Hughes v. Hosemann
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-01949-SCT | |
| Oral Argument: | 06-06-2011 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-08-2011 Opinion Author: Pierce, J. Holding: Vacated and dismissed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Injunctive relief - Proposed constitutional amendment - Voter initiative proposal - Measure 26 - Personhood - Miss. Const. Art. 15, Sec. 273(5)(a) - Pre-election challenge Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar and Chandler, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Randolph, J., Specially Concurs With Separate Written Opinion Joined by Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar, Chandler and Pierce, KK. Dissenting Author : Kitchens, J. With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : King, J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-09-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Malcolm O. Harrison Disposition: The trial court denied Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that they had not carried their heavy burden in attemption to restrict the citizenry's right to amend the Constitution. Case Number: 251-10-546CIV |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Deborah Hughes and Cristen Hemmins |
ROBERT B. MCDUFF, J. CLIFTON JOHNSON, II, ALEXA KOLBI-MOLINAS, SUZANNE NOVAK, DIANA O. SALGADO AGUILAR |
|
|
| Appellee: | Delbert Hosemann, P. Leslie Riley, Jr. and Personhood Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: HAROLD EDWARD PIZZETTA, III, STEPHEN M. CRAMPTON | ||
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: | Injunctive relief - Proposed constitutional amendment - Voter initiative proposal - Measure 26 - Personhood - Miss. Const. Art. 15, Sec. 273(5)(a) - Pre-election challenge |
| Summary of the Facts: | P. Leslie Riley and an organization known as Personhood Mississippi filed an initiative, now known as Measure 26, with the Office of the Secretary of State. The initiative was qualified by the Secretary of the State to be placed on the general election ballot. Thereafter, Deborah Hughes and Cristen Hemmins filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, challenging Measure 26 as a violation of Article 15, Section 273(5)(a) of the Mississippi Constitution. Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Secretary of State replied with a response to that motion. The trial court entered and approved an Agreed Order, allowing Riley and Personhood Mississippi to intervene. Subsequently, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that they had not carried their heavy burden in attempting to restrict the citizenry’s right to amend the Constitution. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Secretary of State and the Intervenors. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Plaintiffs request that the Court to reverse the judgment of the trial court, find that Measure 26 is unconstitutional and invalid, and enjoin the Secretary of State from placing Measure 26 on the ballot in the November 2011 election. The Plaintiffs question the substance of Measure 26 but have not raised any objections to the form of Measure 26. Essentially, Plaintiffs ask the Court to render judgment upon the substance of Intervenors’ initiative – its constitutionality – in advance of the election. Issuing a ruling on whether the text comports with the Constitution would be the same as issuing a substantive ruling on the constitutionality of the proposal itself, which the Court is without authority to do. Advance opinions will not be issued to remove alleged clouds or uncertainties from proposed statutes or constitutional amendments. It is not within the province of the Court to render advisory opinions. To the extent that the case In re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000) is read to provide pre-election substantive review of proposed constitutional amendments, it is overruled. The Court is without power to determine the constitutionality of a proposed statute, amendment, or initiative prior to its approval by the Legislature or electorate. Pre-election challenges of voter-initiative proposals are subject only to the review of the sufficiency of the petition itself (i.e., its form) and not its constitutionality (i.e., its substance). Thus, the trial court’s final judgment in favor of Intervenors and Secretary Hosemann is vacated and judgment is rendered, finally dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint and this action without prejudice. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
