Latest news with #MississippiConstitution
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
The polls are open across Mississippi Coast. Here's what you need to know, bring
A municipal election season that has seen incumbents tossed and national figures flocking to the Mississippi Coast hits the finish line today. Polls opened across the Coast at 7 a.m. and will remain open until 7 p.m. This story will be updated with results as soon as they begin rolling in once polls close. Four mayors races will be decided today, but none have been as fiery as the battle in Gulfport between attorney Hugh Keating, a Republican, and former state Rep. Sonya Williams Barnes, a Democrat. The general elections will decide mayor's races in Gulfport, Biloxi, Gautier and Moss Point. City council and board of alderman candidates are also on ballots in several cities. New four-year terms start July 1. You are eligible to vote in Mississippi if you: Are a U.S. citizen Are at least 18 years old by Election Day Are a resident of Mississippi Live in the precinct where you vote for at least 30 days prior to the election You are NOT eligible to vote in Mississippi if: You have been convicted of a disenfranchising crime as defined by Section 241 of the Mississippi Constitution or by Attorney General Opinion, unless pardoned, rights of citizenship restored by the Governor or suffrage rights restored by the Legislature. A judge has specifically ruled that you are not able to vote. If you were convicted of any crime that's not one of the 23 barred crimes, whether it was a felony or misdemeanor, you never lost your right to vote and you may register to vote and cast a ballot. Restorative Requirements If your sentence is completed, you should apply to the Governor for a pardon if necessary. After you have been pardoned (or both houses of the state legislature have passed a bill restoring your voting rights), then you may register to vote and cast a ballot, even while you are on parole or probation. If you are a student, you are eligible to vote in Mississippi if: You provide a student ID from an accredited school in this state You reside in another state but attend college in Mississippi You reside in Mississippi but are attending college in another state Make sure to bring ... In Mississippi, you need to show a valid photo ID to vote. You can use any ID from this list: Valid ID with photo issued by a government agency Valid government employee ID Valid Mississippi driver's license Valid Mississippi-ssued ID Valid US passport License to carry concealed weapon or firearm Valid student ID from state school Valid military ID Valid tribal ID Valid Mississippi voter ID card NOTE: You may use an expired photo ID as long as it is an acceptable form of photo ID and is not more than 10 years old. The expired ID must contain the name and photograph of the voter, and have been validly issued by the federal or a state government. Bay St. Louis Ward 2: Incumbent Eugene 'Gene' Hoffman IV (R) and Nancy Moynan (D) Biloxi Mayor: Andrew 'FoFo' Gilich (R), Andy Linville (I) and Farren Santibanez (L) Ward 1: Wayne Gray (R), Corey Christy (D) and Stephan Santibanez (L) Ward 2: Incumbent Felix O. Gines (R), Anthony L. Marshall (D) and Sonya C. White (I) D'Iberville Council At Large: Incumbent Joey Bosarge (R) and Crystal Wingo (I) Gautier Mayor: Incumbent Mayor Casey Vaughan (I) and Phil Torjusen (R) Ward 4: Lorenzo L. Fuller Sr. (I) and Joshua 'Josh' Ward (I) Ward 5: Incumbent Dante L. Elbin (R) and Anthony K. Snow (I) Gulfport Mayor: Sonya Williams Barnes (D) and Hugh Keating (R) Ward 2: Valerie Ewing (D) and Incumbent Ron Roland (R) Ward 4: Incumbent F.B. 'Rusty' Walker (R) and Dalaney Lee Mecham (I) Ward 5: Craig Elliott Raybon (D) and B.J. Sellers (R) Ward 6: Carrissa Corbett (D) and Incumbent Robert ' Flowers (R) Moss Point Mayor: Incumbent Billy Knight Sr. (D) and Richard McBride (R) Ocean Springs Alderman At Large: Matthew Hinton (R) and Oren Zweig (I) Ward 1: Greg Gipson (I) and Steve Tillis (R) Ward 5: Incumbent Robert Blackman (R) and James E. Lewis (I) Pascagoula Ward 1: Carlos R. Stallworth Sr. (I) and Michael Rodgers (D) Pass Christian Ward 1: Barry Dreyfus (R) and Incumbent Betty Sparkman (I) will both appear on the ballot. Sparkman withdrew from the race in May. The city said her name will still appear on ballots because they were printed before her withdrawal. Ward 2: Incumbent Regina Charlot (D) and Joseph Piernas (I) Anita Lee, Mary Perez and Margaret Baker contributed reporting.
