Judge DeLaughter’s Opinion: Careful, Thoughtful, And Methodical
But substantively, Judge DeLaughter split his decision, essentially handing one win to Gov. Haley Barbour and two to Attorney General Jim Hood. He agreed with Barbour’s argument that the judicial branch could not issue a writ of mandamus against the chief executive — “Even if Mississippi case authorities did not bar writs of mandamus and other injunctive relief against the Governor, this Court would nevertheless be disinclined to issue such a writ under the circumstances of this case,” he wrote — but refused to accept the governor’s suggestion that the court lacked any authority to act. Citing a 1906 case in which the state Supreme Court noted that judicial interference in any election is proper only to prevent a constitutional or statutory violation, DeLaughter concluded that “[t]he declaratory relief subsequently addressed and awarded herein is sufficient, in the Court’s opinion, in affording an adequate remedy for the subject wrong…”
But with regard to interpreting Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-855, Judge DeLaugher sided emphatically with the attorney general. “The term ‘the general election day,’ ‘as the time for electing a senator,’ may not logically be be construed to refer to any general election day other than the one that will be held in the same calendar year as the vacancy,” Judge DeLaughter wrote. “If the Legislature had intended any other general election day, it could easily have written ‘the next general election day’ without affixing it to the calendar year of the vacancy…”
Will Bardwell
1/16/8
Magnolia Tribune
