VOTE in the Primary Run-off TODAY

I know it is a small ballot but it is races like these that literally every vote may make a difference.

James Ford Seale, a conviction long in coming

Story I wanted to pass along

Seale, reputed Klansman was found guilty and sentenced to 3 life terms this past Friday of conspiracy and 2 counts of kidnapping in the disappearence and death of Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore in 1964. I am proud to be part of the "New South" a South that not only frowns upon prejudice but continues to prosecute crimes of the past. When hearing a story like this I always think that I just wish this would go away, if it wasn't brought up then people would think differently of Mississippi. But the past is what it is, it cannot be changed now and all that can be done is the law followed. If people were murdered then the criminal can sought until his own death and I am proud that the law is being enforced even if it helps pick at old memories that many want to forget.

Links to other stories:

Clarion Ledger article about the sentencing

Jackson Free Press on Seale

USAToday article from before the case

NPR entry about Seale case

Associated Content version

Jurist version

the Strange Pete Collins Story

I was talking to one of the co-editors of this blog and he hadn't heard this story so I thought I would put it up for others to read.

Pete Collins, a former Mississippi Highway Patrol trooper from Tupelo was once a highly decorated officer. More recently however, Collins was convicted of fondling a then 13 year old girl and was sentenced to 15 years with 10 suspended last Friday, the 25th. After he was transported to a Rankin County MDOC facility to begin his sentence he was found Sunday, the 27th dead in his cell from hanging. No note was left by Collins. Our prayers and sympathy goes out to both the young girl and her family and the Collins family.

CL article on this odd story
Daily Journal article on the odd story

Transition

All of my previous posts on this blog came from its old home, Mississippi Law, but it looks like we editors are having a bit of difference of opinion and I didn't want my posts to disappear in a moment of madness. For now I'll keep posting there but I think the end may be near and this will be the new home for MS Law.

SB 2117 - Extension of License for those on Active Duty

Interesting bill that is due back from the governor this week, 2117, concerns extending licenses for those on active duty with the National Guard or U.S. Armed Forces. These licenses include attorney's, architects, auctioneers, chiropractors, barbers, etc. I think this is a very good bill and look forward to it becoming law.

Jackson's Crime Problem

I am slightly reluctant to talk about Jackson because it is a single city in the state but it is the state's largest city and its capital so on some level the crime in Jackson matters to the state as a whole. Today Jackson's major newspaper, and the widest circulated paper in the state, had an editorial entitled "Development: Jackson 'flight' not unexpected" which I feel has some major flaws that I want to address.

The editorial states: "The biggest challenges were perceptions that crime made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family, that Jacksonians were helplessly watching urban decline pick up, as population bled torrents into the suburbs. Many of those perceptions remain, as do the fears that such new Census figures are sure to spur. But some don't, or shouldn't."

The editorial goes on to talk about the passage of a large school bond issue, how "Despite the figures, downtown redevelopment is going full-speed ahead" and how affordable housing is being created. The Ledger goes on to speculate that "residential development downtown that would reverse the city's declining tax base".

The editorial then closes with: "Once more investment is made in crime fighting, including more jail space and a larger police force, and public confidence follows, that flight will be reversed."

My first beef with this editorial is the phrase "perceptions that crime made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family", perhaps the more appropriate statement would have been the reality that crime has made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family. Crime is not a perception. Crime has been bad in the past and it continues to be bad in the City of Jackson. And for those who say it is getting better look at the statistics. The latest stats show increases in auto burglaries, grand larceny's, house burglaries, armed robberies, car jackings and stable if not increasing numbers for Rape and Homicide as compared across past weeks/months and last year. For all of the talk about how Jackson is better the numbers show it is not any better off than in recent history. This from a city that from 2003 stats had triple the national rate of murders and over double the national rate of rape, burglary, car theft and robbery. The people of Jackson and the editorial board of the Clarion Ledger need to face it, Crime is not a perception in Jackson.

My second beef is the proposal that downtown residential projects will reverse the declining tax base. People do need affordable housing to live in but many of the projects that are coming to downtown Jackson are not going to be what is affordable. The Ledger muddles the fact all of this increased square footage is not affordable to a vast majority of the Jackson citizenry. Additionally, the editorial ignores the fact that affordable housing is needed in all areas of the city not just downtown. It is needed out towards Highway 80, it is needed in North Jackson, affordable housing is needed all over the place, not just downtown where the location of being downtown automatically drives many projections right out of being affordable.

My final beef is the closing statement of: "Once more investment is made in crime fighting, including more jail space and a larger police force, and public confidence follows, that flight will be reversed." This is a nice thought but it is really Pollyannish. Jackson has for years been massively understaffed on the police force and has never filled its positions. Jail space has been needed for years and never has the City Council voted for it. A change in leadership happened 2 years ago with "Do Nothing" Harvey Johnson voted out of office in favor of Frank Melton who himself has done nothing to improve the ranks of the PD and to curb the crime problem. At some point you have to be positive and and other points you have to be realistic. This is a time to be realistic not give pat answers of "Oh, it will get better" when the things it takes to make it better don't ever happen. Some times the truth hurts and the Clarion Ledger and this editorial need to quit giving the sugar coating to the city's problems.

