Myers v. City of McComb
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01266-SCT Linked Case(s): 2005-CA-01266-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-05-2006 Opinion Author: RANDOLPH, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Separation of powers - Incompatible offices - Miss.Const. Art. 1, Section 2 - Voting Rights Act Judge(s) Concurring: SMITH, C.J., COBB, P.J., EASLEY, CARLSON AND DICKINSON, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): DIAZ, J. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. Dissent Joined By : WALLER, P.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2005 Appealed from: PIKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: Granted Summary Judgment in favor of Myers Case Number: 2002-124-B |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | DAVID W. MYERS |
WILLIE JAMES PERKINS, CARLOS DIALLO PALMER, MARK C. BAKER, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | CITY OF McCOMB | NORMAN B. GILLIS, JR. |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Separation of powers - Incompatible offices - Miss.Const. Art. 1, Section 2 - Voting Rights Act |
| Summary of the Facts: | The City of McComb, by and through the Board of Mayor and Selectmen of McComb, filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment for the removal of David W. Myers from the Board of Mayor and Selectmen, for simultaneously serving in the State Legislature, in violation of Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 of the Mississippi Constitution. Myers removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Myers. The City appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand to the Pike County Circuit Court. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The circuit court denied Myers’ motion and granted summary judgment in favor of the City and declared Myers’ office as City Selectman to be vacant. Myers appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court and subsequently filed a separate suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The record contains substantial and credible evidence that the position of City Selectman in McComb requires the performance of more than incidental dual functions, legislative and executive. Article 1, Section 2 of the Mississippi Constitution prohibits the exercise of any power belonging to one branch by a member of another branch. The Supreme Court has held that no member of the legislative branch may consistent with the constitution exercise any powers essentially executive in nature. Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution are to be applied to municipalities and the persons or collection of persons which compose same and any language in prior opinions is overruled only to the extent that they state or suggest otherwise. Here, Myers serves in one purely legislative function, i.e., State Representative, and in one dual (legislative and executive) function, i.e., Selectman for the City of McComb. Myers’ quandary is illustrated by reference to the legislative power over appropriations to the City in his role as a State Representative, and his combined legislative and executive powers over the direction of those appropriated funds in his role as Selectman for the City of McComb. Clearly, Myers’ dual legislative and executive functions, while serving in separately accepted offices, conflicts with the mandate of Article 1, Section 2. Myers’ performance of such dual service presents conflicts in attempting to serve the interests of the State (as a State Representative), the interests of the City (as a Selectman for the City of McComb), and the interests of separate constituencies. That which is always good for the City is not necessarily always beneficial to the State of Mississippi, and vice versa. Competing duties naturally create incompatible office issues as there is inherent inconsistency in the nature of the duties of the two offices, so that both cannot be administered by the same person. Myers argues that his removal from office, as required by the Mississippi Constitution, is unenforceable because of the Voting Rights Act. The Mississippi Constitution of 1890 was in force or effect over 70 years prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, while the common law doctrine of incompatible offices is far older. Accordingly, there is no change in the law affecting voting which is different from November 1, 1964. Moreover, there is no candidate qualification issue, and the judgment in this case will not negatively affect the racial composition of the Board, as the city district represented by Myers is 77.5% African-American. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
