Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-1-1 through23-1-3 provided for qualification of candidates and registration of political parties.

For present similar provisions, see §23-15-1051 through23-15-1055.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-1-5 through23-1-67 provided for qualification of candidates and registration of political parties.

For present similar provisions to §§23-1-1 through23-1-23, see §§23-15-1059 through23-15-1069.

For present similar provisions to former §23-1-33, see §23-15-297.

For present similar provisions to former §23-1-39, see §23-15-331.

For present similar provisions to former §23-1-63, see §23-15-557.

For present similar provisions to former §23-1-65, see §23-15-311.

For present similar provisions to former §23-1-67, see §23-15-301.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-1-81 through23-1-103 provided for selection of candidates through preferential election.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-3-1 and23-3-39 provided for corrupt practices.

For present similar provisions of former §23-3-13, see §23-15-541,23-15-581.

For present similar provisions of former §23-3-15, see §23-15-543.

For present similar provisions of former §23-3-17, see §23-15-895.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-3-19 through23-3-39, see §§23-15-319,23-15-335,23-15-579,23-15-591 through23-15-595,23-15-871,23-15-873,23-15-875 through23-15-879,23-15-897,23-15-911.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-3-41 through23-3-47 provided for corrupt practices.

For present similar provisions of former §23-3-41, see §§23-15-801 through23-15-815.

For present similar provisions of former §23-3-43, see §§23-15-801 through23-15-815,23-15-881.

For present similar provisions of former §23-3-45, see §23-15-927.

For present similar provisions of former §23-3-47, see §23-15-929.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-3-49 through23-3-63 related to corrupt practices.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-3-49 and23-3-51, see §§23-15-931 and23-15-933.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-3-53 through23-3-57, see §§23-15-935 through23-15-939.

For present similar provisions to former §23-3-59, see §23-15-941.

For present similar provisions to §§23-3-61 and23-3-63, see §§23-15-963 and23-15-973.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-3-65 through23-3-71 provided for corrupt practices.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-3-67 through23-3-71, see §§23-15-801 through23-15-815,23-15-305, and23-15-319.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-5-1 through23-5-15 provided for registration and elections.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-1,23-5-3 and23-5-7, see §§23-15-211,23-15-213 and23-15-223, respectively.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-9 and23-5-11, see §§23-15-281, and23-15-283, respectively.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-13, see §23-15-285.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §23-15-39.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-5-25 through23-5-63 provided for registration and elections.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-21 through23-5-23, see §23-15-113.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-27, see §23-15-91.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-29, see §23-15-37.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-31, see §23-15-33.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-32, see §23-15-115.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-33, see §23-15-41.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-35, see §23-15-19.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-37, see §23-15-151.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-39, see §23-15-15.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-41, see §23-15-21.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-43 through23-5-47, see §§23-15-17.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-49 and23-5-51, see §§23-15-121,23-15-123.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-53, see §23-15-225.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-55 through23-5-63, see §§23-15-61 through23-15-69.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-71 through23-15-75.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-5-71 through23-5-119 provided for registration and elections.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-71, see §23-15-77.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-73, see §23-15-125.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-74, see §23-15-129.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-76 and23-5-77, see §23-15-135.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-79, see §23-15-153.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-83, see §23-15-161.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-85, see §23-15-11.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-89, see §23-15-195.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-95 through23-5-97, see §§23-15-217 through23-15-219.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-99 through23-5-113, see §§23-15-231 through23-15-249.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-115 through23-5-117, see §§23-15-253 through23-15-255.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-119, see §23-15-351.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-121 through23-5-125, see §§23-15-353 through23-15-357.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-127, see §23-15-251.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-5-134 through23-5-139 provided for registration and elections.

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-359 through23-15-363,23-15-317,23-15-365, and23-15-367, respectively.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions of former §23-5-141, see §23-15-369.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-141, see §23-15-369.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-143 and23-5-145, see §§23-15-371, and23-15-373.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-147 through23-5-151, see §§23-15-581,23-15-591,23-15-545, and23-15-551, respectively.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-153 and23-5-155, see §§23-15-547, and23-15-553, respectively.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-157, see §23-15-549.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-159 and23-5-161, see §§23-15-269.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-165, see §23-15-901.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-167, see §23-15-591.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-169 through23-5-175, see §§23-15-601 through23-15-609.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-179 and23-5-181, see §§23-15-259 and23-15-261.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-183 and23-5-184, see §§23-15-227 and23-15-229.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-187 through23-5-193, see §§23-15-951 through23-15-957.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-195 through23-5-199, see §§23-15-831 through23-15-839.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-201,23-5-203,23-5-207 and23-5-209, see §§23-15-851,23-15-833,23-15-781 and23-15-783, respectively.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-210 through23-5-215, see §§23-15-785 through23-15-789,23-15-791 and23-15-995.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-217,23-5-219,23-5-221 and23-5-223, see §§23-15-1033 through23-15-1037 and23-15-853.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-225 through 23-5-231, see §§23-15-1039,23-15-1041, and23-15-855, respectively.

For present similar provisions to former §23-5-233, see §23-15-843.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-235 and23-5-237, see §§23-15-1011, and23-15-1015, respectively.

For present similar provisions to former §§23-5-241,23-5-245 and23-5-247, see §§23-15-993,23-15-607, and23-15-849, respectively.

For present similar provisions of former §§23-5-241,23-5-245 and23-5-247, see §§23-15-993,23-15-607, and23-15-849, respectively.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-5-301 through23-5-313 provided for registration and elections.

For present similar provisions of former §§23-5-303 through23-5-313, see §§23-15-31,23-15-39,23-15-43,23-15-45,23-15-79,23-15-93 and23-15-95, respectively.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §23-15-223.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-461 through23-15-485, respectively.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §23-15-501 through23-15-525.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §§23-9-1 through23-9-9 provided for absentee voting by persons in armed forces.

For present similar provisions to former §23-9-5, see §23-15-679.

For present similar provisions to former §23-9-19, see §23-15-635.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-621 through23-15-653.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-671 through23-15-697.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-711 through23-15-717.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-719 through23-15-721.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-751 through23-15-755.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-221,23-15-731, and23-15-733.

Editor’s Notes —

For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-1081 through 23-15-1097.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2008, ch. 528, § 1, provides:

“SECTION 1. (1) There is created the Comprehensive Election Reform Review Panel to study Mississippi’s election laws, the practical application of the laws, and any possible reforms needed to improve application of those laws.

“(2) The panel shall be composed of the following members:

“(a) The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the House of Representatives Apportionment and Elections Committee and the Senate Elections Committee;

“(b) One (1) person appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

“(c) One (1) person appointed by the Lieutenant Governor;

“(d) The Secretary of State, or his designee;

“(e) One (1) circuit clerk appointed by the Mississippi Association of Circuit Clerks;

“(f) One (1) election commissioner appointed by the Election Commissioners Association of Mississippi; and

“(g) One (1) person appointed by the Attorney General.

“(3) The Secretary of State or his designee shall serve as chairman of the panel. The panel shall meet at the call of the chairman and at its first meeting and shall select a vice chairman from among its membership. The vice chairman shall also serve as secretary of the panel and shall be responsible for keeping all records of the panel. A majority of the members of the panel shall constitute a quorum.

“(4) The panel shall examine voter identification requirements, early voting, voter registration, absentee voting, voting patterns, education, training of election officials and any other election law reforms deemed important by the panel. The panel shall file a report with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Secretary of the Senate and the Governor containing its findings and recommendations regarding Mississippi election laws by not later than December 1, 2008.

“(5) Legislative members of the panel shall receive per diem, travel or other expenses, if authorized by the Management Committee of the House of Representatives and Rules Committee of the Senate, from the contingent expense funds of their respective houses in the same amounts as provided for committee meetings when the Legislature is not in session; however, no per diem or expense for attending meetings of the panel shall be paid while the Legislature is in session.

“(6) Nonlegislative members of the panel shall receive no compensation for their service on the panel but may receive reimbursement for travel expenses incurred while engaged in official business of the panel in accordance with Section 25-3-41.

“(7) The panel shall be dissolved on December 1, 2008.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Law Reviews.

Mississippi and the Voting Rights Act: 1965-1982. 52 Miss. L. J. 803, December 1982.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss L. J. 535, December 1986.

Stavis, A century of struggle for black enfranchisement in Mississippi: From the Civil War to the congressional challenge of 1965-and beyond. 57 Miss. L. J. 591, December, 1987.

Rhodes, Enforcing the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi through litigation. 57 Miss. L. J. 705, December, 1987.

Practice References.

Federal Election Laws and Regulations (Michie).

Editor’s Notes —

On July 23, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 596.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in the first sentence, inserted “other” and “and is capable of receiving voted paper ballots”; deleted the former last two sentences, which read: “The Secretary of State shall approve a ballot bag to be used as provided in this section by December 31, 2007. Any changes to the ballot bag by the Secretary of State after December 31, 2007, shall be approved by the Legislature”; and made a minor stylistic change.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 2 of Chapter 441, Laws of 2017, effective from and after July 1, 2017 (approved April 18, 2017), amended this section. Section 5 of Chapter 7, Laws of 2017, First Extraordinary Session, effective from and after passage (approved June 23, 2017), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 5 of Chapter 7, Laws of 2017, First Extraordinary Session, which contains language that specifically provides that it supersedes §23-15-5 as amended by Chapter 441, Laws of 2017.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2016, ch. 459, § 1, codified as §27-104-201, provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Mississippi Budget Transparency and Simplification Act of 2016.’ ”

Amendment Notes —

The 2016 amendment added (3) and (4).

The first 2017 amendment (ch. 441), effective July 1, 2017, in (2)(a), inserted “and held in a separate fund solely” and “employing such personnel to conduct an election” in (i), and substituted “purpose of upgrading, maintaining or equipping” for “purpose of maintaining, upgrading or equipping” and added “and acquiring, upgrading or maintaining any other election-related site or system or providing technical training to election officials” in (ii).

The second 2017 amendment (ch. 7, 1st Ex Sess), effective June 23, 2017, in (2)(a), inserted “upon appropriation of the Legislature” in (i), and rewrote (ii), which read: “The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the monies in the special fund shall be allocated annually to the Secretary of State and expended for the purpose of maintaining, upgrading or equipping the Statewide Elections Management System”; and rewrote (3), which read: “From and after July 1, 2016, the expenses of this agency shall be defrayed by appropriation from the State General Fund and all user charges and fees authorized under this section shall be deposited into the State General Fund as authorized by law.”

Cross References —

Prohibition against one state agency charging another state agency fees, etc., for services or resources received, see §27-104-203.

Defrayal of expenses of certain state agencies by appropriation of Legislature from General Fund, see §27-104-205.

Editor’s Notes —

The effective date of the bill that amended this section, Chapter 526, Laws of 2012 (House Bill No. 921), is “from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.” However, after the bill was submitted to the United States Attorney General under Section 5, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013), struck down the coverage formula that determined what jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so the coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5.

Because of the Shelby County decision, the United States Attorney General is not making any determinations under Section 5 on voting or election changes made by states. The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 5, so it is still in effect. Chapter 526 was submitted to the United States Attorney General before the Shelby County decision was rendered. In a letter dated August 5, 2013, the United States Attorney General responded that he is not making determinations on the merits of any bill that is submitted under Section 5. The submission of Chapter 526 and the response from the United States Attorney General technically met the requirements of Section 5 and fulfilled the condition in the effective date of Chapter 526, so Chapter 526 became effective on the date of the response letter from the United States Attorney General, August 5, 2013.

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, deleted “resides at the same address and” following “as long as the cardholder” in (7); and made minor stylistic changes.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Pursuant to Section 1-1-109, the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation corrected a typographical error in the second sentence. The words “not less then thirty (30)” were changed to “not less than thirty (30)”. The Joint Committee ratified the correction at its April, 28, 1999 meeting.

This section was amended by Section 1 of Chapter 517, Laws of 2012, approved May 2, 2012, and effective from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended (November 26, 2012). The section was also amended by Section 4 of Chapter 526, Laws of 2012, approved May 17, 2012, and effective from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended (August 5, 2013). Section 1-1-109 gives the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation authority to integrate amendments so that all versions of the same code section enacted within the same legislative session may become effective. The Joint Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation ratified the integration of these amendments, contingent upon preclearance, as consistent with the legislative intent at the August 16, 2012, meeting of the Committee.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 11, 1997, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1997, ch. 315, § 1.

On August 11, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 430.

The effective date of the bill that amended this section, Chapter 526, Laws of 2012 (House Bill No. 921), is “from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.” However, after the bill was submitted to the United States Attorney General under Section 5, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013), struck down the coverage formula that determined what jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so the coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5.

Because of the Shelby County decision, the United States Attorney General is not making any determinations under Section 5 on voting or election changes made by states. The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 5, so it is still in effect. Chapter 526 was submitted to the United States Attorney General before the Shelby County decision was rendered. In a letter dated August 5, 2013, the United States Attorney General responded that he is not making determinations on the merits of any bill that is submitted under Section 5. The submission of Chapter 526 and the response from the United States Attorney General technically met the requirements of Section 5 and fulfilled the condition in the effective date of Chapter 526, so Chapter 526 became effective on the date of the response letter from the United States Attorney General, August 5, 2013.

By letter dated November 26, 2012, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2012, ch. 517.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment deleted “in the supervisor’s district or” following the third occurrence of “(30) days” and substituted “pursuant to Section 23-15-33” for “by an officer of this state under the laws thereof.”

The 2008 amendment, in the first sentence, substituted “except persons adjudicated to be non compos mentis” for “except idiots and insane persons” and “incorporated municipality” for “incorporated city or town”; in the last sentence, substituted “those specified in this section” for “those above included”; substituted “seeks to vote” for “offers to vote” throughout; and made minor stylistic changes.

The first 2012 amendment (ch. 517), inserted “of vote fraud or” following “never been convicted” near the end of the first sentence.

The second 2012 amendment (ch. 526), added “upon compliance with Section 23-15-563” at the end of the first sentence.

The 2017 amendment added the second sentence; and made gender neutral changes.

Cross References —

Registering to vote by mail-in application, see §23-15-47.

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 21-11-1.

7. Under former Section 23-3-11.

8. Under former Section 23-5-85.

1. In general.

Public interest exception to mootness did not apply to an unsuccessful candidate’s election challenge where although Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-11 (2015) required voters to vote only in their voting precinct, the poll managers provided a suitable substitute by directing voters to go next door, sign the pollbook, and obtain a receipt before returning to vote, and thus, the votes cast before the pollbooks were delivered to the correct voting location were not illegal under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-249. Perkins v. McAdams, 234 So.3d 413, 2017 Miss. LEXIS 419 (Miss. 2017).

Absentee ballot could not be counted in a primary election because the voter failed to register more than 30 days prior to the election. Smith v. Hollins, 905 So. 2d 1267, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 388 (Miss. 2005).

Provisions in Mississippi Election Code pertaining to registration of voters do not violate § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 USCS § 1973(a)) simply because there might be better registration procedures which could be enacted into law. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Mabus, 717 F. Supp. 1189, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9930 (N.D. Miss. 1989), aff'd, 932 F.2d 400, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 10878 (5th Cir. Miss. 1991).

Mississippi’s voter registration laws are clearly a voting qualification or prerequisites to voting, under language of § 2, as amended, 42 USCS § 1973(a), because no voter is qualified as elector until he is first registered. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

Whereas instances of racially polarized voting are pertinent in challenges to electoral processes, voting behavior or practices are not germaine to challenged voter registration procedures or to determination of discriminatory impact of registration practices. Racial appeals in campaigns for elections bear little relevance to state’s registration procedures. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 21-11-1.

A Negro citizen originally denied the right to register because of discrimination, subsequently registered pursuant to a federal court order, who would be denied the right to vote in municipal elections for failure to pay poll taxes as required by law and because her registration took place after the legal deadline, has standing to bring a class action on behalf of all the Negro voters similarly situated to enjoin the election, and where the Federal District Court refused to grant the injunction the cause was remanded with directions to set aside the election which was held, to devise a plan for a new election, set a new cut-off date for registration, and to provide that persons otherwise entitled to vote should not be denied that right for failure to pay poll taxes if required taxes were tendered to tax collector within 45 days prior to election. Hamer v. Campbell, 358 F.2d 215, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6896 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 851, 87 S. Ct. 76, 17 L. Ed. 2d 79, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 781 (U.S. 1966).

Town marshal held properly removed from office as result of quo warranto proceedings, where he failed to show residence in town as required by §§ 241, 250 of Constitution, and this section. Jones v. State, 207 Miss. 208, 42 So. 2d 123, 1949 Miss. LEXIS 330 (Miss. 1949).

Where taxpayer delivered check to tax collector on January 31, 1934, with request to hold check until March and check was not presented for payment until May 7, 1934, but tax receipt issued April 30, 1934, was dated February 1, 1934, taxpayer held not qualified elector and hence not eligible for election to office of alderman in December, 1934. Wylie v. Cade, 174 Miss. 426, 164 So. 579, 1935 Miss. LEXIS 82 (Miss. 1935).

Where taxpayer’s check is unconditionally delivered on or before February 1 to tax collector who accepts check which in due course is deposited with reasonable promptness and paid by drawee bank on its first presentation, payment will relate back to date of delivery of check to tax collector so as to qualify taxpayer as elector. Wylie v. Cade, 174 Miss. 426, 164 So. 579, 1935 Miss. LEXIS 82 (Miss. 1935).

Illegal voting at any municipal election is an indictable offense. Sample v. Verona, 94 Miss. 264, 48 So. 2, 1908 Miss. LEXIS 1 (Miss. 1908).

The word “elector” is synonymous with voter. Greene v. Rienzi, 87 Miss. 463, 40 So. 17, 1905 Miss. LEXIS 172 (Miss. 1905).

The corresponding section of the Code 1892, in so far as it requires voters at municipal elections to vote in the wards of their residence, is constitutional and warranted by § 245 of the Constitution, empowering the legislature to impose qualifications additional to those provided by §§ 241, 242 of the Constitution. State ex rel. Kierskey v. Kelly, 81 Miss. 1, 32 So. 909, 1902 Miss. LEXIS 118 (Miss. 1902).

The mistaken belief that one has in due time paid “all taxes legally required of him,” however honestly obtained, will not relieve a delinquent of the effect of his failure to secure the privilege of an elector by complying with the requirements of § 241 of the Constitution; Nor will the subsequent payment of the same relieve him of the delinquency. Roane ex rel. Tunstall v. Matthews, 75 Miss. 94, 21 So. 665, 1897 Miss. LEXIS 88 (Miss. 1897).

7. Under former Section 23-3-11.

For purposes of § 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USCS § 1973b(a) [now 52 USCS § 10303]), pertaining to reinstatement of state voting registration tests, the fact that a county has administered voting registration laws in a fair and impartial manner and has recently made significant strides toward equalizing and integrating its school system will not warrant reinstatement of the literacy test for the county’s voters, where (1) the county throughout the years, systematically deprived its black citizens of the educational opportunities that it granted its white citizens, and (2) impartial administration of the literacy test would serve only to perpetuate these inequities in a different form. Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285, 89 S. Ct. 1720, 23 L. Ed. 2d 309, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1437 (U.S. 1969).

On direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in an action by a county seeking reinstatement of a literacy test for voters, the District Court’s finding that the county has not met its burden of proving, as required by § 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USCS § 1973b(a) [now 52 USCS § 10303]), that the use of the literacy test did not discriminatorily deprive Negroes of the right to vote, will not be held clearly erroneous where (1) evidence was presented that the county’s segregated Negro schools and their teachers were inferior and that Negro citizens of the county had completed far less schooling than whites, and (2) it could be inferred that among Negro children compelled to endure a segregated and inferior education, fewer would achieve any given degree of literacy than would be so with their better educated white contemporaries, and that the county’s inferior Negro schools provided many of its Negro residents with an inferior education and gave many others no incentive to enter or remain in school. Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285, 89 S. Ct. 1720, 23 L. Ed. 2d 309, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1437 (U.S. 1969).

A Negro citizen, originally denied the right to register because of discrimination, subsequently registered pursuant to a federal court order, who would be denied the right to vote in municipal elections for failure to pay poll taxes as required by law and because her registration took place after the legal deadline, has standing to bring a class action on behalf of all the Negro voters similarly situated to enjoin the election, and where the Federal District Court refused to grant the injunction the cause was remanded with directions to set aside the election which was held, to devise a plan for a new election, set a new cut-off date for registration, and to provide that persons otherwise entitled to vote should not be denied that right for failure to pay poll taxes if required taxes were tendered to tax collector within 45 days prior to election. Hamer v. Campbell, 358 F.2d 215, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 6896 (5th Cir. Miss.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 851, 87 S. Ct. 76, 17 L. Ed. 2d 79, 1966 U.S. LEXIS 781 (U.S. 1966).

All provisions of Mississippi law which condition the right to vote on the ability to read and write, or contain a “test or device” as defined in Section 4(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [52 USCS § 10303, formerly codified as 42 USCS § 1973b(c)] have no force or effect during the period of suspension prescribed in said Act. United States v. Mississippi, 256 F. Supp. 344, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9894 (S.D. Miss. 1966).

The county registrar of Panola County was enjoined from using any of the conditions of this section [Code 1942, § 3235] as a prerequisite to registration other than those that had theretofore been used with respect to the registration of white applicants. United States v. Duke, 332 F.2d 759, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5292 (5th Cir. Miss. 1964).

Mandamus will not be to compel an election commission to place on the ballot the name of a person whom it has determined not to be qualified as a candidate. Powe v. Forrest County Election Com., 249 Miss. 757, 163 So. 2d 656, 1964 Miss. LEXIS 433 (Miss. 1964).

To require Negroes desiring to pay poll taxes qualifying them to vote to produce verification of the correctness of their voting precincts, not required of other taxpayers, and to see the sheriff personally when others were not required to do so, constitutes a violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act. United States v. Dogan, 314 F.2d 767, 1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 6312 (5th Cir. Miss. 1963).

Person, residing in Louisiana when he purchased land in this state, with intention of building his home thereon, more than two years before general election at which his vote was protested, but actual removal to this state was less than two years before such election, was not a qualified elector. Smith v. Deere, 195 Miss. 502, 16 So. 2d 33, 1943 Miss. LEXIS 181 (Miss. 1943).

That is properly the domicile of a person where he has his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. Smith v. Deere, 195 Miss. 502, 16 So. 2d 33, 1943 Miss. LEXIS 181 (Miss. 1943).

A domicile continues until another is acquired; before a domicile can be considered lost or changed, a new domicile must be acquired by removal to a new locality with intent to remain there, and the old domicile must be abandoned without intent to return thereto. Smith v. Deere, 195 Miss. 502, 16 So. 2d 33, 1943 Miss. LEXIS 181 (Miss. 1943).

An exemptionist over 60 years of age who did not pay his poll tax was disqualified to vote in a primary election. Hayes v. Abney, 186 Miss. 208, 188 So. 533, 1939 Miss. LEXIS 209 (Miss. 1939).

Registration for the election district in which one offers to vote is necessary to entitle him to vote. Perkins v. Carraway, 59 Miss. 222, 1881 Miss. LEXIS 108 (Miss. 1881).

8. Under former Section 23-5-85.

Although Mississippi Code §21-1-45 contains no dispositive definition for the term “qualified electors,” it would be inappropriate to adopt the definition of that term found in Mississippi Code §23-5-85 [Repealed], and to employ the entire panoply of rules applicable to public elections to a proceeding to obtain annexation of unincorporated area by an adjacent existing municipality. Schmidt v. City of Jackson, 494 So. 2d 348 (Miss. 1986).

The provisions of Article 12 § 251 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 and Code 1942, § 3235 that prescribe a period of 4-months registration for qualified electors before voting in elections are held unconstitutional, void and of no effect, as contrary to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the enforcement hereafter of such provisions is enjoined. Ferguson v. Williams, 343 F. Supp. 654, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13520 (N.D. Miss. 1972).

Those residence requirements for a qualified elector which requires a residence of one year in the state, one year in the county, and 6 months in the precinct, or municipality, clearly violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and those requirements as contained in § 241 of the Mississippi Constitution and Code 1942, § 3235 are clearly not necessary to further a compelling state interest are violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and are null and void. Graham v. Waller, 343 F. Supp. 1, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13604 (S.D. Miss. 1972).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Under general registration statute, Miss. Code Section 23-15-11, newly annexed county electors must reside in municipality for thirty days to be eligible to vote in municipal elections. Hewes, Mar. 5, 1993, A.G. Op. #92-0969.

A seventeen-year-old who will be eighteen years of age on or before the date of the special election may register to vote thirty days or more prior to a special election. Wilson, Nov. 14, 1997, A.G. Op. #97-0725.

A computerized voter list that does not have the electors’ signatures on it is considered exempt for purposes of the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 if the information on the list was obtained from exempted records. Evans, Dec. 5, 1997, A.G. Op. #97-0760.

A person may not qualify as an elector in two adjoining counties by claiming to simultaneously reside in both such counties; absent a conclusive indicator of residency, such as filing for homestead exemption, the question of qualifying as an elector should be determined, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, by reference to other relevant factors including the intent to remain, indefinitely, in a county where an actual residence has been established. Hewes, April 3, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0098.

Even in a citywide election, an individual may only cast a ballot in the voting precinct or ward in which he or she is registered to vote. Hafter, Dec. 22, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0697.

A registered voter may not cast a lawful ballot in a voting precinct other than the precinct where he or she resides. Shepard, July 14, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0345.

If a candidate establishes his residence within the corporate limits of a municipality at least 30 days prior to the election and registers to vote and meets all other qualifications to be mayor, he could qualify to run for that office. Turnage, Aug. 23, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0400.

A candidate could establish his residence within the corporate limits 30 days before the election and then file his qualifying papers at least 20 days prior to the municipal special election and be eligible to have his name placed on the ballot. Turnage, Aug. 23, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0400.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

State voting rights of residents of military establishments. 34 A.L.R.2d 1193.

Effect of conviction under federal law, or law of another state or country, on right to vote or hold public office. 39 A.L.R.3d 303.

Residence of students for voting purposes. 44 A.L.R.3d 797.

Validity, construction, and application of state criminal disenfranchisement provisions. 10 A.L.R.6th 31.

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 148, 149, 159-171.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 37–52.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi and the Voting Rights Act: 1965-1982. 52 Miss. L. J. 803, December 1982.

Stavis, A century of struggle for black enfranchisement in Mississippi: From the Civil War to the congressional challenge of 1965-and beyond. 57 Miss. L. J. 591, December, 1987.

Rhodes, Enforcing the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi through litigation. 57 Miss. L. J. 705, December, 1987.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss L. J. 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

On August 11, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 430.

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment substituted “county” for “supervisor’s district” and made gender neutralization changes.

The 2016 amendment added (2).

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, in (1), inserted “(1)” near the beginning, and added the last sentence; and made a minor stylistic change.

Cross References —

Registering to vote by mail-in application, see §23-15-47.

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

It is duty and responsibility of registrar, upon request of individual voter, to make necessary changes on all appropriate registration records and enter appropriate data into computer to reflect any change in voter’s precinct necessitated by change in that voter’s residence; however, task of making changes on pollbooks and registration books is ministerial task that should be performed by election commission in their purging activities if registrar fails to act. Horton, March 21, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0201.

If a qualified elector of a county moves within the county less than 30 days before an election, pursuant to this section he is not disqualified and would be entitled to vote in the precinct of his residence by affidavit ballot if his name does not appear on the poll book of his precinct. Assuming such affidavit is properly executed and all required information is given in the affidavit and the prescribed forms, the ballot would be a lawful one and would be counted. Sautermeister, Sept. 26, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0497.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 127.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the repeal of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 17.

Former §23-15-14 provided that certain municipal residents who are registered to vote only in county elections shall be registered to vote in municipal elections.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment deleted “and every” following “duty of any,” substituted “registrar of the county” for “circuit clerk of the county,” and inserted “or she” near the end.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 148, 149, 182.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 64.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 4, on May 1, 1992.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment deleted (1), which read: “Any person who shall knowingly procure his or any other person’s registration as a qualified elector when the person whose registration is being procured is not entitled to be registered, or when the person whose registration is being procured is being registered under a false name, or when the person whose registration is being procured is being registered as a qualified elector in any other voting precinct than that in which he resides, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, be fined not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or imprisoned not more than five (5) years, or both. The same penalty shall apply to anyone who is disqualified for any cause and shall reregister before removal of such disqualification to avoid the same, and to all who shall in any way aid in such false registration”; deleted the subsection (2) designation; inserted “as provided in Section 97-13-25”; and made minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Registering to vote by mail-in application, see §23-15-47.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Evidence showing that a person whose name, birth date, and place of birth matched those of a voter, had voted in another state three weeks before the voter cast her vote in a primary election showed that the voter violated Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-17(1); thus, the voter’s absentee ballot was not counted in the primary election. Smith v. Hollins, 905 So. 2d 1267, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 388 (Miss. 2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Lawyers’ Edition.

Violation of election laws as “infamous crime” which must be prosecuted by presentment or indictment of grand jury under Fifth Amendment. 2 L. Ed. 2d 1960.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

By letter dated November 26, 2012, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2012, ch. 517.