Interesting note from the primaries

I found it very interesting that Mississippi, long considered a "Red State" as it has voted for the Republican candidate every year since the 1980. However, in the primary this past Tuesday around 442,000 voters voted in the Democratic primary elections while only around 187,000 voted in the Republican primary. This 442k in a primary is almost as many folks that voted for the Democrat candidate, John Kerry, in the last Presidential election.

Is it because of local elections, is it because there were better races on the Democrat ballot, is it because the Republicans were content with their options and didn't see the need to participate, is it a trend that may carry on to the statewide general and/or 2008 Presidential election? You tell me.

My thoughts are that are that it was a combo of the above issues, I think local elections are the biggest reason, I think the Republicans were fairly content and there was a big push on the Democrat side in the Dale/Anderson race. I don't think this is a trend in Mississippi though especially with the Democrat presidential candidate is probably either going to be Hillary, Obama or Edwards, none of which will carry Mississippi.

GO VOTE TODAY

please

Harvard Charlie's Castle Doctrine Ad Fallacies

Here is the ad:

Fallacy #1 - Charlie didn't change the law all by himself, which is the clear insuation. He may have been principal author of the bill that passed but Sen. Ross was but one vote in the Senate, then the bill also passed the House and the Guv signed it. Charlie you didn't pass the bill and I wonder what the other 31 sponsers of the bill in the Senate think of the ad and the omission of their assistance.

Fallacy #2 - Darth Vadar doesn't live in Mississippi, now I have to say having Darth sneak up on your porch would be bad but come on, a Darth invasion in a local political ad is a little over the top.

Fallacy #3 - Ross implies he is a guy who gets stuff done for the people, "protecting families". Look at the bills Ross authored in 2007 that passed. A couple of minor changes to the MBCA, UPA, UCC and bills dealing with notaries, assistant d.a.'s, and a bill promoting toll roads. Not a whole lot of protecting the family going on there. In fact, Ross as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary let a bill, HB 1546 in 2005, that actually did help families die that had already passed the House. Oddly enough that bill was authored by now opponent, if Ross wins the GOP nomination, Jamie Franks.

Best stuff comes in race for No. 2

I'm not normally a fan of the Greenwood Commonwealth paper but I liked this little editorial about the Lt. Governor's race.

New laws that go into effect today

• House Bill 617 - State pays tuition, room and board for active military members.
• House Bill 1439 - Patients in nursing homes can choose their own pharmacist to serve their needs.
• Senate Bill 2057- Drivers must move a lane over when an emergency vehicle is aiding another motorist.
• Senate Bill 3034 - Consumers can freeze their credit reports with the three major bureaus if they have been a victim of identity theft.
• House Bill 423 - The state Commission of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks can study whether to allow hunting over grain.
• Senate Bill 2772 - Residents must have a permit to buy a stun gun.
• Senate Bill 2825 - Registered sex offenders cannot be on or near school campuses under most circumstances.

No Smoke for You

Apparently this, no smoking anywhere thing is spreading across Mississippi. See the city of Ridgeland passing an ordinance banning smoking city wide. This adds Ridgeland to the list of Tupelo, Hattiesburg, Mantachie, Oxford and others. Let me first identify myself as someone who is not a smoker, never has been a smoker and am somewhat allergic to lots of smoke. Most would think I would be in favor this, I am not. However, people should look at ordnances like this as objectionably.

1. This isn't city/county property they are influencing, it's private property.
2. These cities are telling business how to operate and what type of clientele are acceptable.
3. If a restaurant/business wants to be smoke free it can do that without an ordinance.
4. If someone doesn't want to visit a restaurant/business because it is smokey then they can leave and go elsewhere. It is the same idea as changing the channel on your television if you don't like what is on.
5. If a business loses customers because of smoke that is their right and their business model will/should determine if they want to be smoke free.
6. Cigarettes are not illegal.

I am not saying that Ridgeland have done anything illegal, ordinances like this do most likely fall under "public welfare" and if the people vote to want it then they can have it in this great democracy we live in. What I am saying is that it's not smart, and its not fair. Ordinances like these are social segregation, instead of whites telling blacks "You can't live here" it's non-smokers telling smokers on their own private property "You can't smoke here". And don't start with arguments about well you can ban drugs on your own private property, it's because those things are per se violations of law, lighting a cigarette is not. I can, and have, walked out of a restaurant because it was too smokey, I have left a casino sooner rather than later because of smoke, these were my decisions and they my appropriate response to a businesses decision. Now the businesses don't get to make the decision anymore, that has been taken over by the anti-smoking special interest and the Board of Aldermen

It's time for the gloves to come off in the Lt. Governor's race

The Republicans get to choose between Charlie Ross and Phil Bryant this August, a mere 2 months away and it seems like this week the campaign has really kicked into full gear. Ross started running campaign ads this week and Bryant can't be far behind. We have seen some jabs back and forth but Bryant's association with the Partnership and several jabs at failed audits. I haven't seen as much out of Bryant to this point but he is ahead in most polling so he might be holding out for now. Both Ross and Bryant have over a half million dollars in the bank, I believe last reports were that Ross had over a Million in Cash on Hand, and in two months any left over will just be wasted for one of them so see things pick up in the near future.



For my money I bet Bryant will win the nomination simply because not enough Repubs know Charlie Ross despite the fact, IMO, