, other than turn the people loose to vote on those ballots… and by that point, it’s too late for the court to step in and say “No, you’re still not following the law” because the election has already occurred. As the dissent states, it’s a particularly contorted view of judicial review, and I can’t tell from the language of the order whether this is meant to be a total our-hands-are-tied abdication of judicial review (and of Marbury v. Madison) or just a passive-aggressive way of encouraging Barbour to try again.

  3. I am talking it over with my army of lawyers to determine if we can still sneak this through.  I want to continue flouting the law, but some of my weaker advisers are trying to convince me to move on.  I’ve yet to decide whether to extend my trickery, and thus ensure more fights in state and federal court over this issue.  

Comments are closed.