Amendment Notes —

The 2012 amendment inserted “vote fraud or of” in the first sentence and made minor stylistic changes throughout.

The 2017 amendment rewrote the section, which read: “Any person who has been convicted of vote fraud or of any crime listed in Section 241, Mississippi Constitution of 1890, shall not be registered, or if registered the name of the person shall be erased from the registration book on which it may be found by the registrar or by the election commissioners. Whenever any person shall be convicted in the circuit court of his county of any of those crimes, the registrar shall thereupon erase his name from the registration book; and whenever any person shall be convicted of any of those crimes in any other court of any county, the presiding judge of the court shall, on demand, certify the fact in writing to the registrar, who shall thereupon erase the name of the person from the registration book and file the certificate as a record of his office.”

Cross References —

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Generally.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-35.

1. Generally.

Ballot of a convicted felon was properly invalidated because the candidate who sought to have the vote counted did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the voter was eligible to vote. Smith v. Hollins, 905 So. 2d 1267, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 388 (Miss. 2005).

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-35.

A felon’s due process claim to a pre-disenfranchisement hearing was without merit as a matter of law and summary judgment was properly granted on such issue, where to mandate a hearing as a prerequisite to any action by the election board would cost the state substantial time and money, and it would not guarantee, any more than the current mechanism, that only felons within §23-5-35 are disenfranchised. Williams v. Taylor, 677 F.2d 510, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18677 (5th Cir. Miss. 1982).

A new trial would be required on a felon’s claim that the election board’s disenfranchisement of him pursuant to §§23-5-35,23-5-37 [Repealed.] was unconstitutionally selective, where the board had not acted according to the requisite procedure established in §23-5-37 [Repealed.], and its noncompliance with this procedure may have created a pattern of selective enforcement. Williams v. Taylor, 677 F.2d 510, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18677 (5th Cir. Miss. 1982).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

What constitutes “conviction” within constitutional or statutory provision disenfranchising one convicted of crime. 36 A.L.R.2d 1238.

Effect of conviction under federal law, or law of another state or country, on right to vote or hold public office. 39 A.L.R.3d 303.

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 168-171.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 51–62.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 148, 149.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 41.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated August 16, 1993, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1993, ch. 528, § 18.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment deleted “imposed and such power and authority shall likewise be” preceding “conferred upon the municipal registrar.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 177, 183.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 64.

Law Reviews.

Stavis, A century of struggle for black enfranchisement in Mississippi: From the Civil War to the congressional challenge of 1965-and beyond. 57 Miss. L. J. 591, December, 1987.

Rhodes, Enforcing the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi through litigation. 57 Miss. L. J. 705, December, 1987.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 7, on May 1, 1992.

On August 11, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 430.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 1.

By letter dated September 6, 2012, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2012, ch. 471.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment added (2) and (3).

The 2006 amendment substituted “registrar in the voting precinct of the residence of such person through the Statewide Elections Management System” for “registrar on the registration books of the voting precinct of the residence of such person” at the end of (1) and (2); and deleted former (3).

The 2012 amendment added (3).

The 2017 amendment inserted “county” preceding “registrar” both times it appears; deleted (3), which read: “Every person entitled to vote by absentee shall have all absentee applications processed by the registrar through the Statewide Election Management System. The registrar shall account for all absentee ballots delivered to such voters and received from such voters through the Statewide Election Management System”; and made a gender neutral change.

Cross References —

Registering to vote by mail-in application, see §23-15-47.

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

Federal Aspects—

National Voter Registration Act of 1993, see 52 U.S.C.S. § 20501 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-31.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-31.

Allegations that because of the interrelationship between the racial restrictions of the Mississippi voter qualification laws and requirements with respect to the selection of grand and petit jurors a defendant would be denied his equal civil rights to trial by a jury free from exclusion were insufficient to justify the removal to the federal courts of the trial of a Negro charged with the crime of rape. Bass v. Mississippi, 381 F.2d 692, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5438 (5th Cir. Miss. 1967).

State election commissioners have power, authority, and responsibility to help administer voter registration laws by formulating rules for the various tests applied to applicants for registration, and for the reason that these rules and tests are vitally important elements of Mississippi laws challenged in an action brought by the United States to end discrimination in voter registration, the commissioners should not have been stricken as parties defendants to the action on the ground that they lacked sufficient interest in administering or enforcing the challenged laws. United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128, 85 S. Ct. 808, 13 L. Ed. 2d 717, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1664 (U.S. 1965).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

If precinct is split by supervisor district lines it would also be registrar’s duty to make determination, upon registration, of proper supervisor district for each individual residing in precinct; duly appointed deputy registrar may, of course, perform these tasks for registrar. Horton, March 21, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0201.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Form 21 (petition to compel registration).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 120–122.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi and the Voting Rights Act: 1965-1982. 52 Miss. L. J. 803, December 1982.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Mississippi Help America Vote Act of 2002 Compliance Law.”

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 8.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 2.

On July 16, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 565.

On August 4, 2008, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2008, ch. 532.

By letter dated September 6, 2012, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2012, ch. 471.

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment provided for versions of the section effective through January 1, 2006, and effective from and after January 1, 2006; in the version effective through January 1, 2006, inserted “of the municipality ” following “registrar of voters ” in (1); in (2), substituted “the application ” for “same ” in the third sentence, and made minor stylistic changes throughout; and rewrote (3); and in the version effective from and after January 1, 2006, in (1) inserted “of the municipality ” in the first sentence, and rewrote the second and third sentences; in (2), substituted “the application ” for “same ” in the third sentence, and made minor stylistic changes throughout; and rewrote (3).

The 2006 amendment, in the first version, substituted “January 1, 2008” for “January 1, 2006” in the bracketed effective date language, and in the second version, substituted “January 1, 2008” for “January 1, 2006” in the bracketed effective date language, and in (1), deleted “books” following “registration” twice in the second sentence and substituted “Elections Management” for “Centralized Voter System” following “Statewide.”

The 2007 amendment, substituted “January 1, 2009” for “January 1, 2008” in the bracketed effective date language.

The 2008 amendment, in the first version, substituted the present bracketed effective date language for the former bracketed information, which read: “Until January 1, 2009, this section shall read as follows”; and in the second version, substituted the present bracketed effective date information for the former bracketed information, which read: “From and after January 1, 2009, this section shall read as follows,” and added (5).

The 2012 amendment brought the section forward without change.

The 2017 amendment, in (2), inserted “county” preceding “registrar” the last time it appears in the second sentence, and inserted “(2)” following “effectuating this subsection” in the fifth sentence; in (5), substituted “county registrar” for “circuit clerk” both times it appears; and made a minor stylistic change.

Cross References —

Provision that receipt of an application for registration sent pursuant to this section shall be sufficient to allow the applicant to be registered as an elector of the state, see §23-15-39.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, formerly appearing as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq., now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 177, 180-183.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 66, 128.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 5, on May 1, 1992.

On March 12, 1999, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1997, ch. 314.

On June 13, 2001, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 394.

By letter dated July 28, 2009, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws, 2009, ch. 506, § 1.

Amendment Notes —

The 2001 amendment added (5).

The 2009 amendment substituted “The registrar shall also keep” for “The registrar may also keep” at the beginning of the second sentence of (2).

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, deleted “keep his books open at his office and shall” following “registrar shall” in (1); in (2), inserted “county” preceding “registrar” in the first and second sentences, substituted “open to register voters” for “open for registration of voters” in the first sentence, and added “unless that Saturday falls…next primary or general election” at the end of the second sentence; rewrote (5)(b), which read: “Each public school district shall permit access to all public schools of this state for the registrar or his deputy for the purpose of registration of persons eligible to vote and for providing voter education”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes throughout.

Cross References —

Registering to vote by mail-in application, see §23-15-47.

Applicability of this section to county office hours, see §25-1-99.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2. Under former Section 23-5-29.

1. In general.

Plaintiffs who showed that challenged statutes either impinged upon their protected rights to register to vote or burdened organizational efforts to assist prospective voters in registering had standing to sue to challenge Mississippi’s dual registration requirement and prohibition on satellite registration as violative of their rights and all persons similarly situated. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

Based on totality of circumstances, proof showed by preponderance of evidence that Mississippi’s dual registration requirement and statutory prohibition on removing voter registration books from circuit clerk’s office resulted in denial or abridgement of right of black citizens in Mississippi to vote and participate in electorial process. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

No legitimate or compelling state interest is served by failure of state to mandate uniform, state-wide method of satellite registration; all circuit clerks should make arrangements to conduct satellite registration at no less than three voting precincts in each of five supervisory districts within their respective counties for at least one full day within 12 months of each election of state wide officials. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

Whereas instances of racially polarized voting are pertinent in challenges to electoral processes, voting behavior or practices are not germaine to challenged voter registration procedures or to determination of discriminatory impact of registration practices. Racial appeals in campaigns for elections bear little relevance to state’s registration procedures. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

2. Under former Section 23-5-29.

Provisions in Mississippi Election Code pertaining to registration of voters do not violate § 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 USCS § 1973(a)) simply because there might be better registration procedures which could be enacted into law. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Mabus, 717 F. Supp. 1189, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9930 (N.D. Miss. 1989), aff'd, 932 F.2d 400, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 10878 (5th Cir. Miss. 1991).

Section 251 of the constitution of 1890 and this section have reference to elections contemplated by the constitution and not to local option elections held under § 1610 of the Code of 1892 (Code 1906, § 1777), and the fact that such an election has been ordered does not interfere with the registration of voters. Bew v. State, 71 Miss. 1, 13 So. 868, 1893 Miss. LEXIS 138 (Miss. 1893).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 179.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 128, 138–140.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Editor's Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 8, on May 1, 1992.

On July 28, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 592.

Laws of 2001, ch. 308, § 1, amended this section to provide that persons who are unable to read or write shall not be required to personally complete the application for registration as a voter, and to authorize the registrar or the registrar’s deputy to read the application to the prospective voter and record the prospective voter’s responses.

On June 13, 2001, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 308.

Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Mississippi Help America Vote Act of 2002 Compliance Law.”

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 9.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 3.

This section was brought forward without change by Laws of 2019, ch. 340, § 7, effective from and after July 1, 2019. Since the language of the section as it appears in the main volume is unaffected by the bringing forward of the section, it is not reprinted in this supplement.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment rewrote the form.

The 2001 amendment inserted present (7); and redesignated former (7) and (8) as present (8) and (9).

The 2004 amendment provided for versions of the section effective through January 1, 2006, and effective from and after January 1, 2006; in the version effective through January 1, 2006, rewrote (1); in (3), rewrote the first sentence and made minor stylistic changes; in (4), rewrote the first sentence; in (5), made minor stylistic changes; in (6), substituted “an application ” for “the same ” and substituted “the application ” for “said form ” twice in the first sentence, and substituted “applications for registration to all persons requesting them” for “forms for registering to all persons requesting the same” and substituted “the application” for “said forms” in the second sentence; in (7), made minor stylistic changes; in (8), substituted “if the application is not challenged” for “provided that such application is not challenged as provided for therein”; and in (9), substituted “county precincts which are included in the annexed area” for “county precincts in which such annexed area is included”; and in the version effective from and after January 1, 2006, rewrote the section.

The 2006 amendment substituted “Statewide Elections Management System” for “Statewide Centralized Voter System” throughout the section; in (5), rewrote the present last sentence and deleted the former last sentence which read: “The assigned voter registration number shall be clearly shown on the application.”

The 2017 amendment added “and the county registrar…provided on the application” at the end of (5); substituted “The registrar shall not charge a fee or cost to the applicant for accepting” for “No fee or cost shall be charged the applicant by the registrar for accepting” in the next-to-last sentence of (6); substituted “shall read the application and oath to the person and” for “shall read to the person the application and oath and” in (7); rewrote (9), which read: “In any case in which a municipality expands its corporate boundaries by annexation or redistricts all or a part of the municipality, the municipal clerk shall within ten (10) days after the effective date of the annexation or after preclearance of the redistricting plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, provide the county registrar with conforming geographic data that is compatible with the Statewide Elections Management System. The data shall be developed by the municipality's use of a standardized format specified by the Statewide Elections Management System. The county registrar shall update the municipal boundary information or redistricting information into the Statewide Elections Management System. The Statewide Elections Management System shall update the voter registration records to include the new municipal electors who have resided within the annexed area for at least thirty (30) days after annexation and assign the electors to the municipal voting precincts. The county registrar shall forward to the municipal clerk written notification of the additions and changes, and the municipal clerk shall forward to the new municipal electors written notification of the additions and changes. The Statewide Elections Management System shall correctly place municipal electors within districts whose boundaries were altered by any redistricting conducted within the municipality and assign such electors to the correct municipal voting precincts”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

The 2019 amendment brought the section forward without change.

Cross References —

Provision that applications for registration as electors of a municipality shall conform as nearly as practicable to the application form provided for in this section, see §23-15-35.

Provision that receipt of a copy of an application for registration sent pursuant to this section shall be sufficient to allow the applicant to be registered as an elector in a municipality, see §23-15-35.

Registering to vote by mail-in application, see §23-15-47.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, formerly appearing as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq., now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-17.

1. In general.

Based on totality of circumstances, proof showed by preponderance of evidence that Mississippi’s dual registration requirement and statutory prohibition on removing voter registration books from circuit clerk’s office resulted in denial or abridgement of right of black citizens in Mississippi to vote and participate in electorial process. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

Plaintiffs who showed that challenged statutes either impinged upon their protected rights to register to vote or burdened organizational efforts to assist prospective voters in registering had standing to sue to challenge Mississippi’s dual registration requirement and prohibition on satellite registration as violative of their rights and all persons similarly situated. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

Whereas instances of racially polarized voting are pertinent in challenges to electoral processes, voting behavior or practices are not germaine to challenged voter registration procedures or to determination of discriminatory impact of registration practices. Racial appeals in campaigns for elections bear little relevance to state’s registration procedures. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-17.

State election commissioners have power, authority, and responsibility to help administer voter registration laws by formulating rules for the various tests applied to applicants for registration, and for the reason that these rules and tests are vitally important elements of Mississippi laws challenged in an action brought by the United States to end discrimination in voter registration, the commissioners should not have been stricken as parties defendants to the action on the ground that they lacked sufficient interest in administering or enforcing the challenged laws. United States v. Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128, 85 S. Ct. 808, 13 L. Ed. 2d 717, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1664 (U.S. 1965).

Where the court found that substantially all of the eligible white voters in Walthall County had been registered without being required to submit to any of the onerous tests or requirements imposed by the state statute, the county registrar, in registering Negro applicants, was enjoined not to use as a prerequisite to registration any requirements for qualification which had not theretofore been used with respect to the registration of white applicants. United States v. Mississippi, 339 F.2d 679, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 3484 (5th Cir. Miss. 1964).

The county registrar of Panola County was required, in conducting proceedings for the registration of voters, not to use as a prerequisite to registration any requirements for qualification which had not theretofore been used with respect to the registration of white applicants. United States v. Duke, 332 F.2d 759, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5292 (5th Cir. Miss. 1964).

All provisions of Mississippi law which condition the right to vote on the ability to read and write, or contain a “test or device” as defined in Section 4(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [52 USCS § 10303, formerly codified as 42 USCS § 1973b(c)] have no force or effect during the period of suspension prescribed in said Act. United States v. Mississippi, 256 F. Supp. 344, 1966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9894 (S.D. Miss. 1966).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Failure of applicant to give his social security number does not disqualify him to register but requires registrar to assign voter registration number to individual and that number must appear on application. Dean, March 28, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0222.

Under Miss. Code Section 23-15-39(8), all newly annexed county electors who have resided in annexed area for at least thirty days from effective date of annexation are automatically added to municipal registration books as registered voters of municipality. Hewes, Mar. 5, 1993, A.G. Op. #92-0969.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Validity of governmental requirement of oath as applied to voters. 18 A.L.R.2d 268.

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 180-182.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 105–119, 123.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi and the Voting Rights Act: 1965-1982. 52 Miss. L. J. 803, December 1982.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 9, on May 1, 1992.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 4.

Amendment Notes —

The 2006 amendment rewrote the section.

The 2017 amendment in (1), in the first sentence, inserted “county” and “applicant’s information into the” and substituted “applicant’s status will be marked as” for “voter status will be marked”; rewrote (2), which read: “If an applicant is not qualified to register to vote, then the registrar shall enter the Statewide Elections Management System voter record where the voter’s status shall be marked ‘PENDING’ or ‘REJECTED’, specify the reason or reasons therefor, and notify the election commission of those rejected”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-33.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-33.

Allegations that because of the interrelationship between the racial restrictions of the Mississippi voter qualification laws and requirements with respect to the selection of grand and petit jurors a defendant would be denied his equal civil rights to trial by a jury free from exclusion were insufficient to justify the removal to the federal courts of the trial of a Negro charged with the crime of rape. Bass v. Mississippi, 381 F.2d 692, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5438 (5th Cir. Miss. 1967).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Law Reviews.

Mississippi and the Voting Rights Act: 1965-1982. 52 Miss. L. J. 803, December 1982.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment inserted “an” in the first sentence; substituted “provded in those sections” for “provided under said sections” in the second sentence; and made minor stylistic changes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-305.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-305.

Where evidence established that voter registrar summarily disapproved applications of anyone claiming to reside on the campus of Rust College or Mississippi Industrial College, thereby forcing them to prosecute an appeal to the board of election commissioners, while failing to refer to the board the applications of non-students in accordance with this section, the registrar and his employees were enjoined under 42 USCS § 1971(a)(2)(A) from failing to apply uniform standards to all applicants for registration, including black students attending institutions of higher learning in Marshal County, Mississippi, and from failing to register every student applicant who was denied registration because of the application of a stricter or more stringent standard than that applied to other applicants. Frazier v. Callicutt, 383 F. Supp. 15, 1974 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6706 (N.D. Miss. 1974).

Cross References —

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated May 1, 1992, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the addition of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 1, except that the U.S. Attorney General objected to the mail-in voter registration requirement that the witnessing registered voter attest to the facts stated in the mail-in application.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated August 16, 1993, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1993, ch. 528, § 3.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated February 2, 1995, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1994, ch. 600, § 1, except that the U.S. Attorney General objected to the mail-in voter registration requirement that the witnessing registered voter attest to the facts stated in the mail-in application.

Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Mississippi Help America Vote Act of 2002 Compliance Law.”

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 10.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 5.

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment provided for versions of the section effective through January 1, 2006, and effective from and after January 1, 2006; in the version effective through January 1, 2006, in (2), deleted the former third through seventh sentences of (a), and made a minor stylistic change in (c); rewrote (3); in (5), added “or as an electronic image” and made a minor stylistic change; in (6), substituted “applicant indicates on the application that he resides within the city limits of a city or town in the county registration” for “reply to question 5(c) above is affirmative,” substituted “the application” for “answer to Question 5(c) above” and substituted“municipal clerk ” for “such clerk” in the first sentence, deleted “of same” following “if a review” in the second sentence, and made minor stylistic changes throughout; and rewrote (7); and in the version effective from and after January 1, 2006, in (2), deleted the former third through seventh sentences of (a), rewrote (c), and made minor stylistic changes throughout; rewrote (3); in (5), added “or as an electronic image” and made a minor stylistic change; rewrote (6) and (7); and added (8).

The 2006 amendment substituted “Statewide Elections Management System” for “Statewide Centralized Voter System” throughout the section; deleted “818” preceding “registration of electors by mail” in the introductory paragraph of (2); and in (2)(c), rewrote the fourth sentence, and deleted “application and on the” preceding “written notification” in the fifth sentence.

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, rewrote (2)(a), which read: “Any qualified elector may register to vote by mailing or delivering a completed mail-in application to his county registrar at least thirty (30) days prior to any election. The postmark date of a mailed application shall be the date of registration”; in (2)(b), rewrote the first sentence, which read: “Upon receipt of a mail-in application, the county registrar shall stamp the application with the date of receipt, and shall verify the application by contacting the applicant by telephone, by personal contact with the applicant, or by any other method approved by the Secretary of State,” and in the second sentence, substituted “fourteen (14) days” for “twenty-five (25) days” and inserted “registration”; in (2)(c), added “to the applicant in accordance with Section 23-15-39” at the end of the third sentence, and substituted “applicant” for “person” at the end of the fourth sentence; in (2)(d)(v), inserted “county” and “already”; in (2)(e), inserted “county” preceding “registrar” twice in the first sentence, the first time it appears in the second sentence and in the last sentence, and inserted “or address, or both” near the end of the first sentence; in (2)(f), substituted “Statewide Elections Management System” for “registration book” in the first sentence and rewrote the second sentence, which read “Subject to the time limits and other provisions of Section 23-15-13, the registrar or the election commissioners shall note the new residence address on his records and, if necessary, transfer the applicant to his new county precinct or municipal precinct, if any, advise the applicant of his new county precinct or municipal precinct, if any, polling place and supervisor district”; rewrote (5), which read: “The originals of completed mail-in applications shall remain on file in the office of the county registrar in accordance with Section 23-15-113. Nothing in this section shall preclude having applications on microfilm, microfiche or as an electronic image”; deleted the last three sentences of (6), which required the county registrar to send municipal voting precinct information by mail and to notify an applicant if a review of the application for registration indicated the applicant was not qualified to vote; deleted “if the Statewide Elections management System has that capability” from the end of (7); and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes throughout.

Cross References —

Date of registration to vote, see §23-15-79.

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

Imposition of standard state assessment in addition to all court imposed fines or other penalties for any felony violation, see §99-19-73.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, formerly appearing as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq., now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Pursuant to Section 1-1-109, the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation corrected a typographical error in (1)(a) by substituting “change their name” for “change the their name.” The Joint Committee ratified the correction at its August 5, 2016, meeting.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, inserted “county” preceding “registrar” twice; substituted “after the denial” for “thereafter”; and made a minor stylistic change.

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-55.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-55.

Plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain a class action for declaratory relief, based on the alleged improper denial of their right to vote by county court clerk and registrar, where they had failed to pursue the reasonable and adequate administrative remedies provided by Mississippi law. Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

The provision for appeals was pointed out in Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

Remedy of elector whose name is erased from registration books is to apply for reregistration and, on denial thereof, appeal to board of election commissioners, and if necessary, to circuit court. Calvert v. Crosby, 163 Miss. 177, 139 So. 608, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 25 (Miss. 1932).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 175, 183-185.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 66, 106, 117, 123.

Lawyers’ Edition.

Criminal liability, under 18 USCS §§ 241, 242, for depriving, or conspiring to deprive, a person of his civil rights-Supreme Court cases. 20 L. Ed. 2d 1454.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi and the Voting Rights Act: 1965-1982. 52 Miss. L. J. 803, December 1982.

Stavis, A century of struggle for black enfranchisement in Mississippi: From the Civil War to the congressional challenge of 1965-and beyond. 57 Miss. L. J. 591, December, 1987.

Rhodes, Enforcing the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi through litigation. 57 Miss. L. J. 705, December, 1987.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, inserted “county” preceding “registrar” in the first sentence; and made a minor stylistic change.

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-57.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-57.

Plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain a class action for declaratory relief, based on the alleged improper denial of their right to vote by county court clerk and registrar, where they had failed to pursue the reasonable and adequate administrative remedies provided by Mississippi law. Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

The provision for appeals was pointed out. Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment inserted “election” preceding “commissioners” four times; and substituted “affected” for “effected” near the end.

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

Provision that, with respect to the determination of appeals from allowance or refusal of applications for registration, the dates provided in §23-15-153, and former §§23-15-155 and23-15-157 are supplemental to that set forth in §23-15-65, see §23-15-67.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-59.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-59.

The commissioners of election, under this section [Code 1942, § 3226], have the mandatory duty to correct all illegal or improper registrations. United States v. Ramsey, 331 F.2d 824, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6291 (5th Cir. Miss. 1964).

An election commission’s determination whether a person is qualified as a candidate is one of fact, and therefore final. Powe v. Forrest County Election Com., 249 Miss. 757, 163 So. 2d 656, 1964 Miss. LEXIS 433 (Miss. 1964).

The decision of a county election commission on appeal from a decision of the county registrar is declared by Code 1942, § 3227 to be final as to all questions of fact, but not as to matters of law. Powe v. Forrest County Election Com., 249 Miss. 757, 163 So. 2d 656, 1964 Miss. LEXIS 433 (Miss. 1964).

Writ of certiorari could not issue against county election commissioners, where it was sought to conduct in circuit court a contest of elections. Board of Supervisors v. Stephenson, 130 So. 684 (Miss. 1930), rev'd, 160 Miss. 372, 134 So. 142, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 182 (Miss. 1931).

Evidence is admissible to show the number of names remaining on the registration books of the county after all proper erasures, in a contest as to whether the removal of a county seat was carried at an election by the requisite majority of all the qualified voters of the county. Board of Supervisors v. Buckley, 85 Miss. 713, 38 So. 104 (Miss. 1904).

Editor’s Notes —

Sections 23-15-155 and 23-15-157 referred to in this section were repealed by Laws, 1987, ch. 499, § 19, eff from and after July 24, 1987.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election”; and made minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, substituted “Statewide Elections Management System” for “registration books” at the end.

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former law.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former law.

Code 1942, § 3227 permits the election commissioners to determine appeals from decisions made by the county registrar allowing or refusing a citizen the right to be registered as a qualified voter. Thornton v. Wayne County Election Com., 272 So. 2d 298, 1973 Miss. LEXIS 1528 (Miss. 1973).

Code 1942, § 3227 does not give the county election commission authority to hold a hearing and determine whether or not the election was illegal as a result of irregularities. Thornton v. Wayne County Election Com., 272 So. 2d 298, 1973 Miss. LEXIS 1528 (Miss. 1973).

Persons aggrieved by orders of an election commission must exhaust their administrative remedies of appeal as prerequisite to judicial review, except where the commission does not have authority to pass upon the questions raised by the party resorting to judicial relief, or in cases in which an administrative appeal does not afford due process. Powe v. Forrest County Election Com., 249 Miss. 757, 163 So. 2d 656, 1964 Miss. LEXIS 433 (Miss. 1964).

The provision for appeals was pointed out. Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

Plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain a class action for declaratory relief, based on the alleged improper denial of their right to vote by county court clerk and registrar, where they had failed to pursue the reasonable and adequate administrative remedies provided by Mississippi law. Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

Writ of certiorari could not issue against county election commissioners, where it was sought to conduct in circuit court a contest of elections. Board of Supervisors v. Stephenson, 130 So. 684 (Miss. 1930), rev'd, 160 Miss. 372, 134 So. 142, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 182 (Miss. 1931).

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-65.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-65.

There can never exist any reason for a Circuit Court to transfer an appeal from the election commissioners to the Chancery Court. Lippian v. Ros, 253 Miss. 325, 175 So. 2d 138, 1965 Miss. LEXIS 990 (Miss. 1965).

Any elector has the right to appeal from any decision of the commissioners in failing to correct illegal or improper registration. United States v. Ramsey, 331 F.2d 824, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6291 (5th Cir. Miss. 1964).

Plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain a class action for declaratory relief, based on the alleged improper denial of their right to vote by county court clerk and registrar, where they had failed to pursue the reasonable and adequate administrative remedies provided by Mississippi law. Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

Remedy of elector whose name is erased from registration books is to apply for reregistration and, on denial thereof, appeal to board of election commissioners, and, if necessary, to circuit court. Calvert v. Crosby, 163 Miss. 177, 139 So. 608, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 25 (Miss. 1932).

Writ of certiorari could not issue against county election commissioners, where it was sought to conduct in circuit court a contest of elections. Board of Supervisors v. Stephenson, 130 So. 684 (Miss. 1930), rev'd, 160 Miss. 372, 134 So. 142, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 182 (Miss. 1931).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

What constitutes “conviction” within constitutional or statutory provision disenfranchising one convicted of crime. 36 A.L.R.2d 1238.

Exclusion or inclusion of terminal Sunday or holiday in computing time for taking or perfecting appeal from decision of election board. 61 A.L.R.2d 482.

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-67.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-67.

The provision for appeals was pointed out. Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

Writ of certiorari could not issue against county election commissioners, where it was sought to conduct in circuit court a contest of elections. Board of Supervisors v. Stephenson, 130 So. 684 (Miss. 1930), rev'd, 160 Miss. 372, 134 So. 142, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 182 (Miss. 1931).

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-69.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-69.

Any person wrongfully denied the right to register as a voter who appeals to secure that right is entitled to register and his registration will be effective as of the date he made a proper application to register. Lippian v. Ros, 253 Miss. 325, 175 So. 2d 138, 1965 Miss. LEXIS 990 (Miss. 1965).

The provision for appeals was pointed out. Darby v. Daniel, 168 F. Supp. 170, 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3312 (D. Miss. 1958).

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 10, on May 1, 1992.

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, inserted “was initially received by the registrar or, if submitted by mail, the postmark date” in (1); added “or, if mailed, the postmark date of the complete and legible application” in (2); and made minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Provision that, in the event an applicant is not registered, there shall be an automatic review by the county election commissioners under the procedures provided in this subarticle, see §23-15-43.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 64.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “If any election commissioner or registrar shall” for “If any registrar or commissioner of elections shall”; and made gender neutral changes.

