Jackson Free Press

[Verbatim from Attorney General Jim Hood] Jackson, MS-Gov. Haley Barbour's ill-conceived attempt to gain a partisan political advantage for his party and violate state law is an embarrassment for both his office and the state's voters, Attorney General Jim Hood said today. "If Gov. Barbour believes his legal acumen is greater than that of a legal staff with a combined 100 years of experience in election law -- including two attorneys considered the deans of election law in Mississippi -- then he is walking in a dream world," General Hood said in reference to the career attorneys in his office.

"And I can promise the voters of Mississippi that I will trust the knowledge and experience of these lawyers over that of a tobacco lobbyist every single day," he said.

General Hood called on Barbour to put away his political gameboard, swallow his pride and do what is right for Mississippi by following the
law. After diligent research and review of the law, Barbour has been well informed that his position is wrong. A circuit court judge has confirmed that he is wrong.

Clearly, Barbour has yet to understand the facts. The lawsuit, filed in Hinds County Circuit Court, addresses the form of the SAMPLE ballot. It did not touch on the official ballot to be adopted by the local election commissions, which is the issue on which the Attorney General's Office has issued an opinion.

Further, the lawsuit does not address issues that would require local election commissions to follow the sample ballot. "Therefore, I tell you our opinion was proper and perfectly legal," General Hood said, "despite what our governor would have our people believe."

But the real issue, said General Hood, is one of common sense. The most important political races -- that of the President and the U.S. Senate - should be placed at the top of the ballot.

"How long are Mississippians going to tolerate the political games of our governor? This isn't Washington, Mr. Barbour, and our people are quite a bit smarter than that for which you give them credit," General Hood said.

Previous Comments

ID

135717

Comment

Ladd, Once again I am sorely disappointed in the self proclaimed "Creative Class of Jackson" (CCOJ). I see here, on the on line JFP pages, daily how the more educated, more connected and more affluent CCOJ is just as susceptible, gullible and manipulated as their less educated, totally isolated and less affluent "Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired Class of Mississippi" (POOR). The current example is how the CCOJ has devoted more thought and creative energy (as measured by the number of posted comments) to the emotional issues of Sarah Palin and James Ford Seale and the CCOJ have totally ignored the very real issue of the manipulation of the ballot for the Mississippi Senatorial run off race. Over 75 comments each were posted regarding the1) release of cold case civil rights killer and 2) the wiggles, waggles, foibles and troibles (that's Brooklyn-ese) of the Grand O' Republican Party's VP candidate. In my opinion this whole emphasis on decades of Civil Rights Case Justice by the Republican Justice Department and corporate (Republican) media is just a red herring to divert the populaces' energies towards re-hashing the dead issues of the distant past and away from the red hot, life and death issues of today Our thoughts and creative juices flow abundantly for the emotional issues and I see absolutely no response, comment or reaction from the CCOJ regarding another attempt by the Republican Party to steal yet another election (think Florida and Ohio in the last two Presidential elections), right here in Mississippi. What gives CCOJ? Here we are in the Capital City and we don't take seriously our responsibility to be the vigilant vocal vanguard at the seat of government for our rural brothers and sisters…or am I wrong once more in my humble opinion? I don't think it is a coincidence that the early Civil Rights leadership was disproportionally (in terms of education and resources) located in the Delta, and not in Jackson. This is yet another why the City of Jackson and it's CCOJ don't get no respect. Our self inflicted political and leadership impotence is obvious to even the most casual observer.

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2008-09-15T22:54:14-06:00

ID

135718

Comment

i've honestly been pleased with the currrent progress of the ballot issue. While i do fear the Supreme Court will rule in favor of conservative political interest there does not seem to be a productive way for me to bring influence to bear on that situation. i do however take seriously the prospect of our next President and Vice President and feel that informing myself of these issues and sharing that information with others can carry great weight in the manifestation of votes for the Obama/Biden campaign. i certainly hope that justice prevails in the ballot issue but since that issue exists in the justice system where public opinion does not hold sway, i think people are less likely to expend energy arguing the case.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2008-09-15T23:50:48-06:00

ID

135720

Comment

I concur C.O. way too much Palin talk IMO! the honeymoon is over and she should be ignored...kinda like Biden is being right now LOL..where is that guy?

