On January 9, Governor Barbour’s legal team unleashed a load of legal documents and answers in Hinds County Circuit Court for the lawsuit that Attorney General Jim Hood has filed over the election to replace former Senator Trent Lott. Jim Hood’s office has gone against the advice of both Governor Barbour and outgoing Secretary of State Eric Clark, who both believe that a November 2008 special election is the appropriate measure for replacement. Of course, Governor Barbour has appointed former Representative Roger Wicker to the post. The Democratic Party and Hood have both claimed that a special election must be held within 90 days (approximately March) to satisfy the requirements of Mississippi Code. The political ramifications are substantial as the Democratic Party and its two main candidates, former Governor Ronnie Musgrove and former US Rep. Ronnie Shows, do not relish a long and expensive fight against a sitting US Senator. Plus with the litany of charges in the trial lawyer community, stalwart donors for Democratic candidates may not answer fundraising calls from Democratic candidates.
Just about every legal analyst has commented about the murkiness of the relevant statutes as they revolve around notice in an election year. Of course in 2007, there were general elections, but as Senator Lott resigned after those general elections, it is hard to claim that for a definitive interpretation.
The releveant filings can be found as follows . . .
Governor Barbour’s Answer & Defenses
Governor Barbour’s Motion to Dismiss
Governor Barbour’s Opposition to Injunctive Relief
Governor Barbour’s Memorandum of Authorities
Their basic legal premise is quoted in their Memorandum of Authorities stating . . .
Attorney General Hood contends that the Governor’s WRIT OF ELECTION violates the United States Constitution, Complaint ¶ 20, and the Mississippi Constitution, Complaint ¶ 21. A review of basic constitutional principles demonstrates not only that Governor Barbour has properly discharged his constitutional responsibility, but also that a Mississippi court has no authority to interfere with his decision.
In other words, the Governor has some prerogative to make a judgement calls in light of murky statutes, and this is one of them.
There has been extensive legal work put into these responses, and though it only represents one side of the argument, it is pretty hard to argue with. The Governor’s legal team seems to have done an outstanding job of making his case.
More action will be held in a hearing on Monday, January 14, 2008 in Hinds County Circuit Court in front of Judge Bobby Delaughter, and we will be on top of it.
Regardless of the outcome in trial court, this case will most assuredly wind up in the Mississippi Supreme Court. Given how the Padnuship for a Healthy Mississippi battle went, it is hard to imagine this fight going against the Governor.