Cross References —

Provision that, in addition to the penalties set forth in this section, a person aggrieved by the refusal or neglect of a registrar or election commissioner to perform any duty relative to registration of electors may petition the chancery court for injunctive relief, see §23-15-95.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Lawyers’ Edition.

Violation of election laws as “infamous crime” which must be prosecuted by presentment or indictment of grand jury under Fifth Amendment. 2 L. Ed. 2d 1960.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substitued “election commissioner” for “commissioner of elections” twice; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 21 (petition for writ of mandamus to compel registration).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 64.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-111 related to making changes to the registration books that were required to be kept in order to continue using them.

Editor’s Notes —

On September 22, 1997, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1997, ch. 421, § 3.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 6.

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2006 amendment added (2).

The 2017 amendment, effective April 21, 2017, rewrote (1), which read: “The registration books are to be in the following form: The voter registration files shall contain copies of the applications for registration completed by electors, which applications shall show the date of registration and signature of elector, and such files shall be known as registration books. The files described herein may be recorded on microfilm or computer software for convenience and efficiency in storage”; and in the first sentence of (2), deleted “From and after January 1, 2006” from the beginning, and added “by the county registrar” at the end.

Cross References —

Registering to vote by mail-in application, see §23-15-47.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-114 was entitled: “Automated voter registration system.”

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the repeal of this section by Laws, 2006, ch. 574, § 21.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-117 was entitled: Penalty for false entry, and for unauthorized erasure or alteration.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-119 provided for the procurement of new, or enlargement of existing, registration books or pollbooks.

Editor’s Notes —

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 7.

Amendment Notes —

The 2006 amendment inserted “or electronic voting record” following “Should the registration books.”

The 2017 amendment substituted “the electronic voting record of any county as maintained by the Statewide Elections Management System be lost” for “the registration books or electronic voting record of any county be lost”; inserted “county” preceding “registrar”; deleted “on new books to be provided by the board” from the end; and made a gender neutral change.

Cross References —

Lost or destroyed pollbook, see §23-15-131.

Editor’s Notes —

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 8.

Amendment Notes —

The 2006 amendment inserted “of supervisors” following “the board,” and substituted “provided for in Section 23-15-121” for “in case of the loss or destruction of the books” at the end.

The 2017 amendment inserted “as maintained by the Statewide Elections management System.”

Editor’s Notes —

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 9.

By letter dated July 9, 2010, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2010, ch. 446, § 8.

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2006 amendment, in the first sentence, deleted “have printed or written at the top of each page words to” preceding “designate the voting precinct for,” and inserted “voter registration number” following “date of registration”; and added the last sentence.

The 2010 amendment added “Except as otherwise provided in Section 23-15-692” at the beginning of the second sentence.

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, rewrote the section, which read: “The pollbook of each voting precinct shall designate the voting precinct for which it is to be used, and shall be ruled in appropriate columns, with printed or written headings, as follows: date of registration; voter registration number; name of electors; date of birth; and a number of blank columns for the dates of elections. Except as otherwise provided in Section 23-15-692, all who register within thirty (30) days before any regular election shall be entered on the pollbooks immediately after such election, and not before, so that the pollbooks will show only the names of those qualified to vote at such election. When election commissioners determine that any elector is disqualified from voting, by reason of removal from the supervisors district, or other cause, that fact shall be noted on the registration book and his name shall be erased from the pollbook. Nothing in this section shall preclude the use of electronic pollbooks.”

Cross References —

Registering to vote by mail-in application, see §23-15-47.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-127 related to the preparation, use and revision of primary election pollbooks.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-129 related to the administrative division of pollbooks to form subprecincts.

Amendment Notes —

The 2006 amendment deleted the former third sentence which read: “Separate pollbooks for each subprecinct shall be made.”

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-131 was entitled: “Loss or destruction of pollbook.”

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the repeal of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 21.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-133 provided the procedure for forming subprecincts and making subprecinct pollbooks.

Editor’s Notes —

The effective date of the bill that amended this section, Chapter 526, Laws of 2012 (House Bill No. 921), is “from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.” However, after the bill was submitted to the United States Attorney General under Section 5, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013), struck down the coverage formula that determined what jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so the coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5.

Because of the Shelby County decision, the United States Attorney General is not making any determinations under Section 5 on voting or election changes made by states. The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 5, so it is still in effect. Chapter 526 was submitted to the United States Attorney General before the Shelby County decision was rendered. In a letter dated August 5, 2013, the United States Attorney General responded that he is not making determinations on the merits of any bill that is submitted under Section 5. The submission of Chapter 526 and the response from the United States Attorney General technically met the requirements of Section 5 and fulfilled the condition in the effective date of Chapter 526, so Chapter 526 became effective on the date of the response letter from the United States Attorney General, August 5, 2013.

Amendment Notes —

The 2012 amendment added (2) and (3).

The 2017 amendment, in (1), substituted “master voter roll” for “registration books” both times it appears, inserted “as electronically maintained by the Statewide Elections Management System,” and made gender neutral changes.

Cross References —

Residency of prisoner as affected by incarceration in facility of Department of Corrections, see §47-1-63.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Registrar would be the appropriate official to transfer the names of registered voters to a newly established automated voter registration system. Griffin, Feb. 12, 1992, A.G. Op. #91-0957.

There is no apparent legal authority that would allow registration books and pollbooks to be kept and maintained in place other than office of circuit clerk/registrar except when pollbooks are being used in conduct of election. Pryor, Dec. 23, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0931.

County registrar is “certifying official” for purpose of certifying number of signatures of qualified electors on petitions calling for election pursuant to particular statute as well as on nominating petitions for candidates for public offices. Doggett Sept. 8, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0644.

Any and all requests for access to or copies of county voter registration records must be made to the county registrar, and it is the duty and responsibility of the county registrar to insure that voters’ social security numbers, telephone numbers, and dates of birth and age information are excluded prior to granting access or providing copies of such records. Johnson, March 10, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0112.

The practice of boards of supervisors to seek certification from their respective county circuit clerks as to the number of signatures of qualified electors appearing on such petitions prior to the adjudication of the sufficiency of those petitions is, in most if not all cases, necessary to protect the integrity of the process, since circuit clerks are the custodians of the registration records. Benvenutti, March 17, 2000, A.G. Op. #99-0216.

Each circuit clerk is responsible for making available public records of his office when properly requested. Information such as social security numbers, telephone numbers, dates of birth and age information must be erased or removed from such records before they are made available to the public. There is no specific statutory direction on the manner in which such information is to be removed. Allen, Oct. 24, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0555.

Each county registrar must use sound discretion in determining whether the chairman of the election commission should be the only one other than the registrar to have a key to the room where voter registration records are stored. Reasonable hours of access to the room would be established by the circuit clerk, in his or her discretion. Griffith, Aug. 8, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0378.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-137 authorized municipalities to contract with county election commissioners to revise registration books and pollbooks.

This section was amended by Section 12 of Chapter 574, Laws of 2006, and Section 1 of Chapter 585, Laws of 2006. Both chapters required submission to the United States Attorney General for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Chapter 574 received preclearance on June 5, 2006. There are no records indicating that Chapter 585 was submitted to or precleared by the U.S. Attorney General, so Chapter 585 was never given effect. The version of the section that appeared in the Code, and that was repealed by Section 189 of Chapter 441, Laws of 2017, reflected the language of Section 12 of Chapter 574, Laws of 2006, effective June 5, 2006.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-139 provided for a statewide voter registration record. For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-163 et seq.

Former §23-15-140 provided for a statewide voter registration record. For present similar provisions, see §§23-15-163 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1987, ch. 499, § 20, provides as follows:

“SECTION 20. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this act is declared to be unconstitutional or void, or for any reason is declared to be invalid or of no effect, the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

By letter dated November 26, 2012, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2012, ch. 517.

Amendment Notes —

The 2012 amendment inserted “vote fraud or of” following “convicted” in the first and second sentences and made minor stylistic changes throughout.

The 2017 amendment, in the fist sentence, substituted “voter fraud” for “vote fraud”; deleted the former second through fourth sentences, which read: “The clerk shall enter the names of all persons who have been or shall be hereafter convicted of vote fraud or of any crime listed in Section 241, Mississippi Constitution of 1890, in a book prepared and kept for that purpose. The board of supervisors of each county shall, as early as practicable, furnish the circuit clerk of their county with a suitable book for the enrollment of those names showing the name, date of birth, address, court, crime and date of conviction. The roll, when so prepared, shall be compared with the registration book before each election commissioner of the county”; added the last two sentences; and made a gender neutral change.

Federal Aspects—

As to provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code, see Title 26 of the United States Code Service.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-37.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-37.

A new trial would be required on a felon’s claim that the election board’s disenfranchisement of him pursuant to §§23-5-35,23-5-37 [Repealed.] was unconstitutionally selective, where the board had not acted according to the requisite procedure established in §23-5-37 [Repealed.], and its noncompliance with this procedure may have created a pattern of selective enforcement. Williams v. Taylor, 677 F.2d 510, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18677 (5th Cir. Miss. 1982).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The compilation required by this section should include the names of persons who have been convicted of any of the crimes identified as disqualifying by the courts or by official opinions of the Attorney General. Allen, Oct. 24, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0555.

Where no roll of persons convicted of crimes was maintained by previous clerks, a newly appointed clerk should make reasonable attempts to list persons known to have previous convictions. Allen, Oct. 24, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0555.

This section requires the circuit clerk of each county to prepare and maintain a list of all persons who have been convicted of disqualifying crimes in their respective counties. However, any documentation received from a circuit clerk of another county, the State of Mississippi or any other source showing that a resident of a particular county has a disqualifying conviction should be recorded in such compilation or preserved in some other manner in order to insure that the name of the person convicted does not appear on the registration records. Allen, Oct. 24, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0555.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

This section was amended by Section 1 of Chapter 413, Laws of 2013, approved March 20, 2013, and effective from and after July 9, 2013 (the date of the United States Attorney General’s response to the submission of this section under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended). This section was also amended by Section 1 of Chapter 456, Laws of 2013, approved March 25, 2013, and effective from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended. Section 1-1-109 gives the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation authority to integrate amendments so that all versions of the same code section enacted within the same legislative session may become effective. The Joint Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation ratified the integration of these amendments, contingent upon preclearance, as consistent with the legislative intent at the August 1, 2013, meeting of the Committee.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated May 14, 1993, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1993, ch. 510, § 1.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated July 11, 1994, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1994, ch. 590, § 2.

On August 11, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 430.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 20, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 414.

Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Mississippi Help America Vote Act of 2002 Compliance Law.”

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 12.

On June 29, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 592, § 2.

On June 15, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 434.

By letter dated June 21, 2010, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2010, ch. 377, § 1.

This section was amended by two bills in 2013. The effective date of each of the two bills that amended this section, Chapter 413, Laws of 2013 (Senate Bill No. 2238) and Chapter 456, Laws of 2013 (Senate Bill No. 2311), is “from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.” However, after the bills were approved, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013), struck down the coverage formula that determined what jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so the coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5.

Because of the Shelby County decision, the United States Attorney General is not making any determinations under Section 5 on voting or election changes made by states. The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 5, so it is still in effect. Chapter 413 was submitted to the United States Attorney General before the Shelby County decision was rendered. In a letter dated July 9, 2013, the United States Attorney General responded that he is not making determinations on the merits of any bill that is submitted under Section 5. The submission of Chapter 413 and the response from the United States Attorney General technically met the requirements of Section 5 and fulfilled the condition in the effective date of Chapter 413, so Chapter 413 became effective on the date of the response letter from the United States Attorney General, July 9, 2013.

Chapter 456 was not submitted before the Shelby County decision, but the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office submitted Chapter 456 to the United States Attorney General in order to technically meet the requirements of Section 5 and fulfill the condition in the effective date of the bill, which will allow the bill to take effect.

By letter dated July 18, 2013, the United States Attorney General responded that he is not making determinations on the merits of any bill that is submitted under Section 5. The submission of Chapter 456 and the response from the United States Attorney General technically met the requirements of Section 5 and fulfilled the condition in the effective date of Chapter 456, so Chapter 456 became effective from and after July 18, 2013, the date of the United States Attorney General’s response letter. The Joint Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation, in its meeting on August 1, 2013, voted to integrate the amendments to this section by Chapter 413 and Chapter 456.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment inserted the proviso in the last paragraph of (1).

The 2001 amendment rewrote the section.

The 2002 amendment rewrote (6); and substituted “June 20, 2001” for “the effective date of this act” in (7).

The 2004 amendment provided for versions of the section effective through January 1, 2006, and effective from and after January 1, 2006; in the version effective through January 1, 2006, substituted “registrar shall” for “commissioners of election may” in (5); and in the version effective from and after January 1, 2006, rewrote (5).

The 2006 amendment substituted “84.00” for “70.00” following “PER DIEM RATE PER DAY EARNED”; and added (7).

The 2007 amendment added (4) and redesignated former (4) through (7) as present (5) through (8); and substituted “county registrar” for “country registrar” in the next-to-last sentence of (6).

The 2010 amendment deleted “subsection (3) of” following “Except as provided in” in (2); added (3); and redesignated the remaining subsections accordingly.

The first 2013 amendment (ch. 413), inserted the subdivision (a) designator in (4) and added (4)(b); and inserted “EXCLUDING ELECTION DAYS,” “TOTAL NUMBER PER DIEM DAYS EARNED FOR ELECTION DAYS _______________ PER DIEM RATE PER DAY EARNED x 150.00” in “Per Diem Claim Form” in (9).

The second 2013 amendment (ch. 456), added (8) and redesignated former (8) and (9) as (9) and (10).

The 2016 amendment added (9) and redesignated former (9) and (10) as (10) and (11).

The 2017 amendment inserted “election” preceding “commissioners” throughout; rewrote the introductory paragraph of (1), which read: “At the following times, the commissioners of election shall meet at the office of the registrar and carefully revise the registration books and the pollbooks of the several voting precincts, and shall erase from those books the names of all persons erroneously on the books, or who have died, removed or become disqualified as electors from any cause; and shall register the names of all persons who have duly applied to be registered and have been illegally denied registration”; substituted “members of Congress” for congressmen” twice in (1)(b); rewrote the last paragraph of (1), which read: “Except for the names of those persons who are duly qualified to vote in the election, no name shall be permitted to remain on the registration books and pollbooks; however, no name shall be erased from the registration books or pollbooks based on a change in the residence of an elector except in accordance with procedures provided for by the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 that are in effect at the time of such erasure. Except as otherwise provided by Section 23-15-573, no person shall vote at any election whose name is not on the pollbook”; substituted “county voter roll as electronically maintained by the Statewide Elections Management System” for “registration books and pollbooks” in the introductory paragraph of (2); substituted “county voter roll as electronically maintained by the Statewide Elections Management System” for “registration books and pollbooks” or “registration books, pollbooks” in (3), (4)(a) and (5); in (7), rewrote the first sentence, which read: “The county registrar shall prepare the pollbooks and the county commissioners of election shall prepare the registration books of each municipality located within the county pursuant to an agreement between the county and each municipality in the county,” inserted “the actual cost of” and “municipal master voter roll” in the second sentence, and rewrote the last sentence, which read: “A municipality may secure ‘read only’ access to the Statewide Centralized Voter System and print its own pollbooks using this information; however, county commissioners of election shall remain responsible for preparing registration books for municipalities and shall be paid for this duty in accordance with this subsection”; deleted “Section 23-15-491” following “by this section” in (11); and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

The 2018 amendment substituted “One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)” for “Eighty-four Dollars ($84.00)” once in (2), (4)(a), and (5); and substituted “X $100.00” for “X $84.00” in the Per Diem Claim Form.

Cross References —

Provision that, with respect to the determination of appeals from allowance or refusal of applications for registration, the dates provided in §23-15-153, and former §§23-15-155 and23-15-157 are supplemental to that set forth in §23-15-65, see §23-15-67.

Provision that, at the meetings provided for in this section the county election commissioners shall hear and determine any pending, perfected appeals from decisions of the registrar allowing or refusing applications for registration, see §23-15-67.

Application of per diem amounts specified in this section to per diem for election commissioners attending elections training seminars, see §23-15-211.

Provision that registrars shall receive the same per diem as is provided for board of election commissioners in this section and §23-15-227, as compensation for assisting the county election commissioners in performance of their duties, see §23-15-225.

Federal Aspects—

National Voter Registration Act of 1993, see 52 U.S.C.S. § 20501 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-79.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-79.

The commissioners of election of each county have the duty under this section [Code 1942, § 3239] to erase the names of all persons erroneously registered. United States v. Ramsey, 331 F.2d 824, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6291 (5th Cir. Miss. 1964).

This section [Code 1942, § 3239] is directory and not mandatory and in the absence of prejudice or fraud, a meeting three days before a bond issue election will be sufficiently effective. Tedder v. Board of Sup'rs, 214 Miss. 717, 59 So. 2d 329, 1952 Miss. LEXIS 512 (Miss. 1952).

Where the election commissioners certified to the Board of Supervisors the essential matters necessary for the issuance of bonds of a school district, and had determined all the jurisdictional facts essential to the validity of the election, and the Board of Supervisors had found all the jurisdictional facts essential to the issuance of the bonds and had directed their issuance and validation, dependency of the mandamus suit in circuit court based on the claim that the election commissioners had unlawfully changed the registration books after they had met and revised the election rolls, was no bar to a validation proceeding in chancery court, where no appeal was taken from the order of the Board of Supervisors to the circuit court, a mandamus suit being no substitute for the appeal provided by law. In re Validation of Bonds, 185 Miss. 864, 188 So. 318, 1939 Miss. LEXIS 168 (Miss. 1939).

Where election commissioners met for purpose of revising registration and poll books, notation “transferred to [another election district]” made on poll book opposite names of voters held ineffective as an adjudication that they were disqualified as electors. Carver v. State, 177 Miss. 54, 170 So. 643, 1936 Miss. LEXIS 244 (Miss. 1936). But see Wade v. Williams, 517 So. 2d 573, 1987 Miss. LEXIS 2971 (Miss. 1987).

Mandamus did not lie to require county election commissioners to restore name erased from registration books on ground petitioner had become disqualified as elector. Calvert v. Crosby, 163 Miss. 177, 139 So. 608, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 25 (Miss. 1932).

Remedy of elector whose name is erased from registration books is to apply for reregistration and, on denial thereof, appeal to board of election commissioners, and, if necessary, to circuit court. Calvert v. Crosby, 163 Miss. 177, 139 So. 608, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 25 (Miss. 1932).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Individual commissioners may perform preliminary work of identifying those individuals who have died, moved away or otherwise have become disqualified as voters without quorum of commissioners present; however, official act of removing names of those individuals who have, as matter of fact, become disqualified, must be taken by commission as whole or quorum thereof. Mitchell, Feb. 13, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0089.

Statute which provides per diem for commissioners contemplates that commission as whole be in session; however, if commission determines that in order to fulfill its’ statutory responsibilities it is necessary for individual commissioners to work when quorum is not present and county board of supervisors authorizes compensation for such work, individual commissioners would be entitled to compensation for such work. Mitchell, Feb. 13, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0089.

Municipal election commissioners are required to meet on schedule set forth in statute as there are no specific statutory provisions setting forth dates that municipal election commissioners must meet. Mercer, July 17, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0572.

Commissioners are to be paid per diem for any day in which they are engaged in statutory duties (revising registration books and pollbooks or conducting election), regardless of amount of time they actually work. Richardson, February 1, 1991, A.G. Op. #91-0048.

Once county election commission has made factual determination that voter has “removed” himself from his county of registration, commission has statutory duty and obligation to remove that voter’s name from registration books and pollbooks, regardless of whether voter has signed cancellation form or registered in another county or state. Hutto, July 10, 1991, A.G. Op. #91-0455.

There is no apparent authority for county board of supervisors to compensate individual members of party executive committee for the work they perform for their party, including holding primary elections in place of county election commissioners. Yoste, July 22, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0549.

Miss. Code Section 23-15-153 provides for meeting of commissioners, revision of registration rolls and books, and compensation of commissioners at per diem allowance. Edens, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0263.

Commissioner who works five or more hours in one day is paid $70.00 for that day with no carry over of any hours worked in excess of five hours, but commissioner may carry over hours if he works less than five hours on any particular day so that hours carried over would be added to hours of less than five worked on other days until a total of five hours is accumulated. Watts, July 14, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0496.

There is no requirement that election commission or executive committees actually be in session and present with Registrar in order for Registrar to perform ministerial tasks and be entitled to appropriate compensation. Dixon, August 16, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0575.

Section 23-15-153 applies to Municipal Voting Rolls in that same procedures may be employed to purge Municipal Voting Rolls. Zebert Sept. 15, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0593.

There is no United States Department of Justice requirement that must be made regarding purging of municipal voter rolls; proper guidelines to follow are found in Section 23-15-153. Zebert Sept. 15, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0593.

Municipalities can purge the voter rolls based on returned mass mailings unless federal election law applies. Exum-Petty, March 20, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0149.

Any and all requests for access to or copies of county voter registration records must be made to the county registrar, and it is the duty and responsibility of the county registrar to insure that voters’ social security numbers, telephone numbers, and dates of birth and age information are excluded prior to granting access or providing copies of such records. Johnson, March 10, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0112.

The purging duties of county election commissioners are subject to an annual limitation regardless of the number of regularly scheduled primary or general elections; they would be entitled to additional days for purging only for special elections except those conducted on the regular special election day in November; therefore, for purposes of compensation of county election commissioners for their purging duties, primary and general elections are not separate events in the sense that would entitle commissioners to compensation in excess of the stated annual limitation on days. McLeod, Oct. 13, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0594.

Subsection (4) does not encompass primary elections because county election commissioners have no duties in the conduct of primaries. McLeod, Oct. 13, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0594.

The revision of the poll books for a primary election would entitle a county election commissioner to be compensated pursuant to subsection (2) subject to the annual limitation specified therein. McLeod, Oct. 13, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0594.

A per diem may be earned in one of two ways: first, a period of not less than five hours during a particular day would entitle a commissioner to a per diem; second, a period of less than five hours worked during a particular day may be carried forward and added to other periods of less than five hours. Once a total of five hours is accumulated over a period of two or more days, the commissioner would also be entitled to a per diem. McLeod, Oct. 13, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0594.

Any per diem earned for work in connection with revising primary election poll books will count against the annual limitation set forth in subsection (2); and, no per diem pursuant to subsection (4) can be earned with regard to a primary election because county election commissioners have no duties in the conduct of primaries. McLeod, Oct. 13, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0594.

A registrar must be actually employed in assisting election commissioners or party executive committees, either personally or through a deputy, for a minimum of five hours during a day or for a minimum of five hours accumulated over two or more days in order to claim a per diem; if a registrar, either personally or through a deputy, is actually employed in assisting both the democratic and republican executive committees for the requisite period during the same day, he or she would be entitled to claim two per diems. Butler, Nov. 3, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0667.

The number of per diem days county election commissioners may lawfully claim is that prescribed by House Bill 685 based on the population figures of the 2000 federal decennial census, provided that all hours worked are actually required, performed, and documented as required by law; there is no requirement to pro-rate the number of days for calendar year 2001 between the “old law” and the “new law.” Scott, Sept. 21, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0598.

The statute as it read on April 17, 2001 controlled as to the number of per diem days county election commissioners could lawfully claim, and House Bill 685 did not grant any additional days for the April 17 flag referendum or any other election conducted prior to June 13, 2001. Scott, Sept. 21, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0598.

County election commissioners were entitled to claim per diem days for revising the registration books and pollbooks during calendar year 2001 up to the maximum number authorized by House Bill 685 even though the new law only became effective on June 13, 2001, provided that such purging was necessary and the work was performed and documented as required by law. Scott, Sept. 21, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0598.

Performing one or more of various duties, such as training poll workers, appointing poll workers, distributing ballot boxes, having ballots printed, distributing ballots, and/or receiving and canvassing election returns, in connection with primary elections does not constitute performing official duties of a county election commission for which per diem is authorized pursuant to the statute. Robertson, Oct. 12, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0638.

The Election Commissioners Association of Mississippi can lawfully sponsor one or more training events for its members, and election commissioners attending a training event sponsored by the association are entitled to receive a per diem provided a training certificate from the association is received and provided the six day limit is not exceeded. Phillips, Feb. 1, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0026.

Individual election commissioners may be employed on a part-time basis by the board of supervisors to perform redistricting tasks provided the board determines, consistent with the facts that (1) the work involved is not required to be performed by the registrar or deputy registrar; and (2) the work is over and above the regular statutory duties of the election commissioners. Martin, Jr., May 31, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0326.

There is no authority for a county board of supervisors to election commission members for redistricting work over and above their regular “purging” duties. Young, Mar. 7, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0096.

Even in the absence of a book listing persons who have been convicted of disqualifying crimes, the election commission is still responsible under subsection (1) of this section for removing disenfranchised felons from the voter rolls from other sources, such as the docket book in the Attorney General’s office. Also, under 23-15-19, the circuit clerk as county registrar is required to erase from the registration records the name of any person convicted of any disenfranchising crime. Allen, Oct. 24, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0555.

With the exception of removing names of persons convicted of disqualifying crimes from the registration records by the circuit clerk, the election commission has sole authority for maintaining and purging the voter roll. Allen, Oct. 24, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0555.

There is nothing that allows a county board of supervisors to authorize per diem for election commissioners for days in excess of that provided for by this section. The mandate of the court for a hand recount of ballots must be met even if it means working beyond normal hours each of the remaining days. Porter, Dec. 10, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0594.

Failure of a municipal election commission to properly purge registration books and poll books in accordance with Section 23-15-153 could result in the fraudulent use of the names of deceased voters or voters who have been otherwise disqualified to cast illegal votes which could affect the validity of the election. Noel, Apr. 5, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0129.

Each county registrar must use sound discretion in determining whether the chairman of the election commission should be the only one other than the registrar to have a key to the room where voter registration records are stored. Reasonable hours of access to the room would be established by the circuit clerk, in his or her discretion. Griffith, Aug. 8, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0378.

The work necessitated by municipal redistricting is not a part of the regular duties of municipal election commissioners. Therefore, the municipal governing authorities may employ and compensate individual county election commissioners or they may employ and compensate individual municipal election commissioners to perform such work. Jones, Aug. 19, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0414.

Individual county election commissioners are entitled to per diem compensation pursuant to Section 23-15-153 for conducting demonstrations of Diebold voting machines. Robinson, Feb. 24, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0065.

There is no statutory mandate as to where the election commission must meet to conduct other than official business; however, notice of any meeting that is not at a place and time specified by statute to conduct official business or discuss matters that may lead to the formulation of public policy must be given and the meeting must held in accordance with the State Open Meetings law. Wileman, May 26, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0196.

Governing authorities may lawfully set the compensation of municipal election commissioners at the same rate and within the guidelines established by Section 23-15-153 for county election commissioners. Turnage, Sept. 15, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0455.

A county election commission may continue to purge names from the registration books and poll books within 90 days of a regularly scheduled primary or general election with the exception that any program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters based on residency must be completed prior to 90 days prior to a regularly scheduled primary or general election. Jones, Dec. 8, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0620.

The minutes of a county election commission should be available as a public record in the office of the circuit clerk. Jones, Dec. 8, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0620.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 179.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 22 (petition to strike name from register of voters).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 25 (order of court providing for revision of voter list).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 128–135.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-155 provided for meeting of commissioners, revision of registration books and pollbooks, and compensation of commissioners during Congressional election years.

Former §23-15-157 provided for the annual meeting of commissioners and revision of registration books and pollbooks, and compensation of commissioners.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-159 required that the names of persons who have not voted in at least one election in the last four successive years be erased from the registration books and pollbooks.

On August 11, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the repeal of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 430, § 7.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-160 required that the names of electors whose registration was cancelled under former §23-15-159 be returned to registration books and pollbooks.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment divided the section into the introductory paragraph and paragraphs (a) through (c), and therein inserted “county” in the introductory paragraph, “county election” in (a), rewrote (b), which read: “and shall furnish them the registration books and the pollbooks,” and in (c), deleted “and shall” from the beginning and substituted “the registrar” for “he.”

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Phrase “all needed assistance of which he is capable” is intended to encourage cooperation between registrar and election commissioners to insure that registration books and pollbooks contain only names of those individuals who meet statutory requirements of qualified elector. Horton, March 21, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0201.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 97, 98.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated July 29, 2002, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the addition of this subarticle by Laws of 2002, ch. 588, §§ 1 through 3.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “Statewide Elections Management System” for “Centralized Statewide Voter System” in (e).

Federal Aspects—

National Voter Registration Act of 1993, see 52 U.S.C.S. § 20501 et seq.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated July 29, 2002, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the addition of this subarticle by Laws of 2002, ch. 588, §§ 1 through 3.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 13.

Amendment Notes —

The 2006 amendment substituted “Statewide Elections Management System” for “Statewide Centralized Voter System ” throughout the section.