Yahoo
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Who will really be in charge of MS special session? Gov. Reeves or the lawmakers
The Mississippi Constitution gives the governor the sole authority to call a special session and to set the agenda. It is one of the few powers granted to the governor by the Mississippi Constitution. But in reality, the special session power the governor possesses can be limited by legislators if they so choose. Granted, the Legislature cannot convene a special session. Once legislators end a regular session, they cannot return unless called by the governor or until the next regularly scheduled session. Lawmakers are dependent on the governor to call a special session to allow them to take up a state budget, which they remarkably were unable to pass during the regular session that ended in early April. Many believe that the governor will have more authority over the budget in special session than in regular session. For instance, can the Legislature consider a bill to fund special projects throughout the state if Gov. Tate Reeves does not include what is known by many as the 'Christmas tree bill' in the agenda? Debate over that special projects bill appears to be the major sticking point preventing a budget agreement between the House and Senate. The House wants a Christmas tree bill. The Senate does not. In 2008, then-Republican Gov. Haley Barbour called the Legislature into special session to levy a tax on hospitals to fund a $90 million Medicaid deficit. House leaders instead tried to pass a 'compromise' bill that levied a tax on cigarettes, combined with a smaller hospital tax. Republicans screamed that the cigarette tax could not be considered because it was not part of Barbour's call. Then-Speaker Billy McCoy ruled that the governor could set the agenda for the special session — to provide more funding for Medicaid — but could not dictate how that funding was derived. The whole issue became moot because Democrats could not garner the votes to pass their proposal. Yet, they also were able to block the hospital tax increase. The end result was that the special session ended without the Medicaid funding issue being resolved. The issue lingered for more than a year. In the 82-day 2002 special session, then-Gov. Ronnie Musgrove placed on the agenda the issue of providing protection from lawsuits for medical providers. He said he would expand the agenda to allow lawsuit protection for all businesses after the medical provider bill reached his desk. But the Senate leaders said the governor could not limit how they addressed lawsuit protection. They wanted to do it all in one bill. But the House, not as set on what some called 'tort reform,' said it could only address the issue of lawsuit protection for medical providers because of the agenda set by the governor. For several days, the two chambers literally sat and stared at each other. Finally, then-House Speaker Tim Ford asked for an official opinion from Attorney General Mike Moore on whether lawsuit protection could be considered for all businesses. Moore's opinion said that only lawsuit protection for medical providers could be considered since that was the limit of the governor's call. The AG's opinion did not carry the force of law. But the Senate leaders, who said they did not agree with the opinion, finally acquiesced and worked with the House to pass lawsuit protection for medical providers. And then, Musgrove, true to his word, expanded the call to give legislators the ability to consider additional protections for businesses. The bottom line is that lawmakers have substantial leeway in a special session to interpret the governor's call. By the same token, the governor can veto legislation if he thinks the Legislature exceeded his call or not sign the bill and ask the courts to block the legislative action. But the Mississippi Supreme Court has been reluctant to get involved in the inner workings of the Legislature. For instance, the state constitution gives any legislator the option to have a bill read before final passage. That provision has been used as a method to slow down the legislative process or as a form of protest. In recent years, the legislative leadership countered by using a computer application to have the bills read at a super high speed. The program, spitting out words at an incomprehensible speed, was dubbed the 'demon chipmunk.' The leadership was sued, claiming the demon chipmunk speed violated the state constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the legislative leadership and the demon chipmunk. The majority opinion read, 'We hold the court lacks constitutional authority to interfere in the procedural workings of the Legislature, even when those procedures are constitutionally mandated.' If Supreme Court justices are not going to strike down the demon chipmunk, would they get involved in a fight over the interpretation of the governor's special session agenda? This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bobby Harrison: So what happens if Mississippi lawmakers don't pass a budget?
On June 30, 2009, Sam Cameron, the then-executive director of the Mississippi Hospital Association, held a news conference in the Capitol rotunda to publicly take his whipping and accept his defeat. Cameron urged House Democrats, who had sided with the Hospital Association, to accept the demands of Republican Gov. Haley Barbour to place an additional $90 million tax on the state's hospitals to help fund Medicaid and prevent the very real possibility of the program and indeed much of state government being shut down when the new budget year began in a few hours. The impasse over Medicaid and the hospital tax had stopped all budget negotiations. Barbour watched from a floor above as Cameron publicly admitted defeat. Cameron's decision to swallow his pride was based on a simple equation. He told news reporters, scores of lobbyists and health care advocates who had set up camp in the Capitol as midnight on July 1 approached that, while he believed the tax would hurt Mississippi hospitals, not having a Medicaid budget would be much more harmful. Just as in 2009, the Legislature ended the 2025 regular session earlier this month without a budget agreement and will have to come back in special session to adopt a budget before the new fiscal year begins on July 1. It is unlikely that the current budget rift between the House and Senate will be as dramatic as the 2009 standoff when it appeared only hours before the July 1 deadline that there would be no budget. But who knows what will result from the current standoff? After all, the current standoff in many ways seems to be more about political egos than policy differences on the budget. The fight centers around multiple factors, including: Whether legislation will be passed to allow sports betting outside of casinos. Whether the Senate will agree to a massive projects bill to fund local projects throughout the state. Whether leaders will overcome hard feelings between the two chambers caused by the House's hasty final passage of a Senate tax cut bill filled with typos that altered the intent of the bill without giving the Senate an opportunity to fix the mistakes. Whether members would work on a weekend at the end of the session. The Senate wanted to, the House did not. It is difficult to think any of those issues will rise to the ultimate level of preventing the final passage of a budget when push comes to shove. But who knows? What we do know is that the impasse in 2009 created a guideline of what could happen if a budget is not passed. It is likely that parts, though not all, of state government will shut down if the Legislature does the unthinkable and does not pass a budget for the new fiscal year beginning July 1. An official opinion of the office of Attorney General Jim Hood issued in 2009 said if there is no budget passed by the Legislature, those services mandated in the Mississippi Constitution, such as a public education system, will continue. According to the Hood opinion, other entities, such as the state's debt, and court and federal mandates, also would be funded. But it is likely that there will not be funds for Medicaid and many other programs, such as transportation and aspects of public safety that are not specifically listed in the Mississippi Constitution. The Hood opinion reasoned that the Mississippi Constitution is the ultimate law of the state and must be adhered to even in the absence of legislative action. Other states have reached similar conclusions when their legislatures have failed to act, the AG's opinion said. As is often pointed out, the opinion of the attorney general does not carry the weight of law. It serves only as a guideline, though Gov. Tate Reeves has relied on the 2009 opinion even though it was written by the staff of Hood, who was Reeves' opponent in the contentious 2019 gubernatorial campaign. But if the unthinkable ever occurs and the Legislature goes too far into a new fiscal year without adopting a budget, it most likely will be the courts — moreso than an AG's opinion — that ultimately determine if and how state government operates. In 2009 Sam Cameron did not want to see what would happen if a budget was not adopted. It also is likely that current political leaders do not want to see the results of not having a budget passed before July 1 of this year. This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.
Yahoo
02-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bobby Harrison: Perplexing ruling gives MS Legislature right to meet behind closed doors
Hinds County Chancellor Dewayne Thomas recently affirmed the ruling of the Mississippi Ethics Commission that the state Legislature is not covered by the open meetings law and thus can meet behind closed doors. The Mississippi Open Meetings Act says specifically that all 'policy making bodies' are subject to the law. But Thomas and the Ethics Commission majority said the law is referring to executive bodies, not the Legislature, when referencing policy making bodies. Taking that ruling to the extreme begs the question of whether city councils and city boards of aldermen meetings are covered since they also are legislative bodies. To exclude the Mississippi Legislature from the requirement of meeting in public seems questionable considering that the Legislature appropriates more public money than any entity in the state. And the Legislature is the state's primary policy making body with immense power. It also is worth noting that both the current and past director of the Ethics Commission disagreed with the ruling of the majority of the commission members. The former lead attorney for the Mississippi House, previously on the Ethics Commission, also opposed the ruling that the Legislature is not covered by the open meetings law. This perplexing issue came to the forefront because of the House leadership's ongoing practice of holding closed-door Republican caucus meetings where policy is discussed and unofficial votes are taken. It was argued that the meetings were illegal since Republicans comprise a super majority giving them many more members than needed to constitute a quorum. The Ethics Commission made the ruling in 2022 that the Legislature was not subject to the open meetings law and Thomas, a former member of the House, upheld that ruling. Senate Republicans, who also have a super majority, do not hold similar meetings because of the belief that it would be a violation of the open meetings law. When Phil Bryant presided over the Senate as lieutenant governor from 2008 until 2012, he was holding similar meetings until media members asked if the meetings were a violation of the open meetings law. He announced he would no longer hold the closed-door meetings. The Mississippi Constitution does state emphatically, 'The doors of each house (of the Legislature) when in session shall be kept open.' Many of those who would argue that the Legislature is not covered by the open meetings law claim that the constitutional provision only applies to the limited time when a chamber gavels in and does not even cover the time when the Legislature is in session but not gaveled in. If a majority meets during the 90-day session at the speaker's discretion to discuss business but does not specifically gavel into session, the constitutional provision would not apply, they claim. Before the 2000 session of the Mississippi Legislature, then-Speaker Tim Ford called a meeting of the House members at a location away from the Capitol. There was intense interest in the meeting since on the quickly approaching first day of the 2000 session the House would select the state's next governor. For the first time in the history of the state, the losing gubernatorial candidate was asking House members to decide the gubernatorial election under an antiquated and now repealed provision of the Mississippi Constitution. The provision said to win statewide office a candidate had to claim a majority of the popular votes and win the most votes in a majority of the 122 House districts. Democrat Ronnie Musgrove won the most votes, but did not win a majority. Needless to say, Ford's out-of-session meeting before that historic first-day vote generated interest. Under the ruling of the Ethics Commission and Thomas, the meeting would not have been subject to the open meetings law. Ford allowed media to attend the meeting. The issue of whether the meeting was public did not arise. It is difficult to recall an instance when Ford or other past speakers routinely held meetings of a majority of the House behind closed doors to discuss official business and to take unofficial votes. In those days, there were legislative whips designated by the leadership to meet with small groups to discuss policy and to try to sway votes. Sure, it took more work than just getting all your members together behind closed doors. But it also did not violate at least the spirit of the open meetings law. After the Ethics Commission ruling in 2022, Sen. Jason Barrett, R-Brookhaven, filed a bill to clarify that the Legislature is covered by the open meetings law. The bill had 19 co-sponsors in the 52-member Senate. But it died in committee. Perhaps such a bill will be considered again after Thomas' most recent ruling. This analysis was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is Mississippi Today's senior Capitol reporter.