Author

Kamikaze

Date

2008-09-16T04:44:03-06:00

ID

135722

Comment

So, essentially, we think that the populace, in general, is too dumb to figure out how to vote? I know there is voter fallout further down a ballot, but really, what we are saying is that if we place a special election issue after the general election (which I believe Musgrove did himself while in office)then we believe that everyone is too dumb to be able to stay focused long enough to go to that box and check who you want to vote for. On a side note, I find it fascinating that a law suit can be filed in only a matter of hours (what was it, around 1 or 2 hours?) after the conclusion of a meeting. I'm not an attorney, but I can see why people get into that field. If it only takes around 2 hours to create and file a lawsuit, that is some easy work to get yourself the potential for lots of money or recognition.

Author

Baron

Date

2008-09-16T06:51:36-06:00

ID

135725

Comment

No, Baron, "we" don't. Barbour apparently does, however. Else, he would follow the law and not waste taxpayer resources fighting such a silly, partisan battle.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T08:36:44-06:00

ID

135726

Comment

C.O. and Kaze, it's not really up to you gentlemen to tell everyone else what to talk about. I wonder: How many comments have each of you posted on the ballot issue to date? Perhaps instead of judging, you might lead the conversations you'd like to see happen. For women, and many men, the top of Sarah Palin is very important because, well, she just might get to appoint three Supreme Court justices and, you know, have the nuclear codes. She can also be poison for women's progress in the country, so don't even think about belittling conversation about her on this site. (I haven't seen you belittle talk about any of the men on the ticket). That's sexist in its own way. There is no reason to talk less about her. Feel free to start other threads and add to other topics, however. No one is stoppoing you. Otherwise, I'd suggest that your judgment of others, Casual Observer, is very unbecoming. You can be bigger than that, I'm sure.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T08:43:28-06:00

ID

135727

Comment

So, what you are saying is that he is filed a lawsuit and wanted to take this to court? I must have misread the piece because it looks like someone else decided it was worth spending our money to take it to court and fight the decision. I do agree though, however, that it is silly. It is a waste of tax payer dollars to have a special election and go through all this nonsense. What I don't agree with is that it is worth taking to court because I personally feel that the people of this state (I could be wrong though) are smart enough to vote, regardless of where it is on the ballet. What I hear people saying though - be it Haley and Delbert, if you truly believe that they are trying to negatively influence the election for Ronnie, or Jim trying to positively influence the election for Ronnie (or if you really believe it is just a matter of law) - is that we, the people of Mississippi, are too dumb to know how to vote and that, from either side, is just insulting. Partisan politics and values are going to be the death of our nation. I'm glad that the majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, it is just too bad that the most vocal swing far right or far left.

Author

Baron

Date

2008-09-16T08:54:37-06:00

ID

135729

Comment

No, Baron, he is insisting that the state not follow the law in the placement. I don't blame you about being insulted; I certainly am insulted by Barbour's apparent belief that Wicker will do better if fewer voters find the race on there. What kind of mesage does that send about the strength of his candidacy -- by a Republican governor, of all people!?! I don't have to agree with him that Mississippians are stupid to believe that he shouldn't be able to break state law at will. Cheers to the attorney general and others for trying to enforce the rule of law against a governor simply drunk with partisan power and doing anything he can to keep his guy in there. It reeks of desperation.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T09:06:26-06:00

ID

135730

Comment

And C.O., I've been out and not following all the news on the site closely, but there are three different posts so far on the ballot issue in the last week waiting for your comments. So stop your whining and have at it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T09:07:34-06:00

ID

135731

Comment

Given that McCain will be very elderly by the time he would take office and that he has had a malignant cancer AND those in his demographic have a 30% risk of Altzheimers ADDED to Palin's radical right wing sympathies makes her background a MUCH more pertinent topic than Joe Biden. Oddsmakers will agree McCain's odds of being naturally incapacitated are much higher than Obama's. There is actually science (the non-creationist kind) behind those calculations. Imagine her as president.