The 2017 amendment, in (1), deleted “From and after July 1, 2002” from the beginning and made related changes, substituted “county registrars” for “local registrars,” and deleted “begin to” preceding “procure”; rewrote the last sentence of (3), which read: “The standard industry accepted format of data shall be reviewed and approved by a majority of the advisory committee created in subsection (5) of this section after consultation with the Circuit Clerks Association and the format may not be changed without majority approval of the advisory committee and without consulting the Circuit Clerks Association”; deleted “subprecinct” following “identify the precinct” in (4)(f); in (5), substituted “established” for “shall establish” and “included” for “shall include”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983, see §§25-61-1 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Relation to federal law.

Public disclosure provision of National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) did not require disclosure of unredacted voter registration documents, including voter registrant birthdates, and therefore redaction provisions under Mississippi law were not preempted because there was no direct conflict. True the Vote v. Hosemann, 43 F. Supp. 3d 693, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120962 (S.D. Miss. 2014).

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-167 related to expenditures for the purchase of computer hardware or software.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Mississippi Help America Vote Act of 2002 Compliance Law.”

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 2.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, referred to in this section, is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, which formerly appeared as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq. and is now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Secretary of State has the authority to issue regulations regarding Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and the authority to expend HAVA funds, with the only restriction on the expenditure of funds for purchase of voting systems being that the systems comply with HAVA requirements. Simmons, Oct. 31, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0442.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 3.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, substituted “Statewide Elections Management System” for “Statewide Centralized Voter System.”

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, referred to in this section, is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, which formerly appeared as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq. and is now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 4.

Federal Aspects—

Section 205(r)(8) of the Social Security Act, referred to in this section, is codified at 42 USCS § 405(r)(8).

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, referred to in this section, is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, which formerly appeared as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq. and is now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 5.

On June 6, 2005, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2005, ch. 534, § 16.

Amendment Notes —

The 2005 amendment, in (2), inserted “or have purchased since January 1, 2001” near the beginning of the first sentence, and inserted “and rules” following “comply with the criteria” in the second sentence; and added (3).

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, referred to in this section, is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, which formerly appeared as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq. and is now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 6.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, referred to in this section, is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, which formerly appeared as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq. and is now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 7.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, referred to in this section, is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, which formerly appeared as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq. and is now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of Chapter 402, Laws of 2017, effective from and after July 1, 2017 (approved April 5, 2017), repealed this section. Section 191 of Chapter 441, Laws of 2017, effective from and after July 1, 2017 (approved April 18, 2017), also repealed this section. Section 1-3-79 provides that whenever the same section of law is amended/repealed by different bills during the same legislative session, and the effective dates of the amendments/repeals are the same, the amendment/repeal with the latest approval date supersedes all other amendments/repeals to the same section approved on an earlier date. The controlling act repealing this section is therefore Chapter 441, Laws of 2017.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-169.6 created a task force to study voting systems complying with Help America Vote Act of 2002, provided for its composition, appointments, meetings, quorum requirements, compensation and staff, and required the reporting of findings and recommendations.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 32 of Chapter 441, Laws of 2017, effective from and after July 1, 2017 (approved April 18, 2017), amended this section. Section 4 of Chapter 7, Laws of 2017, First Extraordinary Session, effective from and after passage (approved June 23, 2017), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 4 of Chapter 7, Laws of 2017, First Extraordinary Session, which contains language that specifically provides that it supersedes §23-15-5 as amended by Chapter 441, Laws of 2017.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2016, ch. 459, § 1, codified as §27-104-201, provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Mississippi Budget Transparency and Simplification Act of 2016.’ ”

Amendment Notes —

The 2016 amendment deleted the “(a)” designator in (1), and redesignated former (1)(b) and (c) as (2) and (3) respectively; and added (4) and (5).

The first 2017 amendment (ch. 441), effective July 1, 2017, added “and for compensation . . . Section 23-15-239” at the end of (2).

The second 2017 amendment (ch. 7, 1st Ex Sess), effective June 23, 2017, rewrote (4), which read: “From and after July 1, 2016, the expenses of this agency shall be defrayed by appropriation from the State General Fund and all user charges and fees authorized under this section shall be deposited into the State General Fund as authorized by law.”

The 2018 amendment, effective March 8, 2018, deleted “and for compensation paid to any certified poll manager under Section 23-15-239” from the end of (2).

Cross References —

Fees collected under §75-9-525, see §7-3-59.

Prohibition against one state agency charging another state agency fees, etc., for services or resources received, see §27-104-203.

Defrayal of expenses of certain state agencies by appropriation of Legislature from General Fund, see §27-104-205.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002, referred to in this section, is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, which formerly appeared as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq. and is now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in (1), substituted “April” for May twice, and “fourth Tuesday” for “third Tuesday” in the first sentence, added the second through fifth sentences, and inserted “poll” in the next-to-last sentence; in (2), substituted “on the first Tuesday, two (2) months” for “exactly four (4) weeks” and “three (3) weeks” for “two (2) weeks”; and made minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Applicability of provisions of this section to certain special or private charter municipalities, see §23-15-173.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-1-63.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-1-63.

A candidate for municipal office, who withdrew from the party nomination after a second primary resulted in a tie between him and another and a third primary was called in violation of law, and who thereafter presented a petition signed by eighty-eight qualified electors of the town to have his name printed on the official ballot, was entitled to have his name printed on the official ballot as a candidate for the office in the general election, his participation in the first and second primaries being no bar to that course. Omar v. West, 186 Miss. 136, 188 So. 917, 1939 Miss. LEXIS 196 (Miss. 1939).

Where the result of a second primary called by a political party ended in a tie for two candidates for a municipal office the election of one of such candidates after nomination by a third primary was void. Omar v. West, 186 Miss. 136, 188 So. 917, 1939 Miss. LEXIS 196 (Miss. 1939).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Election of individuals to Democratic Municipal Executive Committee in 1986 was not matter of general knowledge among citizenry of Yazoo City, and temporary committee was established; individuals duly elected in 1986 to serve as municipal democratic executive committee had legal authority and responsibility to conduct 1990 municipal democratic primary election. Granberry, Jan. 30, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0100.

Miss. Code Section 23-15-171 which requires that members of municipal party executive committees be elected implies that anyone who wishes to be member of executive committee must declare candidacy for membership; therefore, one who wishes to be candidate for membership on municipal party executive committee must express intention by filing with municipal clerk written statement of intent just as candidates for regular municipal offices are required to do by Miss. Code Section 23-15-309. Jackson, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0292.

The standard for the payment of rent for the use of a polling place is reasonableness, and municipal governing authorities may consider any factors deemed appropriate in arriving at an amount they deem to be reasonable. Brown, Sept. 26, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0513.

Where only one person was elected to serve on a municipal party executive committee, it is suggested that the one duly elected member appoint another individual and that they together appoint an additional member and continue in that manner until a full complement of members comprise the committee. Magee, Dec. 1, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0587.

No authority can be found in state law for a municipal party executive committee to remove one of its members on its own motion. Martin, Aug. 5, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0409.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment added (3).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The standard for the payment of rent for the use of a polling place is reasonableness, and municipal governing authorities may consider any factors deemed appropriate in arriving at an amount they deem to be reasonable. Brown, Sept. 26, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0513.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment rewrote the section, which read: “The first primary shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of August preceding any regular or general election; and the second primary shall be held three (3) weeks thereafter. Any candidate who receives the highest popular vote cast for the office which he seeks in the first primary shall thereby become the nominee of the party for such office; provided also it be a majority of all the votes cast for that office. If no candidate receive such majority of popular votes in the first primary, then the two (2) candidates who receive the highest popular vote for such office shall have their names submitted as such candidates to a second primary, and the candidate who leads in such second primary shall be nominated to the office. When there is a tie in the first primary of those receiving next highest vote, these two (2) and the one (1) receiving the highest vote, none having received a majority, shall go into the second primary, and whoever leads in such second primary shall be entitled to the nomination.”

Cross References —

Requirement that a petition contesting the qualifications of a candidate for general election be filed within a certain number of days after the date of the first primary election set forth in this section, see §23-15-963.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Where a candidate received more than half of the total votes cast for all three candidates in a primary election, he had a majority of the votes as contemplated by this this section and §23-15-305. Tate, Aug. 14, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0453.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 223, 224 et seq.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 180 et seq., 220, 265, 296 et seq.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 321–323 et seq., 535.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss LJ 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

Section7-7-2, as added by Laws of 1984, chapter 488, § 90, and amended by Laws of 1985, chapter 455, § 14, Laws of 1986, chapter 499, § 1, provided, at subsection (2) therein, that the words “state auditor of public accounts,” “state auditor,” and “auditor” appearing in the laws of the state in connection with the performance of auditor’s functions transferred to the state fiscal management board, shall be the state fiscal management board, and, more particularly, such words or terms shall mean the state fiscal management board whenever they appear. Thereafter, Laws of 1989, chapter 532, § 2, amended §7-7-2 to provide that the words “State Auditor of Public Accounts,” “State Auditor” and “Auditor” appearing in the laws of this state in connection with the performance of Auditor’s functions shall mean the State Fiscal Officer, and, more particularly, such words or terms shall mean the State Fiscal Officer whenever they appear. Subsequently, Laws of 1989, ch. 544, § 17, effective July 1, 1989, and codified as §27-104-6, provides that wherever the term “State Fiscal Officer” appears in any law it shall mean “Executive Director of the Department of Finance and Administration”.

Cross References —

Office of Lieutenant Governor generally, see Miss. Const. Art. 5, §§ 128 et seq.

Legislative offices generally, see §5-1-1 et seq.

Office of Governor generally, see §7-1-1 et seq.

Office of Secretary of State generally, see §7-3-1 et seq.

Office of Attorney General generally, see §7-5-1 et seq.

Office of State Treasurer generally, see §7-9-1 et seq.

Chancery clerks generally, see §9-5-131 et seq.

Circuit clerks generally, see §9-7-121 et seq.

Justice court judges generally, see §9-11-2 et seq.

County boards of supervisors generally, see §19-3-1 et seq.

Constables generally, see §19-19-1 et seq.

Sheriffs generally, see §19-25-1 et seq.

Surveyors generally, see §19-27-1 et seq.

Voter registration opportunities required prior to regularly scheduled primary or general elections, see §23-15-37.

Person appointed by Governor to serve as district attorney to fill vacancy until election can be held may practice law privately while serving, see §§25-31-35,25-31-36, and25-31-39.

Assessors generally, see §27-1-1 et seq.

Highway commissioners generally, see §65-1-3.

Commissioner of Agricultural and Commerce generally, see §69-1-3.

Appointment and term of public service commissioners, see §77-1-1.

Commissioner of Insurance generally, see §83-1-3.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

An incumbent supervisor may continue to serve until such time as a successor is lawfully elected and qualified in accordance with a court ordered special election, assuming that a court has not ordered otherwise. Griffith, Dec. 28, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0698.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 302 et seq.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss LJ 535, December 1986.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 312, 316-320, 331.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 434–516.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated September 6, 1994, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1994, ch. 564, § 88.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment added “and times for holding…Section 9-4-5” at the end of (2); and added (5).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 303.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 535.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Mississippi Help America Vote Act of 2002 Compliance Law.’ ”

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 13.

On June 29, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 592, § 3.

On August 7, 2008, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2008, ch. 528.

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment substituted “commission” for “commissioners” and made a minor stylistic change in (2); and added (5).

The 2006 amendment, in (2), inserted “except as otherwise provided in this section” preceding “the per diem shall not be paid to an election commissioner for more than”, and substituted “twelve (12) days” for “six (6) days”; substituted “twelve (12) days” for “six (6) days” in (3); added the last four sentences in (4); added (5); and redesignated former (5) as (6).

The 2008 amendment rewrote (1) and added (7).

The 2014 amendment substituted “Mississippi Community College Board” for “State Board for Community and Junior Colleges” in (7).

The 2016 amendment brought the section forward without change.

The 2017 amendment rewrote (1), which read: “(1) There shall be: (a) A State Board of Election Commissioners to consist of the Governor, the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, any two (2) of whom may perform the duties required of the board; (b) A board of election commissioners in each county to consist of five (5) persons who are electors in the county in which they are to act; and (c) A registrar in each county who shall be the clerk of the circuit court, unless he shall be shown to be an improper person to register the names of the electors in the county”; added (2) and redesignated the remaining paragraphs accordingly; added the last sentence of (4); in (5), rewrote the first sentence, which read: “Each participant shall receive a certificate from the Secretary of State indicating that the named participant has received the elections training seminar instruction and that each participant is fully qualified to conduct an election,” substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in the second and third sentences, and made a gender neutral and minor stylistic change; substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in (6); and deleted former (6) and (7), which related to the development of a pollworker training program and computer skills training and computer skills refresher courses.

The 2018 amendment brought the section forward without change.

Cross References —

Office of Governor generally, see §7-1-1 et seq.

Office of Secretary of State generally, see §7-3-1 et seq.

Office of Attorney General generally, see §7-5-1 et seq.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, formerly appearing as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq., now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-1.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-1.

Failure to conform to statutory requirements in the appointment of election commissioners merely makes them de facto officers whose acts do not invalidate an election. Barnes v. Ladner, 241 Miss. 606, 131 So. 2d 458, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 380 (Miss. 1961).

State election commissioners have power, authority, and responsibility to help administer voter registration laws by formulating rules for the various tests applied to applicants for registration, and for the reason that these rules and tests are vitally important elements of Mississippi laws challenged in an action brought by the United States to end discrimination in voter registration, the commissioners should not have been stricken as parties defendants to the action on the ground that they lacked sufficient interest in administering or enforcing the challenged laws. Barnes v. McLeod, 165 Miss. 437, 140 So. 740, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 265 (Miss. 1932).

Suit to enjoin county election commissioners from placing Democratic nominee for county office on official ballots for general election because of fraud in primary election held not within jurisdiction of chancery court. Barnes v. McLeod, 165 Miss. 437, 140 So. 740, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 265 (Miss. 1932).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Miss. Code Section 23-15-211 provides for appointment of Municipal Election Commissioners. Edens, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0263.

While one of the authorized training events for which commissioners may receive a per diem must be a seminar sponsored by the Secretary of State, other training events may be sponsored by other entities; thus, the Election Commissioners Association of Mississippi can lawfully sponsor one or more training events for its members. Phillips, Feb. 1, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0026.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 83, 84.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 193, 195–206, 214.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss LJ 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

On August 11, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the enactment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 430, § 6.

On August 7, 2008, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2008, ch. 528.

Amendment Notes —

The 2008 amendment added (2).

Federal Aspects—

National Voter Registration Act of 1993, see 52 U.S.C.S. § 20501 et seq.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Statutory requirements applicable to the acquisition of computer equipment and services are also applicable to the acquisition of computer equipment and services necessary to implement a computerized statewide voter registration system under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). However, acquisitions of computer equipment and services approved by ITS in order to implement a computerized voter registration system under HAVA will also have to be approved by the Secretary of State. Bearman, July 27, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0340.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-212 created a study committee to conduct a study to determine how registrars, election commissioners, executive committee members and poll workers can be better trained in the conduct of elections.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 28, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 592.

By letter dated August 4, 2009, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws, 2009, ch. 437, § 1.

There is an error in this section as it was amended by § 38 of Chapter 441. The act set the section out in two tiers, one effective until January 1, 2028, and the other effective from and after January 1, 2032, leaving a gap between January 1, 2028, and January 1, 2032. The error was corrected by Laws of 2018, ch. 399, § 1.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment inserted “by 5:00 p.m.” in the third paragraph.

The 2009 amendment rewrote the third and fourth paragraphs.

The 2017 amendment provided for two versions of this section; in the version effective until January 1, 2028, designated the formerly undesignated paragraphs (1) through (6), in (1), substituted “election in 2020” for “election in 1984,” and “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election,” divided the former second sentence into the present second and third sentences, in the second sentence, inserted “shall be required to...complete a skills assessment and,” in the third sentence, inserted “shall be filed” and deleted “there to remain” from the end, and added the fourth sentence, in (2), rewrote the first sentence, which read: “The qualified electors of each supervisors district shall elect, at the general election in 1984 and every four (4) years thereafter, in their district one (1) commissioner of election” and added the second and third sentences, inserted “county” near the beginning of (4), substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in (5), and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes throughout; and added the version of the section effective from and after January 1, 2032.

The 2018 amendment, in the first version, substituted “December 31, 2022” for “January 1, 2028” in the bracketed effective date language, in the first sentence of (1), deleted “and every four (4) years thereafter” following “election in 2020” and deleted “and who shall serve for a term of four (4) years” from the end, and in the third sentence of (2), substituted “term of three (3) years” for “term of six (6) years”; in the second version, substituted “January 1, 2023” for “January 1, 2032” in the bracketed effective date language, and in (2), substituted “election in 2024” for “election in 2032” in (a) and “election in 2023” for “election in 2034” in (b).

Cross References —

Provision that times for holding elections for the office of county election commissioner shall be as prescribed in this section, see §23-15-197.

Procedures for contesting the qualifications of a person who has qualified pursuant to the provisions of this section as a candidate for any office elected at a general election, see §23-15-963.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-3.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-3.

Failure to conform to statutory requirements in the appointment of election commissioners merely makes them de facto officers whose acts do not invalidate an election. Barnes v. Ladner, 241 Miss. 606, 131 So. 2d 458, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 380 (Miss. 1961).

Each of the three commissioners is under duty to report and present to the commissioners as a body all petitions which have been duly presented to him. State ex rel. Rice v. Dillon, 197 Miss. 504, 19 So. 2d 918, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 315 (Miss. 1944).

Power to determine whose name is entitled to appear upon the ballot is vested not in the ballot commissioner alone but in the commissioners as a body. State ex rel. Rice v. Dillon, 197 Miss. 504, 19 So. 2d 918, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 315 (Miss. 1944).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Where Court ruled that county-wide elections for post of Election Commissioners for Simpson County were enjoined, appropriate officials must proceed to fill vacancy on Simpson County Election Commission due to death of previous Election Commissioner, provided that this would be acceptable to U.S. District Court for Southern District of Mississippi which retains jurisdiction over issue of how elections for election commissioners shall be conducted. Welch, August 2, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0553.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 85.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 207–214.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” twice; and substituted “poll managers” for “managers of election.”

Cross References —

Provision that in cases involving a contest of an election of a county election commissioner the duties of the commission in connection with such contest shall be performed by the board of supervisors as provided in this section, see §23-15-217.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

As long as the election commission performs its statutory duties, nothing can be found that gives board of supervisors any authority regarding the day-to-day operation of the commission. Jones, Dec. 8, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0620.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 85, 90, 91.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection to the amendment by Laws of 1989, ch. 483, § 1.

The United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 613, § 1, on August 14, 1991.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 9, 2003, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2003, ch. 447, § 1.

The effective date of Chapter 474, Laws of 2013, which amended this section, is “from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.” However, after the bill was approved, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013), struck down the coverage formula that determined what jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so the coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5.

Because of the Shelby County decision, the United States Attorney General is not making any determinations under Section 5 on voting or election changes made by states. The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 5, so it is still in effect. For that reason, the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office submitted Chapter 474, Laws of 2013, to the United States Attorney General, in order to technically meet the requirements of Section 5 and fulfill the condition in the effective date of the bill, which will allow the bill to take effect.

By letter dated July 18, 2013, the United States Attorney General responded that he is not making determinations on the merits of any bill that is submitted under Section 5. The submission of Chapter 474 and the response from the United States Attorney General technically met the requirements of Section 5 and fulfilled the condition in the effective date of Chapter 474, so Chapter 474 became effective from and after July 18, 2013, the date of the United States Attorney General’s response letter.

Amendment Notes —

The 2003 amendment added the last sentence in (1).

The 2013 amendment in (1), substituted “he or she” for “he” three times and substituted “he or she qualifies for the office which he or she desires to seek” for “January 1 of the year in which he desires to seek the office. However, a commissioner of election of any county may be a candidate in a special election to fill a vacancy in any other office, provided he resigns as election commissioner within ten (10) days after the issuance of the notice of a special election by the appropriate authorities.”

The 2017 amendment, in (1), in the first sentence, substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” twice, deleted “or with reference to which he or she has acted as such” preceding “provided that he or she,” and substituted “files to qualify” for “qualifies,” and added the last sentence; substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in (2); and made minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Inapplicability of this section to members of the county executive committee who seek elective office, see §23-15-263.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former §23-5-95.

1. In general.

A county election commissioner was disqualified to run for the municipal office of mayor pursuant to §23-15-217 because of her membership on the election commission. Stringer v. Lucas, 608 So. 2d 1351, 1992 Miss. LEXIS 657 (Miss. 1992).

Where a candidate for mayor was disqualified under §23-15-217, a special election was warranted where over 40 percent of the votes cast were illegal and enough illegal votes were cast to change the ultimate results of the election. Stringer v. Lucas, 608 So. 2d 1351, 1992 Miss. LEXIS 657 (Miss. 1992).

Board of Supervisors’ involvement in the redistricting process of a county was permissible where the Board of Supervisors assisted the election commissioners with information in order to comply with a federal court redistricting order in time to hold primaries, the evidence demonstrated that it was the Election Commission which made the decisions as to the redistricting pursuant to the statutory requirements of §23-15-127, and the Board of Supervisors’ participation was limited to supplying information. Pearson v. Parsons, 541 So. 2d 447, 1989 Miss. LEXIS 143 (Miss. 1989).

Section23-15-263, which provides in part that “the county executive committee at primary elections shall discharge the functions imposed on the county election commissioners . . . and shall be subject to all the penalties to which all county election commissioners are subject,” incorporates the prohibitions of §23-15-217, which provides in part that “a commissioner of election of any county shall not be a candidate for any office at any election for which he may have been elected or with reference with which he as acted as such,” and both sections were enacted to maintain and preserve the integrity of elections and ballot boxes. Thus, a county executive committee member was prohibited from being a candidate in an election which was conducted while he was a member. Breland v. Mallett, 527 So. 2d 629, 1988 Miss. LEXIS 221 (Miss. 1988).

Access to candidacy is not fundamental right and §23-15-217 places no special burdens on minority parties or independent candidates; state has legitimate interest in preventing election commissioner from seeking another office while he has control of electors that shall vote for all candidates, where there would be potential for mischief were elections commissioner allowed effective control over registration and poll books, for 2 years, for example, then allowed to resign and seek another elective office. Meeks v. Tallahatchie County, 513 So. 2d 563, 1987 Miss. LEXIS 2856 (Miss. 1987).

Section 23-15-217 is not unconstitutionally void for vagueness because ordinary person of common intelligence upon reading it could understand what was allowed and what was not; statute provides two disqualifications upon county election commissioner offering himself as candidate for office: the first, no person holding office of elections commissioner may be candidate for election to any other office at any election held or to be held during 4 year term for which that person has been elected to serve as elections commissioner; second, commissioner may not be candidate for any other office in any election with respect to which he has taken any action in his official capacity; exception to both disqualifications is that incumbent election commissioner may be candidate for re-election. Meeks v. Tallahatchie County, 513 So. 2d 563, 1987 Miss. LEXIS 2856 (Miss. 1987).

Election commissioner was disqualified by statute as candidate for Justice Court Judge in 1987 election, or for any other office, except election commissioner, in any other election to be held during 4 year term which began January, 1985, notwithstanding that as election commissioner he may have in fact done nothing toward preparation for and conduct of 1987 elections; previous opinions of Attorney General to effect that elections commissioner could be candidate for other offices during term for which he was either appointed or elected, so long as he resigned as elections commissioner prior to taking any action with reference to election in which he sought to be candidate, was erroneous; however, construction of statute prohibiting such action would have no effect upon any election held prior to January 1, 1988, with exception of candidate in instant case. Meeks v. Tallahatchie County, 513 So. 2d 563, 1987 Miss. LEXIS 2856 (Miss. 1987).

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former § 23-5-95.

Under statute prohibiting commissioner of election from becoming candidate for office, election of member of board of commissioners of levee district held not invalid because member had previously been appointed election commissioner where he took no oath of office or active part in proceeding of election commission and resigned as election commissioner on being informed that petition for his candidacy could not be allowed while he remained member of election commission, and where there was no other candidate whose rights might have been affected by member’s action. State ex rel. District Attorney v. Jones, 177 Miss. 598, 171 So. 678, 1937 Miss. LEXIS 141 (Miss. 1937), overruled, Meeks v. Tallahatchie County, 513 So. 2d 563, 1987 Miss. LEXIS 2856 (Miss. 1987).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

A municipal election commissioner may seek an elective municipal office provided he resigns as commissioner before January 1 of the year he desires to seek said elective office. Keyes, Dec. 13, 1991, A.G. Op. #91-0907.

Municipal election commissioner may seek elective municipal office, provided he resigns as commissioner before January 1 of the year he desires to seek said office. Barnett, Feb. 19, 1992, A.G. Op. #91-0074.

Election commissioner is not prohibited from performing his or her statutory duties when commissioner’s spouse is candidate, and election commissioner whose spouse is candidate would not be prevented from participating with other commissioners in carrying out commission’s statutory responsibilities in connection with elections. Kilpatrick, Oct. 30, 1992, A.G. Op. #91-0853.

Election commissioner must recuse him- or herself from participation in any such decisions that must be made with respect to the election of a commissioner in commissioner’s supervisor district when he or she is candidate for re-election; if remaining commissioners are evenly divided on whether or not particular affidavit ballot should be counted, board of supervisors would have to make ruling. Evans, Nov. 25, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0899.

The resignation of an election commissioner must be given to the board of supervisors prior to January 1, 1999, in order for the commissioner to be eligible to seek an elected office other than election commissioner during 1999. Smart, December 18, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0750.

The failure of a person appointed to the position of municipal election commissioner to take the oath of office results in the failure of that person to become fully qualified to assume the position, thus creating a vacancy; there was no need for the person to submit a letter of resignation. Minor, Mar. 18, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0126.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

State court jurisdiction over contest involving primary election for member of Congress. 68 A.L.R.2d 1320.

Constitutionality of candidate participation provisions for primary elections. 121 A.L.R.5th 1.

Am. Jur.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 2 (petition alleging improper election of election officers).

Law Reviews.

1987 Mississippi Supreme Court Review, Professional responsibility. 57 Miss. L. J. 433, August, 1987.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment inserted “election” preceding “commissioners” the first time it appears in (2); substituted “election commissioner” for “commissioner of election” twice in (3); and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The statute specifically authorizes the election commission, with the approval of the board of supervisors, to employ and compensate its members to perform work that enables the commission to carry out its own duties. Wright-Hart, September 11, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0548.

Because the employment of a hearing officer by the county election commission to preside over an election contest convened under §23-15-963 (1) did not have the statutorily required approval of the County Board of Supervisors, no compensation would be authorized. Griffith, Oct. 31, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0554.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 90, 91.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 195, 214.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in (1), divided the former first sentence into the present first and second sentences by deleting “one (1) of whom, in each municipality, shall be designated to have printed and distributed the ‘official ballots,’ and all of whom” from the end of the first sentence and adding “The municipal election commissioners, in conjunction with the municipal clerk” to the beginning of the second sentence, substituted “poll managers” for “election managers” in the last sentence, and made minor stylistic changes; and added (2) through (4).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 21-11-13.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 21-11-13.

Marking of ballots by writing in name of ineligible candidate held not “distinguishing mark” which avoided entire ballot, where voters made honest effort to vote for such candidate, and not to indicate who voted ballots; hence ballots were improperly rejected as to candidates properly on ballots. Wylie v. Cade, 174 Miss. 426, 164 So. 579, 1935 Miss. LEXIS 82 (Miss. 1935).

Municipal election contests are governed by statute relating to election of county officers. Hutson v. Miller, 148 Miss. 783, 114 So. 820, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 88 (Miss. 1927).

The election commissioners appointed by the mayor and board of aldermen, where it does not appear that the municipality contained more than one election precinct, are presumed to be managers of the election. State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Ratliff, 108 Miss. 242, 66 So. 538, 1914 Miss. LEXIS 195 (Miss. 1914).

Election contest for office of mayor of city operating under Code chapter was properly brought under this section. Shines v. Hamilton, 87 Miss. 384, 39 So. 1008, 1905 Miss. LEXIS 152 (Miss. 1905).

Where a charter of a municipality provides that the mayor and aldermen shall appoint election commissioners to perform all the duties in respect to municipal elections prescribed by law, to be performed by the county election commissioners where applicable, and after the close of the polls to ascertain the results in the presence of the mayor and at least one alderman who with the commissioners shall certify the returns, the duty of the mayor to certify the returns is ministerial and he may be compelled to do so by mandamus. Bourgeois v. Fairchild, 81 Miss. 708, 33 So. 495, 1902 Miss. LEXIS 191 (Miss. 1902).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

There is no specific prohibition against a county executive committee member from serving as a municipal election commissioner, but it would give the appearance of impropriety for a municipal election commissioner to be identified with a particulars group of nominees. Pechloff, January 9, 1998, A.G. Op. #97-0803.

The statute contains no provision expressly stating that it is applicable to special or private charter municipalities and, therefore, a city charter provision specifying the number of election commissioners controlled over the statute. Artman, Jr., Mar. 30, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0177.

A county or municipal election commission may enter a written agreement with a county or municipal party executive committee to perform various duties in connection with a primary election such as training poll workers, appointing poll workers, distributing ballot boxes, having ballots printed, distributing ballots, and receiving and canvassing election returns; however, there is no authority that would allow a county election commission to conduct a municipal election. Cochran, Aug. 13, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0535.

