Jefferson Davis County Democratic Exe. Comm., et al. v. Davies
| Docket Number: | 2003-EC-02262-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-17-2005 Opinion Author: Cobb, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Election contest - Jurisdiction - Violations - Section 23-15-593 - Section 23-15-591 - Section 23-15-895 Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Easley, Carlson, Graves, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - ELECTION CONTEST |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2003 Appealed from: Jefferson Davis County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: Found only technical violations of the election code and did not warrant a new election. Case Number: 2003-99P-E |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Jefferson Davis County Democratic Executive Committee and Irene Carter, Nadine Thompson, Roger Dampier, Ollie Johnson and Billie Jean Page, Individually and in Their Official Capacities as Members of the Jefferson Davis County Democratic Executive Committee |
CHARLES E. MILLER |
||
| Appellee: | John William Davies | WILLIAM HEATH HILLMAN |
|
|
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: | Election contest - Jurisdiction - Violations - Section 23-15-593 - Section 23-15-591 - Section 23-15-895 |
| Summary of the Facts: | John Davies received a majority of the votes in the second Democratic Party primary election for Jefferson Davis County Chancery Clerk. Following the election, the Jefferson Davis County Democratic Executive Committee decided to hold a new primary election for that position. Davies challenged the Executive Committee’s decision. The circuit judge held that although violations of the election code did occur, they were technical violations and irregularities which were done without fraudulent intent to help any particular candidate and were not substantial enough to warrant a new election. The Executive Committee appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Committee argues that the court lacked jurisdiction due to failure to comply with the statutory requirements, namely, the petition was not sworn, Davies did not file an appeal bond, and the two attorneys who certified that they had made an independent investigation had not done so. The trial court properly allowed the amendment of Davies’s unsworn petition by sworn testimony as to its content at the hearing. The circuit clerk testified that he had received in his office, a cash bond from Davies in the sum of $300. Although the Committee argued that the two certifying attorneys had made no independent investigation, and members of the committee testified that they had not been contacted by the attorneys, neither of the attorneys was subpoenaed nor asked to testify. There was testimony by Davies that independent investigation had been made. In addition, the violations did not warrant a new election because the requirements of section 23-15-593 were not satisfied. Section 23-15-593 authorizes new elections for individual precincts if the requirements are met, not a new election county or district wide. To hold a new election county wide in this case, the Committee must determine that all precincts failed in material particulars to comply with the requirements of sections 23-15-591 and 23-15-895 to such an extent that it is impossible to arrive at the will of the voters. There is no evidence in this case that there were violations of those statutes. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