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-16T09:08:32-06:00

ID

135732

Comment

Exactly, Whitley. We've watched people be fooled and complain about criticism of problematic candidates too often -- Bush and Melton come to mind, of late. It is our responsibility to look very closely about this and talk about it as much as possible. A McCain presidency didn't terrify me nearly as much before he showed this level of poor judgement and dishonesty. Now, him as president scares me to death, and the idea of someone as extreme as she is makes Bush look not even quite as bad. And I sure never thought I'd say that.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T09:18:17-06:00

ID

135733

Comment

However, this strain is off-thread here (even if in response to off-topic complaints by C.O. and Kaze), so let's take the McCain discussion back to McCain-Palin threads.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T09:19:18-06:00

ID

135735

Comment

Donna, I had a link to the actual law (I might have gotten it from here), do you happen to have it handy as I have lost it. The best I could find in some quick searching were these comments: "According to Miss. Code Ann § 23-15-511, State statute requires all general election candidates be "clearly distinguished" from special election candidates. In 1990, 1991, and 1992, all special elections were at the end of the ballot. In 2002, 2004, and 2006, former Secretary of State Eric Clark stated the order of the ballot should be as follows (1) U.S. Senate, (2) U.S. House of Representatives, (3) Regular School Board and School Board Trustee elections, (4) Nonpartisan Judicial Elections, (5) Constitutional Amendments, and (6) Special Elections (other than special non partisan judicial elections)." http://www.sos.state.ms.us/ed_pubs/PressReleases/Articles.asp?prno=2135&search= And "Hood said the law does specify that national elections should be at the top of the ballot, followed by state elections. That particular law does not specify either special elections or regular elections. Hood said the law does specify that special elections, such as the Musgrove-Wicker contest, should be clearly marked. In 2002, a special election for a Court of Appeals post was placed with other Court of Appeals contests, but was marked as a special election. Hood said he believes it would be easier for him to defend in court the decision to place the special Senate election high on the ballot, with the other Senate election, instead of at the bottom of the ballot." http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=278250&pub=1&div=News And "Phillips said there's precedent in Mississippi for putting a special election on the ballot near other, similar races. He cites a 2002 sample ballot - posted on the secretary of state's Web site - that put a special election for a Court of Appeals seat immediately after the regular elections for Court of Appeals." http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080822/NEWS01/808220360/1002 But, none of those actually had a link to the law in question.

Author

Baron

Date

2008-09-16T09:37:01-06:00

ID

135741

Comment

I don't at my fingertips, Baron, and I'm busy on press deadline, but Folo had quoted the entire relevant section including the part about all national offices going at the top (the part that Barbour and Hosemann try to leave out). I linked that one to one of the ballot-debate threads. I'm sure you can find it. Feel free to link it back here if you do.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T09:52:31-06:00

ID

135744

Comment

http://www.folo.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/barbour-ag-amicus-brief.pdf (really bad scan, but it suffices to outline the actual law). You would think that the two second quotes I posted, both from articles stating that Jim is right and pushing for the election to be put at the top of the ballet, would have referenced the law (which we like to apply when it suits us and disregard when it doesn't). Next time I see Haley or Ronnie, I plan to ask them both to stop being so wasteful. I don't know Jim, but if I did or happen to meet him, I will inform him that he needs to leave his pretentious (we can be pretentious here!ha) nature out of his briefs, it just doesn't translate as well as it does when he is calling a press conference.

Author

Baron

Date

2008-09-16T10:19:27-06:00

ID

135745

Comment

I rather like to apply the law regardless unless it's a bad law that needs to be overturned, and then you argue on the merits and not try to pull tricks like Barbour does. Clearly, that's not the case here. I really, really am sick of Barbour treating Mississippians like we're stupid bigots. Really.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T10:27:00-06:00

ID

135754

Comment

Daniel Johnson: I cannot agree with your contention that just because the ballot issue is a legal issue now in the courts it is reasonable to expect that people won't respond in the JFP blogs. As you put it "but since that issue exists in the justice system where public opinion does not hold sway, i think people are less likely to expend energy arguing the case". The James Ford Seale case is in the courts; however that blog received 43 comments in one day. My point: it is human nature to put emotion before reason. That's not bad, that's just the way it is. However; a society must have it's "talented tenth" mobilized to prevent the purveyors of societal evil from winning the day - In my opinion. Baron (and Ladd): By saying that the public is not "too dumb" to look for the Senate run-off race at the bottom of the ballot you lessen the impact of what is systematically being done to the American public , including the so called educated, the creative, the well off as well as the poor. It's not stupidity that the Republicans and corporate media are counting on-they are counting on human nature to win the 1% or 2% they need to win the next (and past two) national elections. Are people "too dumb" to punch a hole in a piece of paper (hanging chads)?. Are people "too dumb" to leave the polls before voting because the line stretches around the corner at night in inclement weatherbexcause the plan from the beginning was not to have enough voting machines, that worked, on hand(Ohio)? Are people "too dumb" when they vote and find out later that their vote was not counted because every person with the name of Smith (in only the Black precincts)had their vote removed because once upon a time a guy named G, R, or W Smith committed a felony (that's right...that's what happened in Florida during the first GW Bush election). The Republicans see the handwritting on the wall. A close election is brewing in Mississippi-again (think Musgrove and Mabus defeats. Not only do the Republican's and corporate leadership want ALL of the money, they want a very few people to make a mistake based upon an intentionally flawed ballot design to give them the close victory in our Senate run-off

Author

FrankMickens

Date

2008-09-16T11:31:28-06:00

ID

135757

Comment

Yeah, and back in the '60s, black Mississippians were "too dumb" to answer the poll question, "How many bubbles in a bar of soap?" and thus couldn't vote. That was a trick, and this is a trick. I don't believe it will work so well this time, but it is tragic that Barbour is willing to stoop so low to try.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T11:36:10-06:00

ID

135759

Comment

Is it ironic that the group that always complains about voter fraud is the one that was responsible for disenfranchising voters in Florida and Ohio and now wants to dilute the vote in Mississippi?

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-16T11:44:39-06:00

ID

135760

Comment

There were opinion pieces and editorials in the ledger complaining about Ike Brown in Noxubee County, but has there been an equal amount of disdain for the anti-voter shenanigans going on now? They make Ike Brown seem like a poster child for voting fairness (ha ha).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2008-09-16T11:48:17-06:00

ID

135763

Comment

I agree that we should always apply the law, it was a rather passive way of saying that we really do choose to follow it when it suits us best. I bet you (and myself for that matter) probably don't go the exact speed limit all the time, I doubt that I make a full (3 second is it?) stop at every stop sign, I don't always ride my bike on the lawful side of the street, I know people who smoke up whenever they feel like it, regardless of a persons right to whatever care and facilities they have in the US some of them are here illegally, etc. etc. It can just go on forever. We only want to apply things to the situation when they best fit it for us. If I was wrong, then anytime there was an infraction, both "sides" would cry fowl, but that doesn't happen. I have yet to meet someone who isn't a hypocrite from time to time or all the time or just when it behooves them. Actually, I take that back, I have met a few people like that, but they are few and far between. "What do we mean when we say we want to be free? Usually we mean we don't want to be in a society that punishes us for doing what we want to do." - B.F. Skinner

Author

Baron

Date

2008-09-16T12:06:10-06:00

ID

135765

Comment

Interesting logical gymnastics there, Baron. What we have here is not Haley Barbour driving 68 mph; we have him trying to twist the law in order to put a national race on the bottom of the ballot because he fears his guy is going to lose. There is really no way to sugarcoat that; he is using state resources to play partisan politics. And speaking only for myself, as only I can do, I would cry foul if a Democrat was doing the same thing. I've cried foul against Frank Melton's shenanigans since his race for mayor, and the local Democratic Party allowed him to run as a Democrat even though he was lying about residency requirements (which we showed). I don't choose my battles based on partisan politics. And I never, ever buy the argument that because other people have gotten away with something, then someone else should. If that were the case in this state, no one should ever be prosecuted for murder.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-16T12:14:07-06:00

ID

135770

Comment

From speeding to ballots to murder, we all make big logical gymnastics (though we aren't quite on Nastia's level yet) leaps. I am embarrassed to say this, but I didn't know Frank was a republican. I mean, I think I knew it in the back of my head, but I stopped looked at things from a D vs R stance a long time ago and started basing my opinions on the person running, so I will excuse myself from not knowing that. Oh well. I think it is safe to say that you lean left (after going through the 38 - is that all the archives there are, it was just getting interesting - pages of your posts - sorry, I couldn't read all the comments too - this was the most sensible political thing I saw! http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/i_rescind_my_endorsement_of_democrat_david_blount/) and I lean to the middle and we won't see eye to eye on everything (though I am happy to see you and I can agree on the Clarion Lie.. I mean Ledger lacking a bit), but that is what makes things fun. Also, I'm not saying you only do partisan (as it is shown above you don't. In fact, I didn't see it here, but I remember a piece you wrote in the publication that was more spot on than anything I have read in the JFP yet. I should have kept it, but I had to recycle it instead. Now I can't remember what it was, sad days indeed.), I just know there are many stories out there from both "sides", more than you could cover, and you have to pick and choose which ones. They just happen to be a bit more left. :) It is all good though. Back to the issue at hand, I think, going back to my long forgotten government classes, that the interpretation of the law, regardless if we think it is spelled out perfectly clear, is left to the judicial system. By taking this to court (again, it is wasteful of both parties to do this when there is so much other stuff going on), the law will be interpreted. It is Haley's right to appeal and it is the courts place to decide. If we didn't have a system in place to interpret the law, you wouldn't end up with cases (and their resulting impacts) such as Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education (I know that these are far more important and have a greater impact than this debacle). Instead, you would have laws that were never challenged or changed unless the legislative branch did something about them. Did I ramble enough? Between reading your old articles, working and writing this, I got a bit random to say the least.

Author

Baron

Date

2008-09-16T13:41:45-06:00

ID

135798

Comment

Anyone noticed the commercials run by Roger "Slicker" Wicker lately against Ronnie Musgrove? I saw one a few minute ago that had Scruggs and Minor in it. Then I saw another one with Gore in it. A republican will do anything to win. I wonder whether they have a soul in them! Musgrove should run one with the kkk it it against the republicans.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-09-16T17:27:37-06:00

ID

135801

Comment

"but since that issue exists in the justice system where public opinion does not hold sway, i think people are less likely to expend energy arguing the case" - daniel i stand behind this statement mainly because i am not making a sweeping judgment but only a qualifying argument based on a hypothetical persons disposition. Comparing a ballot placement issue with a civil rights murder is hardly an apt comparison. Emotional issues certainly run higher when discussing race and unrepentant murderers. Now don't mistake that i am somehow suggesting the ballot placement issue is not just as important - i am merely asserting that the general populace is not as moved to action regarding issues which seem to be technical in nature and hold little bearing over them personally. (i would also argue that many people feel they have a personal stake in how the Seale case plays out insofar as the statement it makes about their state and its citizens.) Now, certainly i agree that society must have its "talented tenth" as you put it. There must be those who keep informed and communicate truth. i would never seek to suggest that there are things which should not be discussed in open forums. i'm just pretty sure i could predict with fair accuracy those topics which will elicit the most responses...technical voting issues not being one of them. i point to the lower incidence of comment on this issue as exhibit A. Daniel Johnson: I cannot agree with your contention that just because the ballot issue is a legal issue now in the courts it is reasonable to expect that people won't respond in the JFP blogs. As you put it "but since that issue exists in the justice system where public opinion does not hold sway, i think people are less likely to expend energy arguing the case". The James Ford Seale case is in the courts; however that blog received 43 comments in one day. My point: it is human nature to put emotion before reason. That's not bad, that's just the way it is. However; a society must have it's "talented tenth" mobilized to prevent the purveyors of societal evil from winning the day - In my opinion.