If the increased revenue in a school district’s budget was derived solely from the expansion of its ad valorem tax base, there was no violation of subsection (1) of this section; however, an amount is referenced in the ad valorem tax request worksheet as a “new program” was not derived solely from the expansion of the district’s ad valorem tax base and, therefore, this increase in dollars must be advertised and the failure to do so requires exclusion of this amount when setting the millage rate to fund the school board’s budget. Perkins, Sept. 11, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0536.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 85, 90, 91.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 207–214.

Editor’s Notes —

By letter dated July 28, 2009, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws, 2009, ch. 400, § 1.

Amendment Notes —

The 2009 amendment added “as contemplated by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)” at the end of the second paragraph.

The 2017 amendment designated the first sentence of the former undesignated first paragraph (1), and added the last two sentences; designated the second sentence of the former undesignated first paragraph as the first paragraph of (2), and therein inserted “county”; designated the former undesignated second paragraph as the second paragraph of (2); designated the former undesignated third paragraph (3), and therein substituted “registrar shall not” for “registrar may not”; added (4); and made a gender neutral change.

Federal Aspects—

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) is codified as 52 USCS §§ 20501 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Based on totality of circumstances, proof showed by preponderance of evidence that Mississippi’s dual registration requirement and statutory prohibition on removing voter registration books from circuit clerk’s office resulted in denial or abridgement of right of black citizens in Mississippi to vote and participate in electorial process. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

Circuit clerks are qualified to and capable of determining, where necessity dictates and persons present themselves for deputization, which volunteers should be deputized. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

Deputizing all municipal clerks would significantly increase available registration sites to those individuals living in small municipalities which are often distant from most populous areas of county, and there is no legitimate or compelling state interest served by failure to deputize all municipal clerks as deputy registrars. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

Plaintiffs who showed that challenged statutes either impinged upon their protected rights to register to vote or burdened organizational efforts to assist prospective voters in registering had standing to sue to challenge Mississippi’s dual registration requirement and prohibition on satellite registration as violative of their rights and all persons similarly situated. Mississippi State Chapter, Operation Push v. Allain, 674 F. Supp. 1245, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10925 (N.D. Miss. 1987).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 175, 177, 183-185.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 64.

Editor's Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated July 30, 1992, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1991, ch. 440, § 6.

Laws of 1997, ch. 570, § 14, provides as follows:

“SECTION 14. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, or October 1, 1997, whichever occurs later.”

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated September 5, 1997, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1997, ch. 570, § 7.

Laws of 2008, ch. 473, § 4 provides:

“SECTION 4. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, or July 1, 2008, whichever occurs later.”

On July 31, 2008, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2008, ch. 473.

2019 Laws of 2019, ch. 485, § 14, provides as follows:

“SECTION 14. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after January 1, 2020, except for Section 11, which shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2019, and Sections 12 and 13, which shall take effect and be in force from and after the passage of this act [April 18, 2019].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2008 amendment substituted “Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) per year” for “Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) per year” in (5).

The 2016 amendment brought the section forward without change.

The 2017 amendment, in (2), deleted “in its discretion” from the end and inserted it following “board of supervisors”; substituted “voter roll as electronically maintained by the Statewide Elections Management System” for “registration books and the pollbooks of the several voting precincts of the several counties” in (3); and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

The 2018 amendment brought the section forward without change.

The 2019 amendment, effective January 1, 2020, in (1), made the following substitutions: “Thirty-one Thousand Three Hundred Ninety-five Dollars ($31,395.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($9,660.00)” for “Twenty-nine Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($29,900.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($9,200.00)” in (a), “Twenty-six Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-five Dollars ($26,565.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($9,660.00)” for “Twenty-five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($25,300.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($9,200.00)” in (b), “Twenty-four Thousand One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($24,150.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($9,660.00)” for “Twenty-three Thousand Dollars ($23,000.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($9,200.00)” in (c), “Twenty-one Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty-five Dollars ($21,735.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($9,660.00)” for “Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($20,700.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($9,200.00)” in (d), “Nineteen Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Dollars ($19,320.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($9,660.00)” for “Eighteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($18,400.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($9,200.00)” in (e), “Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Five Dollars ($16,905.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($9,660.00)” for “Sixteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($16,100.00), but not less than Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($9,200.00)” in (f), “Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Dollars ($14,490.00), but not less than Eight Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($8,452.50)” for “Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($13,800.00), but not less than Eight Thousand Fifty Dollars ($8,050.00)” in (g), “Twelve Thousand Seventy-five Dollars ($12,075.00), but not less than Eight Thousand Four Hundred Fifty-two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($8,452.50)” for “Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($11,500.00), but not less than Eight Thousand Fifty Dollars ($8,050.00)” in (h), and “Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Dollars ($9,660.00) but not less than Six Thousand Six Hundred Forty-one Dollars and Twenty-five Cents ($6,641.25)” for “Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($9,200.00) but not less than Six Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($6,325.00)” in (i).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Circuit clerk as registrar.

Since circuit clerks in Mississippi served as county registrars and Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-225 provided that for their service as county registrar they were to receive an annual salary and a meeting day per diem, both of which were to be paid for the county general fund, the vital role that clerks played in county governance weighed in favor of finding them to be county agents for purposes of 18 U.S.C.S. § 666(d)(1). United States v. Harris, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50575 (S.D. Miss. July 11, 2007), aff'd, 296 Fed. Appx. 402, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 22020 (5th Cir. Miss. 2008).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Even though county registrars are not entitled to compensation over and above what has been set by their respective boards of supervisors for maintaining extended office hours for registration and absentee balloting purposes, the compensation of a regular county employee who is also a deputy registrar and who is given the additional responsibility of registering voters during extended hours can be increased at the discretion of the board of supervisors. Griffin, Feb. 12, 1992, A.G. Op. #91-0957.

County registrars may lawfully receive more than one per diem for the same day for their assistance of certain entities in election activities, provided that the registrar, either personally or through a deputy, actually performs required and necessary duties in assisting each entity. Griffin, Feb. 12, 1992, A.G. Op. #91-0957.

Time and work required to transfer the names of registered voters to a newly established automated voter registration system is a single, unique occurrence, and county boards of supervisors are authorized to approve a one time additional payment for the Registrar or some qualified individual designated by the Registrar for performing this task. Griffin, Feb. 12, 1992, A.G. Op. #91-0957.

There is no requirement that election commission or executive committees actually be in session and present with registrar in order for registrar to perform ministerial tasks and be entitled to appropriate compensation. Ruffin, Dec. 23, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0932.

Miss. Code Section 23-15-225 provides that city clerk of every municipality shall be appointed as deputy registrar. Edens, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0263.

In setting election clerk’s compensation, governing authorities should take into consideration fact that clerk is required by statute to perform various duties relating to municipal registrar; Miss. Code Section 23-15-225 (6) specifically provides for additional compensation for performance of duties relating to mail-in voter registration. Edens, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0263.

It is implicit in this section that circuit clerks may, upon request from the executive committee of the party, assist the executive committee with its duties in the conduct of the election (circuit clerk may receive compensation for services in assisting the election commissioners, executive committees or boards of supervisors in connection with any election); thus, although the circuit clerk may assist the executive committee in the conduct of an election, the duty and responsibility of the election remains with the executive committee and is nondelegable. White, July 30, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0323.

Individual election commissioners may be employed on a part-time basis by the board of supervisors to perform redistricting tasks provided the board determines, consistent with the facts that (1) the work involved is not required to be performed by the registrar or deputy registrar; and (2) the work is over and above the regular statutory duties of the election commissioners. Martin, Jr., May 31, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0326.

Circuit clerks may claim the same number of statutory days for assisting county executive committees as they claim for assisting county election commissions. Mitchell, May 12, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0191.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 177, 183.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated August 4, 1995, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment to this section by Laws of 1995, ch. 446, § 1.

On June 15, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment to this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 434.

The effective date of Chapter 366, Laws of 2013, which amended this section, is “from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.” However, after the bill was approved, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013), struck down the coverage formula that determined what jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so the coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5.

Because of the Shelby County decision, the United States Attorney General is not making any determinations under Section 5 on voting or election changes made by states. The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 5, so it is still in effect. For that reason, the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office submitted Chapter 366, Laws of 2013, to the United States Attorney General, in order to technically meet the requirements of Section 5 and fulfill the condition in the effective date of the bill, which will allow the bill to take effect.

By letter dated July 17, 2013, the United States Attorney General responded that he is not making determinations on the merits of any bill that is submitted under Section 5. The submission of Chapter 366 and the response from the United States Attorney General technically met the requirements of Section 5 and fulfilled the condition in the effective date of Chapter 366, so Chapter 366 became effective from and after July 17, 2013, the date of the United States Attorney General’s response letter.

Amendment Notes —

The 2007 amendment substituted “Seventy-five Dollars ($75.00)” for “Fifty Dollars ($50.00)” and “Fifty Dollars ($50.00)” for “Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00)” in the first sentence of the first paragraph; and made minor stylistic changes.

The 2013 amendment inserted subsection designators and added the last sentence of (2).

The 2016 amendment brought the section forward without change.

The 2017 amendment substituted “poll managers” for “managers and clerks” twice in (1); and in (2), substituted “poll manager” for “manager or other person” twice and substituted “uses a privately owned” for “utilizes a privately owned.”

Cross References —

Provision that registrars shall receive the same per diem as is provided for board of election commissioners in this section and §23-15-153, as compensation for assisting the county election commissioners in performance of their duties, see §23-15-225.

Provision that officers of primary elections shall ordinarily receive only such compensation as is authorized by this section to be paid for similar services of managers, clerks, and returning officer, see §23-15-301.

Provision that election commissioners shall be compensated for services rendered with respect to contests of primary elections in the manner provided for in this section, see §23-15-939.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

There is no statutory prohibition against individual being independently appointed to serve as pollworker in two different primary elections being conducted simultaneously, although pollworkers are not entitled to additional compensation for working in more than one election on same day. Mosley, July 2, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0465.

In regard to poll workers, Miss. Code Section 23-15-231 provides for appointment of “election managers” by Election Commission; such managers are entitled, under Miss. Code Section 23-15-227, to $50 for each election; such election managers, or poll workers, are therefore employees for purposes of Workers’ Compensation coverage. Trapp, Mar. 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0133.

Miss. Code Section 23-15-227 provides for $50 per election as compensation of election commissioners, managers, clerks and other persons. Edens, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0263.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 39.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 195, 214.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated August 4, 1995, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment to this section by Laws, 1995, ch. 446, § 2.

Amendment Notes —

The 2016 amendment substituted “Fifty Dollars ($50.00)” for “Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00).”

The 2017 amendment substituted “poll managers and” for “clerks, managers and” in the first sentence; inserted “poll” in the second sentence; and made a minor stylistic change.

Cross References —

Compensation for poll managers and other workers in polling places of county, see §23-15-227.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Miss. Code Section 23-15-229 provides for compensation of municipal clerks, managers and other workers, and states that compensation for clerks, managers and other workers in polling place shall be same as compensation paid by county for such services. Edens, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0263.

Miss. Code Section 23-15-229 provides for compensation of municipal clerks, managers and other workers, and states that compensation for clerks, managers and other workers in polling place shall be same as compensation paid by county for such services. Edens, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0263.

Even though heading or title of Miss. Code Section 23-15-229 uses terms “municipal clerks, managers and other workers”, compensation provided for this statutory section is for “clerks, managers and other workers in the polling places”; this section is clearly referring to poll workers who have historically been designated election clerks and managers, and would not be applicable to municipal clerk. Edens, May 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0263.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 83.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 195, 214.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election,” and inserted “poll” preceding “manager” and “managers” throughout; substituted “For general and special elections the” for “Such” in the second sentence; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Appointment of managers in addition to the managers appointed pursuant to this section, see §23-15-235.

Provision that the number of managers appointed by a county executive committee prior to a primary election shall be the same number as commissioners of election are allowed to appoint pursuant to this section and §23-15-235, see §23-15-265.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-99.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-99.

This section [Code 1942, § 3243] as applied to selection of managers of election from different political parties has no application to an election for the issuance of school bonds. Tedder v. Board of Sup'rs, 214 Miss. 717, 59 So. 2d 329, 1952 Miss. LEXIS 512 (Miss. 1952).

Fact that, pursuant to custom because of size of election district, two sets of election managers conducted the election at the voting place, did not render the votes cast thereat invalid, where one set of managers sat at one end of a table and received the ballots of persons whose names began with the letters “A” through “L”, and the other set of managers sat at the other end of the table and received the ballots of persons whose names began with “M” through “Z,” each set of managers using a separate ballot box and being assisted by separate clerks, and the ballots were counted and certified to by the respective managers who received them. Simmons v. Crisler, 197 Miss. 547, 20 So. 2d 85, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 319 (Miss. 1944).

Irregularity in appointment of election commissioners and invalidity of so-called official ballots does not affect validity of the election. Shines v. Hamilton, 87 Miss. 384, 39 So. 1008, 1905 Miss. LEXIS 152 (Miss. 1905).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

As the only statutory qualification to serve as a pollworker is that one be a qualified elector of the county in which the polling place is located, if an individual is independently appointed to act as a pollworker in more than one primary election being conducted in the same polling place, there is no statutory prohibition against an individual serving in such dual capacity. Martin, May 29, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0353.

Miss. Code Section 23-15-231 provides for appointment of “election managers” by Election Commission; such managers are entitled, under Miss. Code Section 23-15-227, to $50 for each election; election managers are therefore employees for purposes of Workers’ Compensation coverage. Trapp, Mar. 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0133.

Miss. Code Section 23-15-231 provides for appointment of “election managers” by Election Commission; such managers are entitled, under Miss. Code Section 23-15-227, to $50 for each election; election managers are therefore employees for purposes of Workers’ Compensation coverage. Trapp, Mar. 12, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0133.

A registered voter of a county may lawfully be appointed to work at any polling place within that county. Breland, Apr. 7, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0143.

A court clerk is required to send a copy of an expungement order to the Mississippi Criminal Information Center. Collins, Apr. 7, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0135.

A court clerk is required to send a copy of an expungement order to the Mississippi Criminal Information Center. Collins, Apr. 7, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0135.

There is no prohibition against a county election commission appointing members of political party executive committees to serve as poll workers in a special or general election. Shepard, Oct. 8, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0492.

Sections 23-15-231 and 23-15-235 do not provide authority for the board of supervisors to pay pollworkers to be placed at closed voting precincts in order to direct voters to a different voting location. However, Section 19-3-40 gives the board of supervisors the authority to hire an individual to be at a closed polling place and give directions. Yancey, June 2, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0229.

Sections 23-15-231 and 23-15-235 do not provide authority for the board of supervisors to pay pollworkers to be placed at closed voting precincts in order to direct voters to a different voting location. However, Section 19-3-40 gives the board of supervisors the authority to hire an individual to be at a closed polling place and give directions. Yancey, June 2, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0229.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 84-86.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 1 (notice of appointment as election official).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 193, 194, 207–232.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment inserted “poll” twice; and made a gender neutral change.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Election commission does not have the authority to open ballots certified by election managers as rejected or challenged, and commission cannot override or review decision of election manager who marked ballot as rejected or challenged; duty of commission is merely to canvass sealed ballots to determine if requirements have been met. Misso v. Oliver, 666 So. 2d 1366, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 4 (Miss. 1996).

Only power conferred, and only duty required of election commission, in relation to the canvass of votes, should be to count the votes, based upon returns as made by election managers, and to give certificates to those receiving majority of the votes; election commission should not go beyond or behind the returns, and reject votes, or accept votes previously rejected, or otherwise inquire into validity of conduct of election; election commission has no judicial discretion as to validity of rejected or contested votes. Misso v. Oliver, 666 So. 2d 1366, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 4 (Miss. 1996).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 90, 91.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” throughout; in the first paragraph, inserted “poll” twice and deleted “or clerks” preceding “of the election” in the first sentence, substituted “poll managers” for “clerks” and added “not to exceed six (6) additional poll managers under this section” in the second sentence, and substituted “poll manager” for “clerk” in the last sentence; and deleted the second paragraph, which read: “The restrictions provided for in this section regarding the number of additional managers and clerks that may be appointed by commissioners of election shall not apply to elections conducted by paper ballot prior to January 1, 1989. In elections conducted by paper ballot prior to January 1, 1989, the commissioners of election may appoint as many additional managers and clerks as they may consider necessary to conduct the elections.”

Cross References —

Provision that the number of poll managers appointed by a county executive committee prior to a primary election shall be the same number as election commissioners are allowed to appoint pursuant to this section and §23-15-231, see §23-15-265.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Sections 23-15-231 and 23-15-235 do not provide authority for the board of supervisors to pay pollworkers to be placed at closed voting precincts in order to direct voters to a different voting location. However, Section 19-3-40 gives the board of supervisors the authority to hire an individual to be at a closed polling place and give directions. Yancey, June 2, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0229.

Sections 23-15-231 and 23-15-235 do not provide authority for the board of supervisors to pay pollworkers to be placed at closed voting precincts in order to direct voters to a different voting location. However, Section 19-3-40 gives the board of supervisors the authority to hire an individual to be at a closed polling place and give directions. Yancey, June 2, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0229.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 84, 85.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 193, 194, 207–214.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substitued “poll managers“ for “managers and clerks“ in the first sentence; added the last sentence; and made a gender neutral change.

Joint Legislative Committe Note

Section 1 of Chapter 343, Laws of 2018, effective from and after passage (approved March 8, 2018), amended this section. Section 3 of Chapter 399, Laws of 2018, effective from and after July 1, 2018 (approved March 19, 2018), also amended this section.

As set out above, this section reflects the language of both amendments, pursuant to Section 1-1-109 which gives the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation authority to integrate amendments so that all versions of the same code section enacted within the same legislative session may become effective. The Joint Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation ratified the integration of these amendments as consistent with the legislative intent at the August 14, 2018, meeting of the Committee.

Pursuant to Section 1-1-109, the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation corrected a typographical error in subsection (7)(b) of this section by substituting “one (1) poll manager” for “one (1) poll managers.” The Joint Committee ratified the correction at its August 14, 2018, meeting.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated August 4, 1995, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment to this section by Laws of 1995, ch. 429, § 1.

On August 2, 1999, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1999, ch. 441, § 1.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 20, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 523.

On June 29, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 592, § 4.

On July 16, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 565.

On August 7, 2008, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2008, ch. 528.

Amendment Notes —

The 1999 amendment added (2) and (3); and in (1), deleted “and clerks” following “managers” and “or clerk” following “manager.”

The 2001 amendment, in (1), inserted “executive committee of each county, in the case of a primary election, or the,” inserted “in the case of all other elections,” and substituted “The county executive committee or the commissioners of election, as appropriate” for “commissioners of election”; inserted (2); and redesignated the remaining subsections accordingly.

The 2006 amendment added (5) and (6); and made minor stylistic changes.

The 2007 amendment, substituted “Twelve Dollars ($12.00)” for “Ten Dollars ($10.00)” and “eight (8) hours” for “two (2) hours” in (3).

The 2008 amendment added (1)(b); and substituted “sixteen (16) hours” for “eight (8) hours” in (3).

The 2016 amendment inserted “and the municipal governing authority” near the beginning of (3).

The 2017 amendment provided for two versions of this section; in the version effective until January 1, 2020, substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” throughout; in (1), deleted the (a) designation from the beginning, rewrote the first sentence, which read: “The executive committee of each county, in the case of a primary election, or the commissioners of election of each county, in the case of all other elections, in conjunction with the circuit clerk, shall sponsor and conduct, not less than five (5) days prior to each election, training sessions to instruct managers as to their duties in the proper administration of the election and the operation of the polling place,” added the second sentence, and inserted “poll” twice in the third sentence and once in the last sentence, and deleted (1)(b), which read: “The executive committee of each county, in the case of a primary election, or the commissioners of election of each county, in the case of all other elections, in conjunction with the circuit clerk, shall sponsor and conduct annually an eight-hour training course for managers that meets criteria that the Secretary of State shall prescribe. Managers shall be required to attend this course every four (4) years from August 7, 2008. The Secretary of State shall develop a version of the course that may be taken by managers over the Internet. Training courses, including, but not limited to, online training courses, that meet criteria prescribed by the Secretary of State and are not sponsored or conducted by the executive committee or the commissioners of election, may be utilized to meet the requirements of this paragraph if the training course is approved by the Secretary of State”; inserted “poll” twice in (3); in (5)(h), inserted “or more” and deleted “but less than two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) residents according to the latest federal decennial census” preceding “not more than”; deleted (5)(i) and (j), which provided annual per diem limitations for counties having between 250,000 and 275,000 residents and counties having more than 275,000 residents; added (7); and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes; in the version effective from and after January 1, 2020, made identical changes in (1) through (7)(a), and amended (7)(b) and (c) as added in the first version.

The first 2018 amendment (ch. 343), effective March 8, 2018, in the version effective until January 1, 2020, in the first sentence of (7)(b), substituted “designate one (1)” for “designate no more than two (2),” and in the second sentence, substituted “manager” for “managers” and “Secretary of State” for “Help Mississippi Vote Fund,” and made minor stylistic changes; and in the version effective from and after January 1, 2020, substituted “managers” for “manager” in (7)(b); and made a minor stylistic change.

The second 2018 amendment (ch. 399), in both versions, substituted “One Hundred Dollars ($100.00)” for “Eighty-four Dollars ($84.00)” in the introductory paragraph of (5), and made a minor grammatical change.

Cross References —

Monies in “Help Mississippi Vote Fund” expended for compensation paid to any certified poll manager under this section, see §23-15-169.7.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Relation to other laws.

Black chairman of a county political party executive committee was guilty of racial discrimination under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act because, inter alia, he prevented poll watchers from challenging the sufficiency of black voters’ absentee voter applications and ballots, in derogation of their duties under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-239, and for the purpose of diluting the white vote. United States v. Brown, 494 F. Supp. 2d 440, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47255 (S.D. Miss. 2007), aff'd, 561 F.3d 420, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4030 (5th Cir. Miss. 2009).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

County boards of supervisors have the discretionary authority to compensate qualified electors of the county who are duly appointed to serve as pollworkers in a primary election and attend one or more training sessions conducted by a county party executive committee. Scott, Feb. 18, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0067.

A county election commission may choose to appoint qualified previously trained individuals who have served in a primary to also serve in the following general election; however, if individuals who were paid for attending one or more training sessions conducted by a party executive committee are appointed by a commission, they would not be eligible for any further compensation for attending another training session. Scott, Feb. 18, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0067.

A county election commission may choose to appoint qualified previously trained individuals who have served in a primary to also serve in the following general election; however, if individuals who were paid for attending one or more training sessions conducted by a party executive committee are appointed by a commission, they would not be eligible for any further compensation for attending another training session. Scott, Feb. 18, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0067.

Because the terms “poll worker” and “manager” are interchangeable as used in the election statute, therefore, a county board of supervisors has the discretionary authority to compensate poll workers for attending certification classes pursuant to Section 23-15-239 (3). Meadows, Jan. 31, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0033.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 84, 90, 91.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 194.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated July 1, 2002, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the addition of this section by Laws of 2002, ch. 521.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated July 22, 2002, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the addition of this section by Laws of 2002, ch. 590, § 1.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment (ch. 590) brought the section, as enacted by Laws, 2002, ch. 521, § 1, forward without change.

The 2017 amendment substituted “poll managers” for “managers and clerks” in (2)(b) and (3); and made a minor stylistic change.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment inserted “poll” near the beginning; and made a gender neutral change.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

People gathering signatures on petitions that are not covered by §23-17-57(4) may be within 150 feet of the entrance of a polling place but not within 30 feet of any room in which an election is being held; however, it is the duty of the election bailiff to insure that anyone collecting signatures does not, in any manner, impede the progress of voters coming into a polling place to vote. Sanford, Feb. 1, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0028.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 90, 91.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commmissioners of election,” inserted “poll” the first time it appears, and substiuted “poll managers” for “managers of election.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 85.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 207–214.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in the first sentence, inserted “poll” near the beginning, and substituted “the poll manager designated as bailiff shall have” for “he shall have”; and divided the former second sentence into the second and third sentences, and rewrote the former sentence, which read: “A space thirty (30) feet in every direction from the polls, or the room in which the election is held, shall be kept open and clear of all persons except the election officers and two (2) challengers of good conduct and behavior, selected by each party to detect and challenge illegal voters; and the electors shall approach the polls from one direction, line, door or passage, and depart in another as nearly opposite as convenient.”

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

People gathering signatures on petitions that are not covered by §23-17-57(4) may be within 150 feet of the entrance of a polling place but not within 30 feet of any room in which an election is being held; however, it is the duty of the election bailiff to insure that anyone collecting signatures does not, in any manner, impede the progress of voters coming into a polling place to vote. Sanford, Feb. 1, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0028.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 90, 91.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 308.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 536, 537.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss LJ 535, December 1986.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” twice; rewrote the second and third sentences, which read: “The boxes shall be secured by good and substantial locks, and, if an adjournment shall take place after the opening of the polls and before all the votes shall be counted, the box shall be securely locked, so as to prevent the admission of anything into it, or the taking of anything from it, during the time of adjournment; and the box shall be kept by one of the managers and the key by another of the managers, and the manager having the box shall carefully keep it, and neither unlock or open it himself nor permit it to be done, nor permit any person to have any access to it during the time of adjournment. The box shall not be removed from the polling building or place after the polls are opened until the count is complete, if as many as three (3) qualified electors object”; deleted “with the keys thereof” following “shall be delivered” in the last sentence; and made a gender neutral change.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-111.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-111.

That the ballot boxes provided were not “secured by good and substantial locks” is a mere irregularity not invalidating an election. Barnes v. Ladner, 241 Miss. 606, 131 So. 2d 458, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 380 (Miss. 1961).

The power of the circuit court to issue a writ of mandamus to the circuit clerk to permit inspection of the ballot boxes is necessary, supplemental to and in support of the statutory right of candidate to contest a general or special election. Lopez v. Holleman, 219 Miss. 822, 69 So. 2d 903, 1954 Miss. LEXIS 392 (Miss. 1954).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 307.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 531, 532.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment inserted “poll” preceding “managers shall proceed.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 342-345, 347-349, 359.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 575.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Public interest exception to mootness did not apply to an unsuccessful candidate's election challenge where although Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-11 (2015) required voters to vote only in their voting precinct, the poll managers provided a suitable substitute by directing voters to go next door, sign the pollbook, and obtain a receipt before returning to vote, and thus, the votes cast before the pollbooks were delivered to the correct voting location were not illegal under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-249. Perkins v. McAdams, 2017 Miss. LEXIS 419, /- So.3d /-, Miss. Oct. 19, 2017.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-113.

That the ballot boxes provided were not “secured by good and substantial locks” is a mere irregularity not invalidating an election. Barnes v. Ladner, 241 Miss. 606, 131 So. 2d 458, 1961 Miss. LEXIS 380 (Miss. 1961).

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” near the beginning of the first sentence and near the end of the last sentence; in the first sentence, inserted “poll” twice, deleted “and cards of instruction” following “proper number of ballots,” and inserted “election” following “receiving the ballots from the”; in the second sentence, substituted “the designated poll manager” for “said person so designated as aforesaid,” and inserted “or before 6:00 a.m. on the morning of the election” and “designated poll”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 307.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 529, 531, 532, 534.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment rewrote the section, which read: “The commissioners of election shall furnish to the managers at each voting place a sufficient quantity of stationery for use in holding the election, and also blank forms to be used in making returns of the election, including blank tally sheets with printed caption and suitable size and ruling.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 307.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 529.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 1 provides:

“SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Mississippi Help America Vote Act of 2002 Compliance Law.”

On July 12, 2004, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2004, ch. 305, § 14.

Amendment Notes —

The 2004 amendment designated the formerly undesignated paragraph as (1); in the first sentence of (1), substituted “a voter ” for “one (1) voter”; and added (2).

The 2017 amendment, in (1), inserted “(1)” in the first sentence, and deleted the last sentence, which read: “Each compartment shall be supplied and have posted up in it a card of instructions, and be furnished with other conveniences for marking the ballots”; and in (2), inserted “poll” in the introductory paragraph, deleted “version of the” following “A sample” in (a), deleted “Information the date of the election and” from the beginning of (b), added (g) and (h), and made related stylistic changes; and made a gender neutral change.

Federal Aspects—

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 is Act of Oct. 29, 2002, P.L. 107-252, formerly appearing as 42 USCS § 15301 et seq., now codified as 52 USCS § 20901 et seq. For full classification of the Act, consult USCS Tables volumes.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 307.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 533.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 225.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 533.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment in the first paragraph, substituted “voter rolls as electronically maintained by the Statewide Elections Management System” for “registration and pollbooks” and rewrote the last sentence, which read: “Said boards are also authorized, by order spread upon the minutes of the board setting forth the cost and source of funds therefor, to purchase improved or unimproved property and to construct, reconstruct, repair, renovate and maintain polling places or to pay to private property owners reasonable rental fees when the property is used as a polling place for a period not to exceed the day immediately preceding the election, the day of the election, and the day immediately following the election and to allow such reasonable sum as may be expended in supplying voting compartments, tables or shelves for use at elections”; and deleted the last paragraph, which read: “All facilities owned or leased by the state, county, municipality or school district may be made available at no cost to the board of supervisors for use as polling places to such extent as may be agreed to by the authority having control or custody of such facilities.”

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Purging of voter rolls of names of persons who have not voted in state, county, or federal election in last four (4) years is not applicable to municipal election commissions; municipal election commissions are required to keep and use suspended or “inactive” list compiled and provided by county election commission in order to remove or restore suspended voters. Sautermeister, March 15, 1990, A.G. Op. #90-0183.

A board of supervisors does not have the authority to pay rental fees for the use of privately owned facilities designated as county polling places for a political party to conduct a caucus. Welch, May 7, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0169.

A board of supervisors does not have the authority to pay rental fees for the use of privately owned facilities designated as county polling places for a political party to conduct a caucus. Welch, May 7, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0169.

A board of supervisors does not have the responsibility to provide or make available the various county polling places within the county precincts for use by a political party for a caucus. However, in the event the board makes space available in public facilities to other organizations, it can make space available on the same basis for conducting caucuses. Welch, May 7, 2004, A.G. Op. 04-0169.

A county board of supervisors may authorize improvements to property to be used as voting precincts owned privately or by a fire protection district provided the board determines that such improvements are necessary and that the value of such improvements does not exceed a reasonable rental amount as predetermined by the board. White, Feb. 10, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0040.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 83, 177, 183.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 195, 214.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment divided the section into two sentences by substituting “supervisors. An” for “supervisors; and an”; in the first sentence, substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” and “poll managers” for “managers and clerks”; and in the second sentence, made a gender neutral change.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 83.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 195, 214.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated August 16, 1993, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1993, ch. 528, § 10.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2. Remedies.

3. Illustrative cases.

1. In general.

Section23-15-263, which provides in part that “the county executive committee at primary elections shall discharge the functions imposed on the county election commissioners . . . and shall be subject to all the penalties to which all county election commissioners are subject,” incorporates the prohibitions of §23-15-217, which provides in part that “a commissioner of election of any county shall not be a candidate for any office at any election for which he may have been elected or with reference with which he as acted as such,” and both sections were enacted to maintain and preserve the integrity of elections and ballot boxes. Thus, a county executive committee member was prohibited from being a candidate in an election which was conducted while he was a member. Breland v. Mallett, 527 So. 2d 629, 1988 Miss. LEXIS 221 (Miss. 1988).

2. Remedies.

Remedial order was proper because it was tailored to specific conduct of a county political party executive committee and its chairman that violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1973 (reclassified as 52 USCS § 10301), it was not so broad as to deprive the committee and its chairman of their First Amendment rights, and did not prevent the committee from performing its electoral duties under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-263(1). United States v. Brown, 561 F.3d 420, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4030 (5th Cir. Miss. 2009).

3. Illustrative cases.

Government properly established, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, that a political party executive committee and its chairman violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1973 (reclassified as 52 USCS § 10301), by intentionally diluting the voting power of white members of the party by obtaining large numbers of defective absentee ballots from black voters, facilitating improper counting of absentee ballots, and permitting improper assistance of black voters, contrary to the requirements of Miss. Code Ann. §§23-15-263,23-15-715, and23-15-549. United States v. Brown, 561 F.3d 420, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4030 (5th Cir. Miss. 2009).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

A member of a municipal party executive committee may be a candidate for county or state office and remain on said municipal committee without violation of statute. Denny, May 12, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0369.

There is no apparent authority for county board of supervisors to compensate individual members of party executive committee for the work they perform for their party, including holding primary elections in place of county election commissioners. Yoste, July 22, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0549.

There is no apparent authority for county board of supervisors to compensate individual members of party executive committee for the work they perform for their party, including holding primary elections in place of county election commissioners. Yoste, July 22, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0549.

It is the duty of the executive committee of the political party to determine whether an individual is in fact qualified for the office sought and whether the individual should be placed on the ballot for the party primary. Evans, July 9, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0346.

A court-ordered election is not a “special election” for purposes of determining which election officials are responsible for its operation, thus, the responsibility for managing and operating the election lies with the party executive committees, and not the municipal election commission. Truly, Aug. 30, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0509.

A court-ordered election is not a “special election” for purposes of determining which election officials are responsible for its operation, thus, the responsibility for managing and operating the election lies with the party executive committees, and not the municipal election commission. Truly, Aug. 30, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0509.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 90, 91.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 20, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 523.

Amendment Notes —

The 2001 amendment added (2).

The 2017 amendment, in (1), substituted “poll managers” for “managers and clerks” twice and “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” once; substituted “chair” for “chairman” throughout (2); and made a minor stylistic change.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 86.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 215–232.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Pursuant to Section 1-1-109, the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation corrected a typographical error in the introductory paragraph. The word “Sections” was changed to “Section” preceding “23-15-239(2), 23-15-265(2), 23-15-267(4), 23-15-333(4), 23-15-335(2) or 23-15-597(2).” The Joint Committee ratified the correction at its August 5, 2008, meeting.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 20, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the addition of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 523.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Agreements between an election commission and a party executive committee as authorized by the statute for the performance of one or more of various duties, such as training poll workers, appointing poll workers, distributing ballot boxes, having ballots printed, distributing ballots, and/or receiving and canvassing election returns, in connection with primary elections may contain provisions whereby the executive committee agrees to compensate commissioners. Robertson, Oct. 12, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0638.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 20, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 523.

Amendment Notes —

The 2001 amendment designated the formerly undesignated paragraphs as present (1), (2), (3), and (5); and inserted (4).

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in (1); rewrote (2), which read: “If an adjournment shall take place after the polls are open and before all votes are counted, the ballot box shall be securely locked so as to prevent the admission into it or the taking of anything from it during the time of adjournment; and the box shall be kept by one of the managers, and the key by another of the managers, and the manager having the box shall carefully keep it, and neither undertake to open it himself or permit it to be done, or to permit any person to have access to it during the time of adjournment. The box shall not be removed from the polling building or place after the polls are open until the count is completed if as many as three (3) electors qualified to vote at the election object”; rewrote (3), which read: “After each election, the ballot boxes of those provided by the regular commissioner of election shall be delivered, with the keys thereof immediately and as soon thereafter as possible, and without delay to the clerk of the circuit court of the county”; and made gender neutral and minor stylitic changes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Irregularities warranting special election.

Failure to secure ballot boxes under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-911 and the lack of control over the boxes were substantial irregularities that warranted a special election because they were radical departures from Mississippi election law. Waters v. Gnemi, 907 So. 2d 307, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 321 (Miss. 2005).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 307, 350, 359.

Lawyers’ Edition.

Violation of election laws as “infamous crime” which must be prosecuted by presentment or indictment of grand jury under Fifth Amendment. 2 L. Ed. 2d 1960.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-269 provided the penalties for an election commissioner, or any other officer or person acting as such, or performing election duty, who willfully refused or knowingly failed to perform any duty required of him or her by the election laws. For present provisions relating to refusal or neglect to perform duties imposed on election commissioners or registrars by this chapter, see §23-15-93.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 20, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 472.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in (2), inserted “within sixty (60) days of an election” and “attend training or” and substituted “municipal clerk shall notify” for “municipal clerk may notify” in the first sentence, deleted the former second sentence, which read: “Such notification may occur on the last day by which the duties are required to be performed or at such time as the circuit or municipal clerk believes such notification is necessary for the orderly administration of the primary,” and added the last sentence; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in (1), deleted “but the supervisors districts, voting precincts and voting places as now fixed in each county shall remain until altered” from the end of the first sentence, and deleted “no later than April 1, 1987” following “The board of supervisors” in the third sentence, and added the last sentence; added (2) and (3); and made minor stylistic changes.

The 2019 amendment, in (1), deleted the former second sentence, which read: “Provided, however, that such boundaries, if altered, shall conform to visible natural or artificial boundaries such as streets, highways, railroads, rivers, lakes, bayous or other obvious lines of demarcation except county lines and municipal corporate limits,” and inserted “sub-precinct” twice in the next-to-last sentence.

Cross References —

Boards of supervisors generally, see §§19-3-1 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-9.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-9.

Pressing shop located across street and about 100 feet from a store designated by the county board of supervisors as the voting place in the district, was the proper voting place and the votes cast thereat were valid, where the owner and operator of the store informed one of the election commissioners a day or two before the election that the store could not be used as a voting place, whereupon, it being too late for a special meeting of the board for designating another voting place, the commissioner directed the election managers to hold the election at the pressing shop. Simmons v. Crisler, 197 Miss. 547, 20 So. 2d 85, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 319 (Miss. 1944).

Fact that pursuant to custom because of size of election district two sets of election managers conducted the election at the voting place instead of one set, did not render the votes cast thereat invalid, where one set of managers sat at one end of a table and received the ballots of persons whose names began with the letters “A” through “L,” and the other set of managers sat at the other end of the table and received the ballots of persons whose names began with “M” through “Z,” each set of managers using a separate ballot box and being assisted by separate clerks, and the ballots were counted and certified to by the respective managers who received them. Simmons v. Crisler, 197 Miss. 547, 20 So. 2d 85, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 319 (Miss. 1944).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Both Democratic and Republican primaries are to be held at regularly designated polling place in each precinct; there is no prescribed distance by which primaries of different parties must be separated. Mosley, July 2, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0465.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 8 et seq.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 136–139.

Editor's Notes —

On August 7, 2008, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2008, ch. 528.

Amendment Notes —

The 2008 amendment rewrote the section to remove the requirement that altered boundaries conform to visible natural or artificial boundaries, such as streets, etc.

The 2017 amendment, in the second sentence of (1), substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” and “voter rolls as electronically maintained by the Statewide Elections Management System” for “registration books”; and added (2) and (3).

The 2019 amendment inserted “sub-precincts” in the first sentence of (1); and added (4).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-11.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-11.

Changes by the City of Canton, Mississippi in the locations of polling places and in the municipal boundaries through annexations of adjacent areas were within the requirement of § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 USC § 1973c [now 52 USCS § 10304]) that states or political subdivisions covered by the Act must obtain approval of voting procedures different from those in effect on November 1, 1964, by obtaining a declaratory judgment as to the nondiscriminatory purpose and effect of the changes from the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, or by submitting the proposed changes to the United States Attorney General. Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U.S. 379, 91 S. Ct. 431, 27 L. Ed. 2d 476, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 93 (U.S. 1971).

Pressing shop located across street and about 100 feet from a store designated by the county board of supervisors as the voting place in the district, was the proper voting place and the votes cast thereat were valid, where the owner and operator of the store informed one of the election commissioners a day or two before the election that the store could not be used as a voting place, whereupon, it being too late for a special meeting of the board for designating another voting place, the commissioner directed the election managers to hold the election at the pressing shop. Simmons v. Crisler, 197 Miss. 547, 20 So. 2d 85, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 319 (Miss. 1944).

Fact that pursuant to custom because of size of election district two sets of election managers conducted the election at the voting place instead of one set, did not render the votes cast thereat invalid, where one set of managers sat at one end of a table and received the ballots of persons whose names began with the letters “A” through “L,” and the other set of managers sat at the other end of the table and received the ballots of persons whose names began with “M” through “Z,” each set of managers using a separate ballot box and being assisted by separate clerks, and the ballots were counted and certified to by the respective managers who received them. Simmons v. Crisler, 197 Miss. 547, 20 So. 2d 85, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 319 (Miss. 1944).

The commissioners of election, under previous statutes, alone had power to change the election districts, and the change of the boundaries of the supervisor’s district did not alter the election district. Perkins v. Carraway, 59 Miss. 222, 1881 Miss. LEXIS 108 (Miss. 1881).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Individual election commissioners may be employed on a part-time basis by the board of supervisors to perform redistricting tasks provided the board determines, consistent with the facts that (1) the work involved is not required to be performed by the registrar or deputy registrar; and (2) the work is over and above the regular statutory duties of the election commissioners. Martin, Jr., May 31, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0326.

Failure to file a map or description of the new districts for a county with the Secretary of State’s office does not prohibit the circuit clerk and/or the election commission from implementing the new supervisor, school board, and justice court election district. Dillon, Aug. 1, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0387.

Editor's Notes —

By letter dated October 5, 2012, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Chapter 353, Laws of 2012.

Amendment Notes —

The 2012 amendment rewrote the section, which read: “The board of supervisors shall cause an entry to be made on the minutes of the board at some meeting, as early as convenient, defining the boundaries of the several supervisors districts and voting precincts in the county, and designating the voting place in each voting precinct; and as soon as practicable after any alteration shall have been made in any supervisors district or voting precinct, or any voting place changed, shall cause such alteration or change to be entered on the minutes of the board in such manner as to be easily understood; provided, however, that no voting precinct shall have more than five hundred (500) qualified electors residing in its boundaries and the board of supervisors of the various counties of this state shall as soon as practical after the effective date of this section, alter or change the boundaries of the various voting precincts to comply herewith and shall from time to time make such alterations or changes in the boundaries of voting precincts so that there shall never be more than five hundred (500) qualified electors within the boundaries of the various voting precincts of this state; provided further, this limitation shall not apply wherein voting precincts are so divided, alphabetically or otherwise, so as to have less than five hundred (500) qualified electors in any one (1) box within a voting precinct; provided, however, that the limitation of five hundred (500) qualified electors to the voting precinct shall not apply wherein voting machines are used at all elections held in any voting precinct; but no alteration of any supervisor's district or voting precinct shall take effect within two (2) months before an election to be held in the district or voting precinct. Provided, however, that, with the exception of county lines and municipal corporate limits, such altered boundaries shall conform to visible natural or artificial boundaries such as streets, highways, railroads, rivers, lakes, bayous or other obvious lines of demarcation.”

The 2017 amendment made a minor stylistic change in the first paragraph.

The 2019 amendment, in the first paragraph, inserted “sub-precincts” twice in the first sentence, rewrote the former second sentence, which read: “The changed boundaries shall conform to visible natural or artificial boundaries such as streets, highways, railroads, rivers, lakes, bayous or other obvious lines of demarcation, with the exception of county lines and municipal corporate limits”; and in the second paragraph, inserted “sub-precinct” in the present last sentence, and deleted the former last two sentences, which read: “Any change in any boundary of a supervisors district or voting precinct that is approved under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 less than thirty (30) days before such qualifying deadline shall be effective only for an election for county supervisor held in a year following the year in which such change is approved under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Provided, however, that, with the exception of county lines and municipal corporate limits, such altered boundaries shall conform to visible natural or artificial boundaries such as streets, highways, railroads, rivers, lakes, bayous or other obvious lines of demarcation.”

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-13.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-13.

Pressing shop located across street and about 100 feet from a store designated by the county board of supervisors as the voting place in the district was the proper voting place and the votes cast thereat were valid, where the owner and operator of the store informed one of the election commissioners a day or two before the election that the store could not be used as a voting place, whereupon, it being too late for a special meeting of the board for designating another voting place, the commissioner directed the election managers to hold the election at the pressing shop. Simmons v. Crisler, 197 Miss. 547, 20 So. 2d 85, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 319 (Miss. 1944).

Fact that pursuant to custom because of size of election district two sets of election managers conducted the election at the voting place instead of one set, did not render the votes cast thereat invalid, where one set of managers sat at one end of a table and received the ballots of persons whose names began with the letters “A” through “L,” and the other set of managers sat at the other end of the table and received the ballots of persons whose names began with “M” through “Z,” each set of managers using a separate ballot box and being assisted by separate clerks, and the ballots were counted and certified to by the respective managers who received them. Simmons v. Crisler, 197 Miss. 547, 20 So. 2d 85, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 319 (Miss. 1944).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Authority of a political party.

Mississippi law regarding the power to change election procedures supported the position of plaintiffs, the Mississippi Democratic Party and its Executive Committee, that regardless of what actions a political party’s executive committee had taken, they could only act when expressly authorized by Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-291, and the Executive Committee did not have the authority to implement a closed primary with mandatory party registration; thus, although the Executive Committee had not voted to change their qualifications to include membership cards and had not voted to change the primary system to fully closed, the argument by defendants, the Mississippi Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General, that the Executive Committee’s failure to pass such measures or obtain preclearance from the Department of Justice pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. § 1973b(b) [now 52 USCS § 10303], was rejected because the Executive Committee did in fact vote to approve the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Mississippi’s primary system. Miss. State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 491 F. Supp. 2d 641, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41908 (N.D. Miss. 2007), rev'd, vacated, 529 F.3d 538, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11395 (5th Cir. Miss. 2008).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Validity and effect of statutes exacting filing fees from candidates for public office. 89 A.L.R.2d 864.

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 199, 223-237.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 293, 319–375.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “Candidates for state, state district and legislative offices shall be voted for” for “Candidates for state and state district office, and candidates for legislative offices for districts composed of more than one county or parts of more than one county, shall be voted for” and made a minor stylistic change.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 168-171.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 206.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 46 (petition to compel acceptance of qualifying papers and fee as candidate).

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1999, ch. 301, was House Bill 1609, 1998 Regular Session, and originally passed both Houses of the Legislature on April 3, 1998. The Governor vetoed House Bill 1609 on April 17, 1998. The veto was overridden by the State Senate and House of Representatives on January 5, 1999.

On January 15, 1999, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the addition of this section by Laws of 1999, ch. 301, § 6.

By letter dated July 15, 2010, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2010, ch. 320, § 1.

Amendment Notes —

The 2010 amendment deleted “multicounty” following “state district and”; and deleted the former last sentence.

Cross References —

Deadlines for payment of the amounts specified in this section and officers to whom such amounts are to be paid, see §23-15-299.

Provision that petitions requesting that a person be a candidate for office be filed by the date on which candidates for nominations in primary elections are required to pay the fee provided for in this section, see §23-15-359.

Federal Aspects—

Federal election campaigns – disclosure of federal campaign funds, see 52 USCS § 30101 et seq.

Federal election campaigns – general provisions, see 52 USCS § 30141 et seq.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Due process.

Political party violated a candidate’s due process because, by not timely telling the candidate the party found the candidate’s petition to be put on a primary ballot insufficient or timely answering the candidate’s request to reconsider, the party gave the candidate no meaningful chance to be heard when the deprivation could be prevented, as the deadline for overseas and military ballots had passed. Wilson v. Hosemann, 185 So.3d 370, 2016 Miss. LEXIS 95 (Miss. 2016).

Editor’s Notes —

Section7-7-2, as added by Laws of 1984, chapter 488, § 90, and amended by Laws of 1985, chapter 455, § 14, Laws of 1986, chapter 499, § 1, provided, at subsection (2) therein, that the words “state auditor of public accounts,” “state auditor”, and “auditor” appearing in the laws of the state in connection with the performance of auditor’s functions transferred to the state fiscal management board, shall be the state fiscal management board, and, more particularly, such words or terms shall mean the state fiscal management board whenever they appear. Thereafter, Laws of 1989, chapter 532, § 2, amended §7-7-2 to provide that the words “State Auditor of Public Accounts,” “State Auditor” and “Auditor” appearing in the laws of this state in connection with the performance of Auditor’s functions shall mean the State Fiscal Officer, and, more particularly, such words or terms shall mean the State Fiscal Officer whenever they appear. Subsequently, Laws of 1989, ch. 544, § 17, effective July 1, 1989, and codified as §27-104-6, provides that wherever the term “State Fiscal Officer” appears in any law it shall mean “Executive Director of the Department of Finance and Administration”.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated September 6, 1994, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1994, ch. 564, § 89.

On January 25, 1996, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1996, ch. 301, § 2.

Amendment Notes —

The 2016 amendment inserted “and all independent candidates . . . provided for in Section 23-15-299” in the introductory paragraph; rewrote (a) through (g) to increase the fees candidates are required to pay upon entering the race for party nomination for certain offices, to insert “State Senator and State Representative” in (c), and to delete “State Senator, State Representative” following “Candidates for” in (d).

Cross References —

Deadlines for payment of the amounts specified in this section, and officers to whom such amounts are to be paid, see §23-15-299.

Provision that petitions requesting that a person be a candidate for office be filed by the date on which candidates for nominations in primary elections are required to pay the fee provided for in this section, see §23-15-359.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Candidates entering race for party nominations for appellate court judge pay $200 fee to secretary of appropriate state executive committee. Harvey Aug. 25, 1993, A.G. Op. #93-0572.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Validity and effect of statutes exacting filing fees from candidates for public office. 89 A.L.R.2d 864.

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 264.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 46 (petition to compel acceptance of qualifying papers and fee as candidate).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 326–329.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated September 6, 1994, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1994, ch. 564, § 90.

On January 25, 1996, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1996, ch. 301, § 1.

On July 28, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 592.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 9, 2003, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2003, ch. 428, § 1.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 14.

On September 10, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 604.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment inserted the proviso in (2); in (3), deleted “on Friday, January 26, 1996, for the presidential preference primary in 1996 and must be paid” following the first instance of “5:00 p.m.,” and substituted “in years in which a presidential preference primary is held ” for “the year after 1996”; added (4)(b); rewrote (7); and added (8).

The 2003 amendment added (1)(b), and redesignated former (1) as present (1)(a).

The 2006 amendment added “however, no such assessments may be paid before January 1 of the year in which the primary election for the office is held” to the end of (1)(a), (1)(b), and at the end of the first and last sentences in (3); and made a minor stylistic change.

The 2007 amendment provides for three versions of the section, in the second version, which, from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, will be effective until July 1, 2008, substituted “2010 census redistricting information that is provided to the state in accordance with federal Public Law 94-171” for “2010 federal decennial census”; and in the third version, which, from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, will be effective from and after July 1, 2008, substituted “2010 census redistricting information that is provided to the state in accordance with Public Law 94-171” for “2010 federal decennial census”, and added the second and last sentences in the first paragraph of (7).

The 2016 amendment, in (1), deleted “and assessments made pursuant to paragraph (d) of Section 23-15-297 for legislative offices” preceding “shall be paid by each candidate” and inserted “who seeks a nomination in the political party election” thereafter in (a), and rewrote (b), which provided a special qualifying deadline for legislative offices for 2011 in the event that 2010 census redistricting information was received late; in (2), deleted “other than assessments made for legislative offices” preceding “shall be paid by each candidate” and inserted “who seeks a nomination in the political party election” thereafter in (a) and added (b); in (3), inserted “who seeks a nomination in the political party election” both times it appears in (a), and added (b); in (4), inserted “if applicable” in (a) and added “or the general election ballot” at the end; in (5), inserted “of State or the secretary” and “if applicable”; added the last sentence of (6); and in (7), inserted “or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable” wherever it appears, inserted “proper” in the second sentence and “also” in the third sentence, and made gender neutral changes.

The 2017 amendment added the last sentence of (1)(a), the last sentence of (1)(b), the second and last sentences of (2)(a), the next-to-last sentence of (2)(b), the last sentence of (3)(a) and the last sentence of (3)(b); inserted “the email address of the candidate, if any” in (4)(a); in (7), inserted “at the time of the qualifying deadline, unless otherwise provided by law” in the first sentence, and rewrote the former fifth sentence, which read: “If the proper executive committee or the Secretary of State, whichever is applicable, finds that a candidate either (a) is not a qualified elector, (b) does not meet all qualifications to hold the office he seeks and fails to provide absolute proof, subject to no contingencies, that he or she will meet the qualifications on or before the date of the general or special election at which he or she could be elected, or (c) has been convicted of a felony as described in this subsection, and not pardoned, then the name of such candidate shall not be placed upon the ballot” and divided it into the present fifth, sixth and seventh sentences; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

The 2019 amendment, in (7), divided the former first paragraph into present (a) through (c), and designated the former second paragraph (d); in (7)(a), in the third sentence, added the designators (i) through (iii), deleted “or has been convicted” preceding “(ii)” and preceding “(iii),” and added (iv), and deleted “unless the offense also involved misuse or abuse of his or her office or money coming into his or her hands by virtue of the office” at the end of the last sentence; in (7)(b), in the first sentence, inserted “or other disqualifying offense” and “in paragraph (a) of”; and made minor stylistic changes throughout.

Cross References —

Provision that, upon entering a race for a party nomination for office, a candidate shall pay a specified sum to the officer designated in this section, see §23-15-297.

Provision that fees which are received from candidates for nominations to municipal office and which are paid over to a municipal executive committee may be used in the same manner as is allowed in this section in regard to other executive committees, see §23-15-313.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Residency not established.

2. Illustrative cases.

1. Residency not established.

Candidate and his wife claimed that they were residents of the judicial district for which the candidate sought office, however the candidate and his wife owned two homes and the record revealed that the candidate and his wife spent five days a week at their second home, which was located outside of the judicial district; the candidate was therefore unqualified to run for office in the judicial district. Garner v. State Democratic Exec. Comm., 956 So. 2d 906, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 327 (Miss. 2007).

Candidate was not qualified to run for the House of Representatives under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-299(7) because he had not lived in the district for two years prior to the elections as required by Miss. Const. art. 4, § 41; the candidate worked outside of the district, and until his separation the candidate lived in a marital house that was outside of the district and for which he tried to claim a homestead exemption. Edwards v. Stevens, 963 So. 2d 1108, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 314 (Miss. 2007).

Because a candidate for the Mississippi Senate was unable to establish “without contingencies” and with “absolute proof” that residency in a certain district would have been established by the time of an election, a political party and its executive committee properly declined to place the candidate’s name on the ballot; evidence of a purchase contract for a home in the district was insufficient because the sale could have fallen through. Cameron v. Miss. Republican Party, 890 So. 2d 836, 2004 Miss. LEXIS 285 (Miss. 2004).

2. Illustrative cases.

Circuit court did not commit manifest error in determining that a state senate candidate changed his domicile from Benton County to Marshall County. The candidate had provided absolute proof, subject to no contingencies, that he would meet the qualifications on or before the date of the general or special election at which he could be elected. Hale v. State Democratic Exec. Comm., 168 So.3d 946, 2015 Miss. LEXIS 376 (Miss. 2015).

Where a former chancellor had been subject to discipline in the last year of his term, and five years later ran as a candidate for district attorney, the procedure for determining electoral candidates’ qualifications under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-299(7) was controlling, and the former chancellor was disqualified as a candidate, because the evidence showed the chancellor was not a “practicing attorney,” on or before the date of the general election as required by Miss. Code Ann. §25-31-1. Grist v. Farese, 860 So. 2d 1182, 2003 Miss. LEXIS 452 (Miss. 2003).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

In order to qualify for a multi-district legislative office, candidates must qualify with the secretary of the state executive committee of their chosen party by 5:00 p.m. on March 1, and, if candidates intend to run in a single county legislative district, they must qualify with the circuit clerk of their home county by 5:00 p.m. on March 1; there are no statutory provisions that allow any exceptions or extensions to these deadlines. Scott, March 26, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0161.

It is the duty of the executive committee of the political party to determine whether an individual is in fact qualified for the office sought and whether the individual should be placed on the ballot for the party primary. Evans, July 9, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0346.

When March 1, falls on a Saturday, rather than designating a date other than that required by the statute, all those officials authorized to accept candidate qualification papers must open their offices and be available for that purpose on that date until 5:00 p.m., regardless of whether that office is normally open on that day of the week. Scott, Jan. 16, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0012.

Once it is determined by the proper executive committee, that a particular candidate meets the eligibility requirements of the above quoted statute, his or her name must be placed on the primary ballot; any finding by said committee that a candidate is not loyal to the political party conducting the primary would not authorize the committee to refuse to place that candidate’s name on the primary ballot. Hemphill, Jan. 16, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0015.

If a party executive committee refuses to place a candidate’s name on the primary ballot, the candidate may file a complaint in circuit court asking that the committee be enjoined to place his or her name on the ballot; the time frame for obtaining such an injunction would be prior to the printing of the official ballots. Hemphill, Jan. 16, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0015.

If a party executive committee makes the factual determination that a particular candidate is disloyal to the party and refuses to place said candidate’s name on the ballot, a circuit judge when properly presented with the issue may rule on the legality of basing the decision to disqualify the candidate on the ground of party loyalty. Hemphill, Jan. 16, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0015.

If the local party refuses to qualify a candidate, the challenge would be heard by the circuit court of the county wherein the executive committee sits. Hemphill, Jan. 16, 2003, A.G. Op. #03-0015.

A firefighter, or any other employee, who works a shift of twenty-four consecutive hours, exhausts three days of paid leave for each absence resulting from military service described in Miss. Code Ann. §33-1-21, and is therefore entitled to be paid for up to five twenty-four hour shifts as the equivalent of the fifteen days paid leave authorized in the statute. Odom, March 23, 2007, A.G. Op. #07-00147, 2007 Miss. AG LEXIS 63.

An expenditure of funds received from candidate qualifications could lawfully be made for the purchase of a laptop computer if a party executive committee as a whole determines, consistent with the facts, that the purchase constitutes an expense incurred in the discharge of the duties of members of the executive committee or their secretaries. Walsh, March 16, 2007, A.G. Op. #07-000143, 2007 Miss. AG LEXIS 114.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 232, 255.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 46 (petition to compel acceptance of qualifying papers and fee as candidate).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 326–329.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

This statute does not authorize any payment to a political party or its executive committee other than those listed, i.e., the expenses of printing tickets or ballots, necessary stationery, and of paying the managers, clerks and returning officer. Harper, Dec. 18, 1991, A.G. Op. #91-0926.

There is no apparent authority for county board of supervisors to compensate individual members of party executive committee for the work they perform for their party, including holding primary elections in place of county election commissioners. Yoste, July 22, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0549.

Since programming DRE units is the equivalent of printing ballots and is an expense to be borne by the county under Section 23-15-301, a circuit clerk or election commissioner who enters an agreement to perform that task with an executive committee would be entitled to compensation in an amount agreed upon by the two parties and approved by the county board of supervisors. Mitchell, May 12, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0191.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 159.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 2017, ch. 441, § 205 provides:

“SECTION 205. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after July 1, 2017, except for Sections 3, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 24, 31, 70, 108, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 184 and 188, which shall take effect and be in force from and after passage [approved April 18, 2017].”

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, effective April 18, 2017, deleted the second paragraph, which read: “The board of supervisors or the supervisor of the district in which the voting precinct is located shall have authority, and it is made its and his duty when requested, to specifically designate the respective places where the precinct election of each party shall be held where there may be a dispute as to the room or exact place for holding such precinct elections.”

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Democratic and Republican primaries held on the same day are two separate and distinct elections. Butler, Nov. 3, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0667.

A registrar must be actually employed in assisting election commissioners or party executive committees, either personally or through a deputy, for a minimum of five hours during a day or for a minimum of five hours accumulated over two or more days in order to claim a per diem; if a registrar, either personally or through a deputy, is actually employed in assisting both the democratic and republican executive committees for the requisite period during the same day, he or she would be entitled to claim two per diems. Butler, Nov. 3, 2000, A.G. Op. #2000-0667.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 223, 224.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

If the candidate with the most votes or the candidate with the second most votes declines to enter the runoff, the candidate with the next highest votes would be entitled to have his name placed on the runoff ballot. Chaney, Nov. 7, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0676.

Where a candidate received more than half of the total votes cast for all three candidates in a primary election, he had a majority of the votes as contemplated by this section and §23-15-191. Tate, Aug. 14, 2003, A.G. Op. 03-0453.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Validity of Runoff Voting Election Methodology. 67 A.L.R.6th 609.

Am. Jur.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 45 (petition to compel declaration as candidate).

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment deleted the former last sentence, which read: “No political party shall be entitled to recognition, as such, in the appointment of the county or precinct election officers, unless it has made its nominations as herein provided”; and made gender neutral changes.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 93 (petition to require omission of name of ineligible candidate from ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 94 (order declaring form of ballot improper and requiring new form of ballot).

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 1 of ch. 549, Laws of 2000, effective from and after the date said ch. 549 is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, amended this section. Section 4 of ch. 592, Laws of 2000, effective from and after the date said ch. 592 is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of both amendments pursuant to Section 1-1-109, which gives the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision, and Publication authority to integrate amendments so that all versions of the same code section enacted within the same legislative session may become effective. The Joint Committee on Compilation, Revision, and Publication ratified the integration of these amendments as consistent with the legislative intent at the June 29, 2000 meeting of the Committee.

Pursuant to Section 1-1-109, the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation corrected an error in (4) by adding “then the name of such candidate shall not be placed upon the ballot” at the end of the next-to-last sentence. The Joint Committee ratified the correction at the August 15, 2017, meeting of the Committee.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1987, ch. 499, § 20, provides as follows:

“SECTION 20. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this act is declared to be unconstitutional or void, or for any reason is declared to be invalid or of no effect, the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

On July 28, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, chs. 549 and 592.

On September 10, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 604.

Amendment Notes —

The first 2000 amendment (ch. 549) substituted “sixty (60) days” for “thirty (30) days” in (1).

The second 2000 amendment (ch. 592) rewrote (4).

The 2007 amendment added the second and last sentences of (4) in the third version, which, from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, will be effective from and after July 1, 2008.

The 2016 amendment brought the section forward without change.

The 2017 amendment added the last sentence of (1); inserted “the email address of the candidate, if any” in (2); added the third sentence of (3); in (4), inserted “at the time of the qualifying deadline” in the first sentence, substituted “the executive committee shall notify the candidate and give the candidate an opportunity to be heard” for “the name of such candidate shall not be place upon the ballot” at the end of the fifth sentence, and added the sixth and seventh sentences; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Provision that a municipal general election ballot shall contain the names of persons who have been requested to be candidates by petition filed no later than the date on which candidates for nomination in the municipal primary elections are required to pay the fee provided for in this section, see §23-15-361.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

There is no specific prohibition against a county executive committee member from serving as a municipal election commissioner, but it would give the appearance of impropriety for a municipal election commissioner to be identified with a particulars group of nominees. Pechloff, January 9, 1998, A.G. Op. #97-0803.

A party executive committee must be in place on the qualifying deadline so that the municipal clerk can “promptly” turn the fees and statements of intent over to said committee. Howell, Feb. 28, 2001, A.G. Op. #2001-0123.

The statute clearly contemplates that a municipal party executive committee be in place at the time a potential candidate files his statement of intent and pays the filing fee; however, if a clerk has accepted one or more potential candidate’s statement of intent and filing fee at a time when no committee is in place and a legitimate temporary committee is subsequently formed prior to the qualifying deadline, such temporary committee could proceed to review the potential candidates’ qualifications and conduct a party primary and/or certify unopposed candidates as the party’s nominees. Bowman, Mar. 16, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0155.

Since municipal party executive committees are statutorily charged with the responsibility of conducting municipal primaries in accordance with state law, membership on said committees constitutes serving in a position of public trust. James, Oct. 18, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0597.

Potential candidates for membership on a municipal party executive committee are subject to the provisions of Section 44 of the Constitution and this section as they pertain to criminal convictions. James, Oct. 18, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0597.

If a municipal party executive committee finds that a potential candidate for membership on said committee who has filed his or her statement of intent has been convicted of any felony covered by Section 44 of the Constitution and this section, said committee could not lawfully qualify that individual as a candidate. James, Oct. 18, 2002, A.G. Op. #02-0597.

A party executive committee has no authority to disqualify or refuse to certify a candidate upon its finding that the candidate misused or abused his office or money coming into his hands by virtue of his office unless there is a felony conviction relating to such alleged misconduct. Mullins, Apr. 8, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0176.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 223-237, 264.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 45 (petition to compel declaration as candidate).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 46 (petition to compel acceptance of qualifying papers and fee as candidate).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 200-235.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment inserted “poll” twice; substituted “general elections” for “final and regular elections”; and made a minor stylistic change.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 159.

Editor’s Notes —

By letter dated July 22, 2010, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2010, ch. 428, § 1.

Amendment Notes —

The 2010 amendment rewrote the section, revising how citizens of a municipality are chosen to serve on a temporary municipal executive committee and barring persons who have been convicted of a felony from serving on a municipal executive committee.

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The statute clearly contemplates that a municipal party executive committee be in place at the time a potential candidate files his statement of intent and pays the filing fee; however, if a clerk has accepted one or more potential candidate’s statement of intent and filing fee at a time when no committee is in place and a legitimate temporary committee is subsequently formed prior to the qualifying deadline, such temporary committee could proceed to review the potential candidates’ qualifications and conduct a party primary and/or certify unopposed candidates as the party’s nominees. Bowman, Mar. 16, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0155.

In order for a political party to have nominees whose names are to be placed on the municipal general election ballot, there must be either a permanent municipal executive committee representing the party or a temporary committee representing said party. Gilless, Apr. 1, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0153.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

25 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 86.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 215–232.

Editor’s Notes —

The effective date of Chapter 391, Laws of 2013, which amended this section, is “from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.” However, after the bill was approved, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (June 25, 2013), struck down the coverage formula that determined what jurisdictions are subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so the coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance under Section 5.

Because of the Shelby County decision, the United States Attorney General is not making any determinations under Section 5 on voting or election changes made by states. The Supreme Court did not strike down Section 5, so it is still in effect. For that reason, the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office submitted Chapter 391, Laws of 2013, to the United States Attorney General, in order to technically meet the requirements of Section 5 and fulfill the condition in the effective date of the bill, which will allow the bill to take effect.

By letter dated August 1, 2013, the United States Attorney General responded that he is not making determinations on the merits of any bill that is submitted under Section 5. The submission of Chapter 391 and the response from the United States Attorney General technically met the requirements of Section 5 and fulfilled the condition in the effective date of Chapter 391, so Chapter 391 became effective from and after August 1, 2013, the date of the United States Attorney General’s response letter.

By letter dated July 22, 2010, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2010, ch. 428, § 2.

Amendment Notes —

The 2010 amendment deleted “chairman of the” preceding “county executive committee”; inserted “then in some newspaper having general circulation in the municipality and,” and “one (1) of which shall be city hall or be the regular location where the municipal governing authority meets to conduct business”; and made minor stylistic changes.

The 2013 amendment inserted “chairman” following “county executive committee,” “at least once per week” and “continuously” following “municipality and by posting notices.”

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The statute clearly contemplates that a municipal party executive committee be in place at the time a potential candidate files his statement of intent and pays the filing fee; however, if a clerk has accepted one or more potential candidate’s statement of intent and filing fee at a time when no committee is in place and a legitimate temporary committee is subsequently formed prior to the qualifying deadline, such temporary committee could proceed to review the potential candidates’ qualifications and conduct a party primary and/or certify unopposed candidates as the party’s nominees. Bowman, Mar. 16, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0155.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The statute applies only where a candidate dies after the primary but prior to the general election. Upton v. McKenzie, 761 So. 2d 167, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 136 (Miss. 2000).

State political party acted in good faith in nominating candidate for state House of Representatives prior to primary election when one candidate died and the other withdrew for legitimate reason; statute permitting political party to fill vacancy in nomination technically applied only to candidates who withdraw after primary, but there was no provision that gave direction to party on how to proceed under facts presented, and there was no fact or circumstance in case that indicated any wrongful or fraudulent purpose in conduct of election. Cummings v. Benderman, 681 So. 2d 97, 1996 Miss. LEXIS 501 (Miss. 1996).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Democratic party was entitled to nominate a candidate in a deceased candidate’s place, even though the candidate’s death occurred prior to the primary election and not between the primary and general elections as stated in this section, where the deceased candidate was unopposed for the Democratic nomination which necessarily meant that there would be no Democratic primary election conducted for the office in question and, therefore, the deceased candidate was the Democratic nominee. Clark, March 11, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0132.

Where a candidate was killed after he had qualified and after the time for qualifying had ended, and was the sole qualifying candidate for office, and had been certified by the county Democratic executive committee, the county Democratic executive committee, and only the county Democratic executive committee, was empowered to nominate a nominee for the office. Long, July 16, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0345.

If a nominee withdraws for a legitimate nonpolitical reason as defined in Section 23-15-317 and his sworn affidavit is approved by the State Board of Election Commissioners, the municipal party executive committee would then be required to name a substitute nominee. If a nominee withdraws and no affidavit is submitted and approved, said executive committee would have no authority to name a substitute nominee. In either case, the nominee has the right to withdraw his candidacy pursuant to Section 23-15-363. Baum, May 20, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0237.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 206, 209, 210.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 296, 297, 302.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-7-71.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-7-71.

Since the proceedings in a judicial review of a municipal primary election contest are in the nature of an appeal, no matter may be presented to the special tribunal which has not been previously heard and decided by the executive committee of the party. Shannon v. Henson, 499 So. 2d 758, 1986 Miss. LEXIS 2883 (Miss. 1986).

Where X marks drawn on a ballot were smeared and poorly drawn, it was a question of fact to be decided by a special tribunal whether these marks were result of poor penmanship or were placed there for improper identification. Anders v. Longmire, 226 Miss. 215, 83 So. 2d 828, 1955 Miss. LEXIS 627 (Miss. 1955).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 229.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 265, 296.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 273.

Law Reviews.

Stavis, A century of struggle for black enfranchisement in Mississippi: From the Civil War to the congressional challenge of 1965-and beyond. 57 Miss. L. J. 591, December, 1987.

Rhodes, Enforcing the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi through litigation. 57 Miss. L. J. 705, December, 1987.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 28, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 592.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 20, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 523.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment added present (2) and designated the former first and second paragraphs as present (1) and (3), respectively; and in (1), inserted “Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section.”

The 2001 amendment inserted the second sentence in (1); and added (4).

The 2017 amendment in (2), rewrote (a), which read: “Candidates for national office,” and added (i) and (ii), rewrote (b) through (d), which read: “(b) Candidates for statewide office; (c) Candidates for state district office; (d) Candidates for legislative office,” and in the last paragraph, substituted “paragraphs (e) and (f) are left” for “this subsection is left” and added the last sentence; rewrote (3), which read: “The county executive committee shall also prepare full instructions for the guidance of electors at elections as to obtaining ballots, the manner of marking them, and the mode of obtaining new ballots in the place of those spoiled by accident. The instructions shall be printed in large, clear type on ‘Cards of Instruction,’ and the county executive committee shall furnish the same in sufficient numbers for the use of electors. The cards shall be preserved by the officers of election and returned by them to the county executive committee and they may be used, if applicable, in subsequent elections”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Provision that it is the duty of the state executive committee to furnish to each county executive committee a sample of the official ballot to be used in the primary, see §23-15-331.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

The statute does not authorize a county executive committee to proceed in the same manner as §23-15-317 regardless of when the death of a candidate occurs. Upton v. McKenzie, 761 So. 2d 167, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 136 (Miss. 2000).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 229.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 199, 206, 207.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 91 (petition to change form and content of ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 94 (order declaring form of ballot improper and requiring new form of ballot).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 457–462, 444–446, 463–465.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 20, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 523.

Amendment Notes —

The 2001 amendment designated the formerly undesignated paragraphs as (1) and (3); and inserted (2).

The 2017 amendment, in (1), inserted “poll” preceding “manager” and “managers” throughout, and inserted “(1)” in the second sentence; and made gender neutral changes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-3-9.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-3-9.

In the absence of any charge of fraud, irregularity of any kind, and in the absence of any proof that the purity and integrity of the party primary election was violated, the fact that the ballots at one precinct were delivered to a party who was the wife and sister-in-law of those who were designated to be receiving managers but could not be located at the time of delivery, did not warrant or require the voiding of the election at that precinct. Galmore v. Washington, 254 So. 2d 885 (Miss. 1971).

Where there is a total departure from the mandatory provisions of the statute and it is not possible to ascertain the will of the electors because a substantial portion of the votes were void, a new election should be ordered for the purpose of ascertaining the voter’s choice. May v. Layton, 213 Miss. 129, 55 So. 2d 460, 56 So. 2d 89, 1951 Miss. LEXIS 519, 1952 Miss. LEXIS 340 (Miss. 1951).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 316.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 74 (allegation of failure to deliver election materials).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 441.

Lawyers’ Edition.

Violation of election laws as “infamous crime” which must be prosecuted by presentment or indictment of grand jury under Fifth Amendment. 2 L. Ed. 2d 1960.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated February 7, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 301, § 3.

Amendment Notes —

The 2001 amendment added the second paragraph.

The 2017 amendment deleted the last paragraph, which read: “In the case of the statewide special election for the selection of the official state flag provided for in Section 1 of Laws, 2001, ch. 301, the provisions of this article regarding the printing and distribution of the official ballots, shall be governed by the provisions of Section 1(2) of Laws, 2001, ch. 301”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Exemption of purchase of ballots printed pursuant to this section from bidding requirements, see §31-7-13.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 316.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 441.

Lawyers’ Edition.

Violation of election laws as “infamous crime” which must be prosecuted by presentment or indictment of grand jury under Fifth Amendment. 2 L. Ed. 2d 1960.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment deleted the last two sentences, which read: “He shall also prepare full instructions for the guidance of electors at elections as to obtaining ballots, the manner of marking them, and the mode of obtaining new ballots in the place of those spoiled by accident. The instructions shall be printed in large, clear type, on ‘cards of instruction,’ and the officer shall furnish the same in sufficient numbers for the use of electors. The cards shall be preserved by the officers of election and returned by them to the commissioners of election; and they may be used, if applicable, in subsequent elections”; and made a gender neutral change.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 316.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 441.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated February 7, 2001, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2001, ch. 301, § 4.

Amendment Notes —

The 2001 amendment added the last sentence.

The 2017 amendment deleted the last sentence, which read: “In the case of the statewide special election for the selection of the official state flag provided for in Section 1 of Laws, 2001, ch. 301, the provisions of this section regarding payment of the expenses of printing the official ballots shall be governed by the provisions of Section 1(2) of Laws, 2001, ch. 301;” and made a minor stylistic change.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-15-355.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-15-355.

Absentee ballots, larger in size than home ballots, and containing name of candidate who had not qualified, substantially complies with ballot requirements, in view of objects to be accomplished by and circumstances surrounding special statute permitting soldiers to vote by absentee ballots. Gregory v. Sanders, 195 Miss. 508, 15 So. 2d 432, 1943 Miss. LEXIS 154 (Miss. 1943).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-125.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-125.

The failure of absentee ballots to include the precinct name did not affect the validity of such ballots. Fouche v. Ragland, 424 So. 2d 559, 1982 Miss. LEXIS 2389 (Miss. 1982).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The printing of the information required by the statute on the front of Optical Mark Reading ballots accomplishes the purpose of the statute and promotes the most efficient use of the voting system; therefore, it is legally permissible to print the required information on the front of the ballot only. Watts, Feb. 23, 2001, A.G. Op. #2001-0101.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 285.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 91 (petition to change form and content of ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 94 (order declaring form of ballot improper and requiring new form of ballot).

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Section 2 of ch. 570, Laws of 2007, effective from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended (approved April 21, 2007), amended this section. Section 4 of ch. 604, Laws of 2007, effective from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, or July 1, 2007, whichever occurs later (approved April 21, 2007), also amended this section. As set out above, this section reflects the language of Section 2 of ch. 570, Laws of 2007, which contains language that specifically provides that it supersedes §23-15-359, as amended by Laws of 2007, ch. 604.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated September 6, 1994, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1994, ch. 564, § 91.

Laws of 1999, ch. 432, § 1, provides that:

“SECTION 1. From and after the date Laws, 1999, ch. 432, is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, all family courts are abolished. All matters pending in any family court abolished shall be transferred to the county court of the county wherein the family court was located without the necessity for any motion or order of court for such transfer.”

On May 28, 1999, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the enactment of Laws of 1999, ch. 432.

On July 28, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 592.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 27, 2002 interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2002, ch. 336.

On June 5, 2006, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2006, ch. 574, § 15.

On September 10, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 570.

On September 10, 2007, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2007, ch. 604.

On July 31, 2008, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2008, ch. 554.

By letter dated July 22, 2010, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2010, ch. 320.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment rewrote (1); inserted the proviso in (4); inserted “by 5:00 p.m.” in (7); and added (8), (9) and (10).

The 2002 amendment added the language beginning “provided however that if there shall be not more than one (1) person duly qualified” in (9).

The 2006 amendment added “however, no petition may be filed before January 1 of the year in which the election for the office is held” at the end of (3); and made minor stylistic changes.

The first 2007 amendment (ch. 570), provided for three versions of the section; in both the second version, which, from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, will be effective through June 30, 2008, and the third version, which, from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, will be effective from and after July 1, 2008, inserted “in this section” near the end of (2); substituted “there shall be printed” for “the commissioner shall have printed” and “filed with the State Board of Election Commissioners . . . qualifying deadline” for “filed with said commissioner by 5:00 p.m. not less than ten (10) working days prior to the election,” in (7), and made minor stylistic changes; and in the third version, also added the second and last sentences (8).

The second 2007 amendment (ch. 604), provided for three version of the section; in the third version, which effective from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, or July 1, 2007, whichever occurs later, will be effective from and after July 1, 2008, added the second and last sentences in (8).

The 2008 amendment added (2)(b).

The 2010 amendment, in (3), inserted “and (e)” and made a related change, and deleted “and petitions for offices described in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section for districts composed of more than one (1) county or parts of more than one (1) county” following “subsection (1) of this section”; in (4), deleted “and petitions for offices described in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section for districts composed of one (1) county or less” following “subsection (1) of this section”; and in (7), deleted “for districts composed of more than one (1) county or parts of more than one (1) county, or the proper circuit clerk for districts composed of one (1) county or less, by 5:00 p.m. on or before the date set in the writ of election as the qualifying deadline” following “State Board of Election Commissioners.”

The 2016 amendment, in (1), added the exception at the beginning of the introductory paragraph and added (h); in (2)(a), inserted “or fee, whichever is applicable” and “or (5)” and made a related change; substituted “Secretary of State” for “State Board of Election Commissioners” in (3) and (8); deleted “for nominations in the political party primary elections” following “date by which candidates” in (3) and (4); added (5) and renumbered the remaining subsections accordingly; and in (10), substituted “provisions of subsection (9)” for “provisions of subsection (8).”

The 2017 amendment added “if the candidates and nominees . . . hold the office sought” at the end of the first sentence of (1); in (3), inserted “or business day, as applicable,” and deleted “Mississippi Code of 1972” following “Section 23-15-297”; substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in (4); in (6), inserted “election” near the beginning, and substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” and “before the date” for “previous to the date”; in (9), substituted “or (c) has been convicted of a felony as described in this subsection, and not pardoned, then the election commission shall notify the candidate and give the candidate an opportunity to be heard. The election commission shall mail notice to the candidate at least three (3) business days before the hearing to the address provided by the candidate on the qualifying forms, and the committee shall attempt to contact the candidate by telephone, email and facsimile if the candidate provided this information on the forms. If the candidate fails to appear at the hearing or to prove that he or she meets all qualifications to hold the office subject to no contingencies, then the name of such candidate shall not be placed upon the ballot” for “or (c) has been convicted of a felony as described in this subsection, and not pardoned, then the name of such candidate shall not be placed upon the ballot” in (10), substituted “only one (1) person has duly qualified” for “there shall be only one (1) person who has duly qualified” and “that if not more than one (1) person” for “that if there shall be not more than one (1) person,” and inserted “election” following “review by the”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

The 2019 amendment, in (9), divided the former paragraph into present (a) and (b); in (9)(a), in the third sentence, added the designators (i) through (iii), deleted “or has been convicted” preceding “(ii)” and preceding “(iii),” and added (iv), and deleted “unless the offense also involved misuse or abuse of his or her office or money coming into his or her hands by virtue of the office” at the end of the last sentence; in (9)(b), in the first sentence, inserted “or other disqualifying offense” and “in paragraph (a) of,” and made minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Holding of local issue elections and the placement of local issues on regular or general election ballots, see §23-15-375.

Procedures for contesting the qualifications of a person who has qualified pursuant to the provisions of this section as a candidate for any office elected at a general election, see §23-15-963.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Where candidate resides.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-133.

1. Where candidate resides.

Candidate was not eligible to run for the office of county superintendent of education because he was a resident of a separate school district; the candidate did not present any evidence that he was a qualified elector of the county school district, the county superintendent of education served as the director of all schools within the county school district, which were outside the separate school district where the candidate resided. Basil v. Browning, 175 So.3d 1289, 2015 Miss. LEXIS 543 (Miss. 2015).

Candidate was a qualified candidate for the position of justice court judge, even though the candidate did not live within the election subdistrict where the candidate wished to run for office. Montgomery v. Lowndes County Democratic Exec. Comm., 969 So. 2d 1, 2007 Miss. LEXIS 329 (Miss. 2007).

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-133.

A candidate who ran in the first primary but withdrew from the second, run-off primary was not entitled to have his name placed upon the general election ballot, by petition, as an independent. Mississippi State Board of Election Comm'rs v. Meredith, 301 So. 2d 571, 1974 Miss. LEXIS 1664 (Miss. 1974).

Section 5 of the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 [52 USCS § 10304] which prevents the enforcement of “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure with respect to voting” different from that in force and effect Nov. 1, 1964, unless the state or political subdivision complies with one of the section’s approval procedures, applied to the 1966 amendment to this section [Code 1942, § 3260], which (1) established a new rule that no person who had voted in a primary election might thereafter be placed on the ballot as an independent candidate in the general election; (2) changed the time for filing a petition as an independent candidate from 40 to 60 days before the general election; (3) increased the number of signatures of qualified electors needed for the independent qualifying petition; and (4) added a new provision that each qualifying elector who signed the independent qualifying petition had to personally sign the petition and include his polling precinct and county. Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 89 S. Ct. 817, 22 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2378 (U.S. 1969), limited, Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 115 S. Ct. 2031, 132 L. Ed. 2d 136, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4039 (U.S. 1995).

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 [52 USCS § 10304] is applicable to the 1966 Amendment of this section [Code 1942, § 3260], and approval of that Amendment cannot be implemented until the approval of the Attorney General of the United States has been obtained. Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544, 89 S. Ct. 817, 22 L. Ed. 2d 1, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2378 (U.S. 1969), limited, Ryder v. United States, 515 U.S. 177, 115 S. Ct. 2031, 132 L. Ed. 2d 136, 1995 U.S. LEXIS 4039 (U.S. 1995).

This section [Code 1942, § 3260], directed solely to the qualifications of candidates, is not governed by the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. Whitley v. Johnson, 296 F. Supp. 754, 1967 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8895 (S.D. Miss. 1967).

Code 1942, § 3107 which provides a method whereby the state political party conventions may select two slates of presidential electors, one slate pledged to support the nominee of the national political party, and one slate unpledged offends no provision of the United States Constitution, for it expressly provides that nothing therein shall prohibit a slate of electors pledged to support the national party candidate from running on the same general election ballot, and this section [Code 1942, § 3260] enables such a slate to get on the ballot upon the petition of 1,000 voters. Gray v. Mississippi, 233 F. Supp. 139, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7357 (N.D. Miss. 1964).

Failure to place upon the ballot the name of one duly nominated by petition renders the election void. Bowen v. Williams, 238 Miss. 57, 117 So. 2d 710, 1960 Miss. LEXIS 377 (Miss. 1960).

Participating in a primary election does not preclude one from becoming an independent candidate upon the petition of other participants. Bowen v. Williams, 238 Miss. 57, 117 So. 2d 710, 1960 Miss. LEXIS 377 (Miss. 1960).

Power to determine whose name is entitled to appear upon the ballot is vested not in the ballot commissioner alone but in the commissioners as a body. State ex rel. Rice v. Dillon, 197 Miss. 504, 19 So. 2d 918, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 315 (Miss. 1944).

Omission of one of two candidates from ballot on special election for district supervisor, although he was entitled to have his name appear thereon by virtue of having substantially complied with this section [Code 1942, § 3260], invalidated the election. State ex rel. Rice v. Dillon, 197 Miss. 504, 19 So. 2d 918, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 315 (Miss. 1944).

Although this section [Code 1942, § 3260] contemplates that the petition shall be presented to the ballot commissioner, this is merely directory and not mandatory. State ex rel. Rice v. Dillon, 197 Miss. 504, 19 So. 2d 918, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 315 (Miss. 1944).

Each of the three commissioners is under duty to report and present to the commissioners as a body all petitions which have been duly presented to him. State ex rel. Rice v. Dillon, 197 Miss. 504, 19 So. 2d 918, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 315 (Miss. 1944).

Prospective candidate for district supervisor substantially complied with requirements of this section [Code 1942, § 3260] so as to be entitled to have his name appear upon the ballot for special election to be held on January 25, where he presented his petition containing the names of more than 15 qualified electors of the district to one of the three county election commissioners at the latter’s home shortly before sundown on January 10. State ex rel. Rice v. Dillon, 197 Miss. 504, 19 So. 2d 918, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 315 (Miss. 1944).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

As long as the election date agreed upon by the city and the board of supervisors is not the date of the general election, then the sixty day notice requirement of the statute does not apply to the election authorized pursuant to House Bill 1868 in connection with a county-wide referendum on the additional assessment of sales tax on food and beverages. Entrekin, May 15, 1998, A.G. Op. #98-0271.

In an election for school board members in two different districts, if one district has only one qualified candidate and the other has two or more qualified candidates, if one office is unopposed but there is opposition in the other office, an election must be held for both offices and the election for the unopposed office may not be dispensed with in accordance with Section 23-15-359 (9). Sanford, July 15, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0315.

A political candidate’s nickname should not be used on ballots unless the officials in charge of the election determine, consistent with the facts, that the nickname is necessary to identify the candidate to the voters. Coleman, March 23, 2007, A.G. Op. #07-00153, 2007 Miss. AG LEXIS 117.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 239-247.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 207.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 41 (nominating petition).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 91 (petition to change form and content of ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 92 (petition to require including of name of nominee on ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 93 (petition to require omission of name of ineligible candidate from ballot).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 315–318, 463–465.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

On July 28, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 592.

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated June 27, 2002, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2002, ch. 336.

Laws of 2002, ch. 336, §§ 3, 4, provide as follows:

“SECTION 3. The Attorney General of the State of Mississippi shall submit this act, immediately upon approval by the Governor, or upon approval by the Legislature subsequent to a veto, to the Attorney General of the United States or to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in accordance with the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.

“SECTION 4. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after the date it is effectuated under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended.”

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment added (5) and (6).

The 2002 amendment added the language following “placed on the ballot,” in (6).

The 2016 amendment brought the section forward without change.

The 2017 amendment, in (1), substituted “commissioners who are required to have” for “commissioner designated to have” in the last sentence of the introductory paragraph, and inserted “or a municipal district” in (a) and (b); deleted the third sentence of (2), which read: “Provided further, however, that nothing in this section shall prohibit a person from qualifying as a nominee of a political party, or from requesting to be a candidate for the office by filing a petition, in the event of the death of a candidate for the office which makes it impossible to have an election contest”; substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in (3); in (5), inserted election in the first sentence, and substituted “or (c) has been convicted of a felony as described above and not pardoned, then the election commission shall notify the candidate and give the candidate an opportunity to be heard. The election commission shall mail notice to the candidate at least three (3) business days before the hearing to the address provided by the candidate on the qualifying forms, and the committee shall attempt to contact the candidate by telephone, email and facsimile if the candidate provided this information on the forms. If the candidate fails to appear at the hearing or to prove he or she meets all qualifications to hold the office subject to no contingencies, then the name of the candidate” for “or (c) has been convicted of a felony as described above and not pardoned, then the name of the candidate”; in (6), substituted “only one (1) person has duly qualified” for “there shall be only one (1) person who has duly qualified” and “that if not more than one (1) person has duly” for “that if there shall be not more than one (1) person duly,” and inserted “election” following “review by the”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Procedures for contesting the qualifications of a person who has qualified pursuant to the provisions of this section as a candidate for any office elected at a general election, see §23-15-963.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Validity of petitions.

Circuit court did not err in ordering a candidate’s name be placed on a ballot because a statutory “petition filed by qualified electors” was wholly separate and distinct from the statutory requirements where the candidate was merely seeking to have his name printed on the mayoral ballot and where there was no contradictory evidence presented to contest the elector affidavits before the election commission. Election Comm'n v. Wallace, 143 So.3d 557, 2014 Miss. LEXIS 368 (Miss. 2014).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Petitions filed by candidates containing only a legally sufficient number of signatures of qualified electors to qualify under proposed (not currently effective) ward lines were not valid at the time they were submitted, and could not be supplemented by additional signatures so that they would contain a legally sufficient number of signatures of qualified electors from the old, and currently still effective, ward lines. Wiggins, May 6, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0216.

Section 23-15-361 requires that signatures on municipal ward candidate petitions, to be valid, must be those of qualified electors of the ward for the office sought. Wiggins, May 6, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0216.

If a nominee meets all the qualifications to hold the office for which he was certified as a candidate and for which he was subsequently nominated, a municipal election commission may not lawfully refuse to place his name on a general or special election ballot based on an irregularity in the process of qualifying as a candidate in a party primary. White, Nov. 22, 2006, A.G. Op. 06-0599.

A political candidate’s nickname should not be used on ballots unless the officials in charge of the election determine, consistent with the facts, that the nickname is necessary to identify the candidate to the voters. Coleman, March 23, 2007, A.G. Op. #07-00153, 2007 Miss. AG LEXIS 117.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 239-247.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 265, 296-299.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 91 (petition to change form and content of ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 92 (petition to require including of name of nominee on ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 94 (order declaring form of ballot improper and requiring new form of ballot).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 315–318, 463–465.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-135.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-135.

An election commission’s determination whether a person is qualified as a candidate is one of fact, and therefore final. Powe v. Forrest County Election Com., 249 Miss. 757, 163 So. 2d 656, 1964 Miss. LEXIS 433 (Miss. 1964).

Mandamus will not lie to compel an election commission to place on the ballot the name of a person whom it has determined not to be qualified as a candidate. Powe v. Forrest County Election Com., 249 Miss. 757, 163 So. 2d 656, 1964 Miss. LEXIS 433 (Miss. 1964).

A county election commission has jurisdiction to determine the qualification as a candidate of persons certified to it as nominees of a political party. Powe v. Forrest County Election Com., 249 Miss. 757, 163 So. 2d 656, 1964 Miss. LEXIS 433 (Miss. 1964).

Omission of one of two candidates from ballot on special election for district supervisor, although he was entitled to have his name appear thereon by virtue of having substantially complied with Code 1942, § 3260, invalidated the election. State ex rel. Rice v. Dillon, 197 Miss. 504, 19 So. 2d 918, 1944 Miss. LEXIS 315 (Miss. 1944).

Supreme Court judicially knows that general election at which Congressmen are to be elected will be held Tuesday, November 8, 1932, and that prior to antecedent 15 days it cannot be legally known by Secretary of State as to names to be printed on ballots. Wood v. State, 169 Miss. 790, 142 So. 747, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 8 (Miss. 1932).

Person seeking nomination as political party’s candidate at primary and defeated cannot have mandamus to get name placed on ticket. Election commissioners may be compelled to assemble and consider petition to put person’s name on ticket, but their action cannot be controlled by mandamus. On adverse decision by election commissioners, petitioners to have name put on ticket should take bill of exceptions and appeal to circuit court. Ruhr v. Cowan, 146 Miss. 870, 112 So. 386, 1927 Miss. LEXIS 249 (Miss. 1927).

Candidate for board of supervisors procuring name on ballot, on petition of insufficient number of electors, held not material irregularity. Hunt v. Mann, 136 Miss. 590, 101 So. 369, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 123 (Miss. 1924).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

A write-in candidate is appropriate only when one has qualified as a candidate for a particular office and subsequently dies, resigns, withdraws, or is removed as a candidate. Hatcher, Mar. 23, 2001, A.G. Op. #01-0163.

If a nominee withdraws for a legitimate nonpolitical reason as defined in Section 23-15-317 and his sworn affidavit is approved by the State Board of Election Commissioners, the municipal party executive committee would then be required to name a substitute nominee. If a nominee withdraws and no affidavit is submitted and approved, said executive committee would have no authority to name a substitute nominee. In either case, the nominee has the right to withdraw his candidacy pursuant to Section 23-15-363. Baum, May 20, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0237.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 265, 296, 297.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms, (Rev), Elections, Form 92 (petition to require including of name of nominee on ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 93 (petition to require omission of name of ineligible candidate from ballot).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 474, 475.

Editor’s Notes —

By letter dated July 26, 2011, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2011, ch. 509.

Amendment Notes —

The 2011 amendment added (2).

The 2017 amendment, rewrote (1), which read: “There shall be left on each ballot one (1) blank space under the title of each office to be voted for, and in the event of the death, resignation, withdrawal or removal of any candidate whose name shall have been printed on the official ballot, the name of the candidate duly substituted in the place of such candidate may be written in such blank space by the voter,” and redesignated it (1)(a); and added (1)(b).

Cross References —

Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act, see §§23-15-974 through23-15-985.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-137.

1. In general.

When, under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-365, due to the death of the only candidate who had qualified before the qualifying deadline had passed, no name will be printed on the ballot, and the election will be only by write-in, the election will proceed in the same manner as if no one had qualified to run as a candidate before the qualifying deadline; the Legislature has provided for a write-in election to occur in the event of the death of “any candidate” who has qualified, and although the Legislature has imposed unique qualifications upon judicial candidates, it did not exclude judicial candidates from its provision for a write-in election in the event of a qualified candidate’s death. Rayner v. Barbour, 47 So.3d 128, 2010 Miss. LEXIS 572 (Miss. 2010).

Write-in election for a circuit court judge was proper under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-365 because the circuit judge passed away after qualifying for the November 2, 2010 election, and Miss. Code Ann. §9-1-103 permitted the appointee judge to serve for the unexpired term with no requirement of a special election since the circuit judge died fewer than nine months before the expiration of his term; the use of the word “or” in Miss. Code Ann. §9-1-103 means that an election under Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-849(1) need not occur if there is so little time in the unexpired term that the appointee may legally serve for the unexpired term. Rayner v. Barbour, 47 So.3d 128, 2010 Miss. LEXIS 572 (Miss. 2010).

The statute does not allow for a write-in candidate only where there is one person qualified for a particular office and that one qualified person dies, resigns, withdraws or removes his or her name after the printing of the primary ballot; write-in candidates are also allowed if the death of a candidate occurs prior to the printing of the ballot. Upton v. McKenzie, 761 So. 2d 167, 2000 Miss. LEXIS 136 (Miss. 2000).

2.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-137.

Votes cast at general election, by writing name on blank space, for one who was candidate at primary election but who was not nominated held illegal. May v. Young, 164 Miss. 35, 143 So. 703, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 220 (Miss. 1932).

That contestant’s name was fraudulently kept off ballots did not authorize voters to write his name thereon. May v. Young, 164 Miss. 35, 143 So. 703, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 220 (Miss. 1932).

Voters may write name of candidate not nominated on the official ballot only in case of the death of a candidate. McKenzie v. Boykin, 111 Miss. 256, 71 So. 382, 1916 Miss. LEXIS 283 (Miss. 1916).

This section [Code 1942, § 3262] is constitutional. McKenzie v. Boykin, 111 Miss. 256, 71 So. 382, 1916 Miss. LEXIS 283 (Miss. 1916).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Where ballots were not printed for a primary election, this section was not invoked and there was no provision for the casting of write-in votes; therefore, any write-in votes cast in the primary election would not be valid. Shepard, June 4, 1999, A.G. Op. #99-0263.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

Elections: validity of state or local legislative ban on write-in votes. 69 A.L.R.4th 948.

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 295.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 91 (petition to change form and content of ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 94 (order declaring form of ballot improper and requiring new form of ballot).

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated September 6, 1994, interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1994, ch. 564, § 92.

On July 28, 2000, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2000, ch. 592.

Amendment Notes —

The 2000 amendment rewrote the section.

The 2017 amendment deleted “the arrangement of the names of the candidates, and the order in which the titles of the various offices shall be printed and” following “subsection (2) of this section” in (1); in (2), rewrote (a), which read: “Candidates for national office,” and added (i) and (ii), rewrote (b) through (d), which read: “(b) Candidates for statewide office; (c) Candidates for state district office; (d) Candidates for legislative office,” and rewrote the last paragraph, which read: “The order in which the titles for the various offices are listed within each of the categories listed in this subsection is left to the discretion of the officer charged with printing the official ballot”; inserted “election” preceding “commissioner” and substituted “before the election” for “prior to the election” in (3).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-139.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-139.

Secretary of State would not be compelled by mandamus in preparation of sample ballots to disregard designations of candidates for Congress by districts on ground Redistricting Act was void, where issuance of writ would operate to detriment of general public. Wood v. State, 169 Miss. 790, 142 So. 747, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 8 (Miss. 1932).

In mandamus proceeding to prohibit Secretary of State from making up ballot, it could not be presumed that Governor or Secretary of State would violate law. Wood v. State, 169 Miss. 790, 142 So. 747, 1932 Miss. LEXIS 8 (Miss. 1932).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 289 —300.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 91 (petition to change form and content of ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 94 (order declaring form of ballot improper and requiring new form of ballot).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 457–462.

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

Laws of 1987, ch. 499, § 20, provides as follows:

“SECTION 20. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this act is declared to be unconstitutional or void, or for any reason is declared to be invalid or of no effect, the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases shall be in no manner affected thereby but shall remain in full force and effect.”

On July 15, 1993, the United States Attorney General interposed no objections under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 1993, ch. 474, § 1.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in (1), added “specific to the election in which the amendment appears on the ballot” at the end of the third sentence of (b), and deleted “Mississippi Code of 1972” following “Section 7-3-39” in (c); and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-141.

1.-5. [Reserved for future use.]

6. Under former Section 23-5-141.

Since a local option election under § 1610 of the Code of 1892 (Code of 1906, § 1777) is not an election controlled by the provisions of the constitution of 1890, the ballots used at such election do not have to conform to the provisions of the constitution of 1890; It is enough for the ballot to contain the words “for the sale” and “against the sale.” Lehman v. Porter, 73 Miss. 216, 18 So. 920, 1895 Miss. LEXIS 109 (Miss. 1895).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 287, 288.

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 91 (petition to change form and content of ballot).

9 Am. Jur. Pl & Pr Forms (Rev), Elections, Form 94 (order declaring form of ballot improper and requiring new form of ballot).

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 442, 466, 468, 469, 472, 473.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in the first sentence; inserted “(1)” in the second sentence; inserted “poll” three times in the last sentence; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 300, 342, 343, 346, 347, 349, 359.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 480.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “poll managers” for “managers of election.”

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment deleted “Mississippi Code of 1972” from the end of the third sentence; and made minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Authority of commissioners to have printed on ballots local issues authorized by this section, and the date local issues must be filed with the commissioners, see §23-15-359.

Editor’s Notes —

On June 6, 2005, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2005, ch. 534, § 15.

Amendment Notes —

The 2005 amendment rewrote the section.

The 2017 amendment rewrote the section, which read: “The board of supervisors of each county in the State of Mississippi shall utilize voting machines, electronic voting systems, optical mark reading equipment or direct recording electronic voting equipment which shall comply with the specifications provided by law. The election commissioners may designate elections to be administered by paper ballot where the election commissioners determine that administration of an election by paper ballot will be less expensive than administration of the same election by voting machines, electronic voting systems, optical mark reading equipment or direct recording electronic voting equipment.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Law Reviews.

Stavis, A century of struggle for black enfranchisement in Mississippi: From the Civil War to the congressional challenge of 1965-and beyond. 57 Miss. L. J. 591, December, 1987.

Rhodes, Enforcing the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi through litigation. 57 Miss. L. J. 705, December, 1987.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-393 required that the number of voting machines to be used in each precinct in counties with a population of more than 250,000 be distributed in direct proportion to voter turnout in elections in the preceding two years.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-401 provided the definitions of terms used in Chapter 15, Title 23.

Former §23-15-403 authorized county boards of supervisors and governing authorities of municipalities to purchase or rent voting machines, and provided construction requirements for those voting machines. For present provisions relating to the purchase or rent of OMR equipment by county or municipal governing authorities, see §23-15-505. For present provisions relating to the purchase or rent of DRE units by county or municipal governing authorities, see §23-15-531.1.

Former §23-15-405 related to the use of voting machines, purchased or rented, that met the requirements of Article 15, Chapter 15, Title 23.

Former §23-15-407 related to the preservation and repair of voting machines.

Former §23-15-409 related to the form of the ballots to be used in voting machines.

Former §23-15-411 related to the provision of sample or instruction ballots.

Former §23-15-413 required that two sets of official ballots be provided each polling place for use in voting machines and provided that all official ballots be returned at the close of the election.

Former §23-15-415 related to the preparation and protection of voting machines.

Former §23-15-417 related to the instruction of election managers and clerks.

Former §23-15-419 required the exhibition of voting machines containing sample ballots for the purpose of providing instruction on the use of the machine.

Former §23-15-421 related to the preparation and delivery of official ballots.

Former §23-15-423 related to the size of voting precincts and the minimum number of voting machines to be used in each primary or general election.

Former §23-15-425 required the replacement of official ballots that cannot be delivered in time for use on election day or are lost, destroyed or stolen.

Former §23-15-427 related to the procedure to be used if voting machines became inoperable during the time the polls were open.

Former §23-15-429 related to the preparation of the polling place and voting machines for opening the polls.

Former §23-15-431 related to voting by irregular ballots for persons not appearing on voting machines as nominated candidates.

Former §23-15-433 related to the arrangement of the polling room and who may be present in the polling room during elections.

Former §23-15-435 related to the casting of votes.

Former §23-15-437 related to the instruction of voters at the polling place on election day.

Former §23-15-439 provided that the provisions of election law relating to assistance to be given to blind or physically disabled voters also applied where voting machines were used.

Former §23-15-441 related to the procedure for closing the polls, reading and announcing the vote and the statement of canvass.

Former §23-15-443 related to locking the counter compartment and securing irregular ballots.

Former §23-15-445 related to securing the keys to the voting machines and storing the machines.

Former §23-15-447 provided penalties for the unlawful possession of a voting machine or voting machine keys and for tampering with a voting machine.

Former §23-15-449 related to the applicability of election laws then in force and provided that absentee ballots would be voted a then provided by law.

Former §23-15-451 provided that Sections23-15-401 through23-15-451 were supplemental and in addition to the election laws then in effect or as amended.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-461 provided definitions for terms used in Subarticle C, Article 15, Chapter 15, Title 23.

Former §23-15-463 authorized boards of supervisors and governing authorities of municipalities to purchase or rent electronic voting systems and to change the boundaries of precincts within which the systems were used, provided §§23-15-461 through23-15-485 controlled in elections in which electronic voting systems were used, and provided that absentee ballots were to be voted as provided by law. For present provisions relating to the purchase or rent of OMR equipment by county or municipal governing authorities, see §23-15-505. For present provisions relating to the purchase or rent of DRE units by county or municipal governing authorities, see §23-15-531.1

Former §23-15-465 related to the construction of electronic voting systems.

Former §23-15-467 related to the use of voting equipment.

Former §23-15-469 related to the form of the ballots and the ballot labels, the posting of sample ballots and instructions and write-in ballots.

Former §23-15-471 related to the preparation and delivery of necessary forms and supplies.

Former §23-15-473 related to the storage, maintenance and repair of voting devices and the use of unofficial ballots when devices malfunctioned.

Former §23-15-475 required instruction of polling officers and the public display of voting devices.

Former §23-15-477 related to opening and closing the polls, instructing voters, and spoiled ballots.

Former §23-15-479 related to the report of the number of voters who voted, the sealing and delivery of the ballot box, and the return of records and supplies.

Former §23-15-481 related to the testing of the automatic tabulating equipment prior to the start of the count of ballots.

Former §23-15-483 related to counting the vote.

Former §23-15-485 authorized the Secretary of State to issue supplementary instructions and procedures for the use of electronic voting systems and the commissioners of election to make all necessary provisions for the conduct of elections with approved electronic voting systems.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-491 authorized commissioners of election to sponsor and conduct training sessions to educate qualified electors regarding the operation of electronic voting systems.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-501 provided that §§23-15-501 through23-15-525 were supplemental and in addition to the election laws then in effect or as amended.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment rewrote (a), which read: “ ‘OMR’ means optical mark reading”; rewrote (b), which read: “ ‘Optical mark reading equipment (OMR)’ means any apparatus necessary to automatically examine and count votes as designated on paper ballots”; deleted (d), which read: “ ‘Electronic voting systems’ means a system in which votes are recorded on a paper ballot by means of marking, and such votes are subsequently counted and tabulated by optical mark reading equipment at one or more counting centers” and redesignated former (e) and (f) as (d) and (e); rewrote (d), which read: “ ‘Marking device’ means a pen or pencil which the voters use to record their votes by marking a paper ballot”; and made minor stylistic changes.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment rewrote the section, which read: “The board of supervisors of any county in the State of Mississippi and the governing authorities of any municipality in the State of Mississippi are hereby authorized and empowered, in their discretion, to purchase or rent optical mark reading equipment used in an electronic voting system which meets the requirements of Section 23-15-507 and may use such system in all or a part of the precincts within its boundaries. It may enlarge, consolidate or alter the boundaries of precincts where an electronic voting system is used. The provisions of this chapter shall be controlling with respect to elections where any OMR system is used, and shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purpose of this chapter. The provisions of the election law relating to the conduct of elections with paper ballots, that are to be manually tabulated, insofar as they are applicable and not in conflict with the efficient conduct of the systems, shall apply.”

Cross References —

Use of paper ballots for special, municipal and runoff elections, see §23-15-391.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “OMR equipment” for “optical mark reading system” in the introductory paragraph; in (a), substituted “eligible voters” for “each voter,” inserted “lawfully” twice, and substituted “any ballot initiative, measure or other local issue” for “any questions”; rewrote (b), which read: “The OMR tabulating equipment shall be capable of rejecting choices recorded on the ballot if the number of choices exceeds the number which the voter is entitled to vote for the office or on the measure”; substituted “candidates” for “nominees” at the end of (d); deleted “and the last voter has voted” following “close of the polls” in (h); substituted “displayed in such a way that” for “so displayed that” in (j); and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

Cross References —

Provision that counties and municipalities may purchase or rent optical mark reading equipment used in an electronic voting system which meets the requirements of this section, see §23-15-505.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 284-300, 307.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 457–462, 540.

Editor’s Notes —

Former §23-15-531.7 required public exhibition and demonstration of the use of the DRE units.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in the first paragraph, substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election” in the third sentence, and inserted “by the official in charge of the election” in the last sentence; substituted “OMR equipment” for “OMR tabulating equipment” in the first sentence of the second paragraph; in the third paragraph, substituted “One (1) sample ballot” for “Two (2) sample ballots” and made related changes; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 284-300, 307.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 457–462, 540.

Editor’s Notes —

By letter dated July 28, 2011, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2011, ch. 357.

Amendment Notes —

The 2011 amendment added (2).

The 2017 amendment rewrote (2), which read: “For each primary or general election the number of official ballots that shall be printed shall be a number that is equal to not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the registered voters eligible to vote in the election”; and added (3).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 307.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 529.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment rewrote the section, which read: “The circuit court clerk shall be the custodian of OMR tabulating equipment acquired by the county, who shall be charged with the proper storage, maintenance and repair of the OMR equipment and preparation of them for tabulating prior to elections. The custodian shall repair or replace any tabulating equipment which fails to function properly on election day. The clerk of any municipality which acquires OMR tabulating equipment shall be the custodian of such equipment and perform the same functions.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections § 307.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections § 529.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment rewrote the first paragraph, which read: “At least thirty (30) minutes before the opening of the polls, the voting precinct election officers shall arrive at the polling place and set up the voting booths so that they will be in clear view of the election officers; the voting precinct election officers shall examine the ballots to verify that they have the correct ballots for their precinct and check the supplies, records and forms, and post the sample ballots and instruction to the voter. They shall also inspect the ballot boxes to insure they are empty, and then seal the box for voting”; and rewrote the second paragraph, which read: “Each voter shall receive written and/or verbal instructions by the voting precinct election official instructing the voter how to properly vote the paper ballot before they enter the voting booth. If any voter needs additional instructions after entering the voting booth, two (2) election officers may, if necessary, enter the booth and give him such additional instructions. If any voter spoils a ballot he may obtain others, one (1) at a time, not exceeding three (3) in all, upon returning each spoiled ballot. The word ‘SPOILED’ shall be written across the face of the ballot and it shall be placed in the envelope for spoiled ballots. As soon as the polls have been closed and the last qualified voter has voted, the ballots shall be sealed against further voting. All unused ballots shall be placed in a container provided for that purpose which shall be sealed and returned to the officials in charge of the election.”

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur.

26 Am. Jur. 2d, Elections §§ 307, 319-380.

CJS.

29 C.J.S., Elections §§ 486–516, 529.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment rewrote the first sentence, which read: “The managers shall prepare a report in duplicate of the number of voters who have voted, as indicated by the poll list, and shall place this report in the ballot box, which thereupon shall be sealed with a paper seal signed by the managers so that no additional ballots may be deposited or removed from the ballot box,” and divided it into the present first and second sentences; added the third and fourth sentences; rewrote the fifth and sixth sentences, which read: “The manager or other person who acts as returning officer shall forthwith deliver the ballot box to the counting center or other designated place and receive a signed, numbered receipt therefor. The poll list, register of voters, unused ballots, spoiled ballots, and other records and supplies, shall be returned as directed by the officials in charge of the election” and added the last sentence.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “OMR equipment” for “OMR tabulating equipment” in the first, second and third sentences; substituted “Before counting the ballots, the election commissioners, or their designees” for “Prior to the start of the count of the ballots, the commissioners of elections or officials in charge of the election” in the first sentence; substituted “the cause of the error” for “the cause therefor” in the next-to-last sentence; and made a minor stylistic change.

Joint Legislative Committee Note —

Pursuant to Section 1-1-109, the Joint Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation corrected typographical errors in the fourth paragraph. The words “nondetectible” and “detectible” were changed to “nondetectable” and “detectable”, respectively. The Joint Committee ratified the corrections at its May 20, 1998 meeting.

Editor’s Notes —

The United States Attorney General, by letter dated July 22, 2002, interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws 2002, ch. 529.

On August 7, 2008, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2008, ch. 528.

By letter dated July 21, 2009, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the amendment of this section by Laws, 2009, ch. 490, § 1.

Amendment Notes —

The 2002 amendment rewrote the section.

The 2008 amendment added the last two sentences of (2).

The 2009 amendment, inserted “who have received the training required by subsection (11) of this section” in (2); and added (11).

The 2017 amendment substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioners of election,” “OMR equipment” for “OMR tabulating equipment,” and “members of the resolution board” for “judges on the resolution board” throughout; rewrote the second sentence of (1), which read: “All persons who are engaged in processing and counting of the ballots shall be deputized in writing and take oath that they will faithfully perform their assigned duties”; in (2), rewrote the fifth sentence, which read: “Commissioners of election, candidates who are on the ballot at the election and the parents, siblings or children of such a candidate shall not be appointed to the resolution board,” and substituted “In general and special elections” for “if the election is not a primary election” in the last sentence; in (3), inserted “ascertain the intent of the voter, if possible, and, if so,” and deleted “who shall determine the intent of the voter and record the vote consistent with this determination” from the end of (b), and rewrote (c), which read: “As an alternative to the procedure provided for in paragraph (b) of this subsection, the resolution board may be instructed by the officials in charge of the election to prepare a duplicate to the damaged or defective ballot in the following manner”; in (4), added “The resolution board shall examine” at the beginning, and rewrote the last sentence, which read: “If it is determined that the ballot was marked with a nondetectable device, the resolution board may mark over the voter’s mark with a detectable marking device”; in (5), inserted “rejected”; and substituted “and voter intent” for “if the voter intent” in the second sentence and deleted the former third sentence, which read: “If for any reason it becomes impracticable to count all or a part of the ballots with the OMR tabulating equipment, the officials in charge may direct that they be counted manually, and voter intent shall be determined by following the provisions of this section”; deleted “in accordance with the ballot instruction” following “or a ballot measure” in (6); in (7), deleted “except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection” from the end of the first sentence of (a), inserted “for that candidate” in (b), and substituted “invalid” for “defective” in (c); in (8), substituted “ballots” for “ballot cards” three times, and substituted “used” for “utilized” at the end; rewrote (11), which read: “Qualified electors who are appointed to serve as members of the resolution board shall be required to have the training required for election managers pursuant to Section 23-15-239”; and made gender neutral and minor stylistic changes.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. In general.

Determination of intent of voters of certain contested ballots is by its very nature fact inquiry to be made by Special Tribunal and Supreme Court’s duty is to respect Special Tribunal’s findings where it was not manifestly wrong. Wade v. Williams, 517 So. 2d 573, 1987 Miss. LEXIS 2971 (Miss. 1987).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Since ballots will be counted in presence of officials of both parties and general public, there is no apparent prohibition against representative of one party using key to particular voting machine to initiate counting process which would include counting of ballots for another party. Johnson, Sept. 2, 1992, A.G. Op. #92-0572.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Law Reviews.

Mississippi Election Code of 1986, 56 Miss. L. J. 535, December 1986.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment, in (1), substituted “OMR equipment” for “OMR tabulating equipment” inserted “provided by the Secretary of State” and substituted “election commissioners” for “commissioner of elections,” “make additional provisions” for “make all necessary and desirable provisions” and “the OMR equipment” for “approved electronic voting systems”; and added (2).

Editor’s Notes —

On June 6, 2005, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to the enactment of this subarticle by Laws of 2005, ch. 534, §§ 1 through 14.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment deleted the introductory paragraph and (a), which read: “As used in this subarticle: (a) ‘DRE’ means direct recording electronic voting equipment”; and inserted “(DRE unit).”

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment deleted the introductory paragraph, which read: “Each DRE unit shall”; added (1) and the introductory paragraph of (2); in (2), deleted “selects” following “voter” in the introductory paragraph of (c), rewrote (d) and (e), which read: “(d) Produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity which shall be available for any recount conducted with respect to the election in which the DRE unit is used; (e) Have the capability to print the ballots cast by electors to be utilized in the event of a recount conducted with respect to the election in which the DRE is used” and deleted “which were” following “Commission” in (h); and made gender neutral changes.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “DRE units” for “DREs” and made a minor stylistic change.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment substituted “DRE units” for “DREs” in (1); in (2), substituted “DRE unit” for “equipment” in (a), and inserted “local options, referenda” in (b); and made a minor stylistic change.

Editor’s Notes —

By letter dated July 28, 2011, the United States Attorney General interposed no objection, under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended and extended, to the amendment of this section by Laws of 2011, ch. 357.

Amendment Notes —

The 2011 amendment, in (1), added (a), and redesignated the remaining paragraphs accordingly.

The 2017 amendment rewrote the section to delete references to the duties of officials in charge of the election in regard to the use, delivery and placement of DREs, and the testing of the units to ascertain the units correctly count votes.

Amendment Notes —

The 2017 amendment inserted “ballot” twice in (1); and rewrote (2), which read: “A separate write-in ballot, which may be in the form of a paper ballot, card or envelope in which the voter places his ballot card after voting, shall be provided if required to permit voters to write in the title of the office and the name of the person not on the printed ballot for whom he wishes to vote. The design of the write-in ballot shall permit the officials in charge of the election and poll workers when obtaining the vote count from such systems to determine readily whether an elector has cast any write-in vote not authorized by law.”