Yahoo
09-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bobby Harrison: Why are private school supporters so afraid of Mississippi voters?
Proponents of spending public funds on private schools are not proponents of letting the people vote on the issue. Their fear of letting the people vote is becoming increasingly clear as the debate intensifies on whether taxpayer dollars should be directed toward private schools. House Education Chair Rob Roberson, R-Starkville, recently passed out of his committee a proposal that would allow students in low performing districts in some instances to receive public funds to attend private schools. The proposal would not necessarily help low income students since the bill does not include a mechanism to provide transportation to the private schools. Many argue that with the lack of a transportation component, those who would be aided would be primarily students from more affluent families. Despite some vocal support, the bill still has a long way to go. Roberson even says he does not expect the bill to progress far in the legislative process but wants to keep it alive for now to spur debate of the issue. Roberson made no secret of the fact that the bill was written in such a manner as to try to skirt a provision of the Mississippi Constitution that states plainly that public funds cannot be spent on private schools. He argued his proposal would not be unconstitutional since the public funds are not being given to the private schools but to the students in the form of education savings accounts that would have to be spent on the expenses of attending a private school. Would that argument hold up in court? Who knows how judges will interpret the law. But what is certain is that supporters of private school choice could take the issue out of the hands of the nine members of the Mississippi Supreme Court. During the current session, instead of trying to circumvent the Mississippi Constitution, Roberson could propose a resolution to amend the state constitution to allow private school choice. Then people through the democratic process in a statewide election would have the option to approve or reject the amendment. Why haven't voucher proponents ever tried such as amendment? The answer might be as plain as day or the nose on your face. It does not appear the courts have ruled on the constitutionality of the proposal to send the public funds to the students instead of the schools. In 1941, the state Supreme Court ruled against litigants challenging a law that allowed the state to furnish textbooks to all children in certain grades, including those in private schools. On the surface, it appears that the 1941 Supreme Court decision is on point (as attorneys say) since the state's largess was going directly to the student first instead of to the private school. But it does not appear the high court addressed the question of whether it was constitutional for the textbooks to go to the students instead of the private schools. Instead, the court majority said the law was constitutional because the textbooks were being loaned — not given — to the students. The Supreme Court majority even pointed out there were provisions in the law saying students would be responsible for paying for any damage done to the textbooks while they were on loan. If students so chose, they could purchase the books. 'The books belong to, and are controlled by, the state; they are merely loaned to the individual pupil,' the 1941 majority opinion read. But if Roberson's scheme successfully circumvents the provision of the constitution that prohibits public funds from being spent on private schools, there are other concerns — namely Section 66 of the Mississippi Constitution. That provision requires a hard-to-obtain two-thirds majority vote of both the House and Senate for any bill 'granting a donation or gratuity in favor of any person or object' to become law. Would money provided to a student to attend a private school be a donation? A simple way to resolve all these questions would be to let the people vote. But the voucher supporters' aversion to voting appears to be a recurring theme. When the bill was taken up in the House Education Committee last week, Roberson asked for a voice vote on whether to advance the bill to the full House for consideration. He ruled that a majority on the voice vote supported advancing the bill instead of letting it die. By most accounts, the voice vote was close and in doubt, but Roberson refused efforts of committee members for a show of hands or roll call vote to erase any doubt on whether the bill had the votes needed to progress in the legislative process. This column was produced by Mississippi Today, a nonprofit news organization that covers state government, public policy, politics and culture. Bobby Harrison is the editor of Mississippi Today Ideas.