Author

daniel johnson

Date

2008-09-16T19:37:54-06:00

ID

135833

Comment

Hosemann claims innnocence in a statement: > "The Secretary of State's Office has followed the law proposing to the Governor the placement of the special election for Senate on the November 4th ballot. We have followed the law as Democratic Secretary of State Eric Clark and Democratic Secretaries of State have for generations. This is a blatant political attack on Mississippi voters, claiming they are incompetent to complete a ballot on computerized voting machines. It insinuates that even when alerted three times, a Mississippi voter would skip over a race on the ballot when in the last gubernatorial election, about 99% of voters cast a ballot in the entire slate of Statewide candidates. In November, I believe Mississippi voters will reward those who trust them enough to pick their leaders."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-17T13:14:43-06:00

ID

135925

Comment

See how well that worked, even if it was a waste of our time... They challenged the law, as they (or anyone else for that matter) have a right to do and they lost. We can now get rid of the previous precedents and have a (until the next time) indisputable ruling from the court system. Now I wonder, did it help for so much time (outside of the court/legal system) to be used in writing/blogging, paper used in print, airtime, etc.? I must admit I am unfamiliar with how the supreme court works in its strictest sense, but I believe I am correct in stating that they don't base their decisions on popular (or unpopular) opinion, news, media, etc. but rather on their interpenetration of the law. Oh, and I meant to say Frank was a democrat up above, I wasn't paying enough attention.

Author

Baron

Date

2008-09-19T09:29:19-06:00

ID

135930

Comment

Well, we've found that in election years what is said in print about judges carries a lot more sway. But no matter: The reason for citizens to express themselves and take advantage of the First Amendment is to hold our elected officials accountable and, in this case, expose the lengths Barbour would go to play politics with the ballot. And it's a warning sign about the willingness to play tricks that is surely going to keep happening if we don't pay attention. And Baron, the problem with your post up above about my writing is that you are judging everything on a left-right paradigm -- which doesn't really work. In recent years, power shifted to far to the right that some people believed that views that were even "moderate right" were "left" -- just because they weren't on Bushian right! That's kind of wacky when you think about it. I don't care where people put any view I adopt based on facts and ethics. Left, right, who cares? The problem we have in recent years is that the far "right" has controlled so much that any common-sense view is goign to come in "left" of it. But that doesn't mean that adopting such a view is partisan. I feel sorry for people who wear right-left blinders, frankly. They are setting themselves up to be screwed by both sides. It's also said that most anything ethical and compassionate in government of late is interpreted as "leftist." By selling out to the far right, Republicans have really sold their souls. They can get them back, but they're going to have to stop carrying water for anything (like Palin) that calls itself a Republican. Meantime, I will continue making my decisions based on anything but partisanship. It's a great place to be; I recommend it. But it doesn't mean that half your decisions will be "left" and half "right," by some partisan's measure! That's about the most unintelligent way to judge a political stance that I can imagine. But most politically interested Americans fall into that trap. That's why our country is such a two-party mess right now. And the media don't help with their fear of appearing too "liberal" or too "conservative" without simply judging every issue and every candidate on its own merits, wherever the partisan chips fall.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-09-19T09:55:52-06:00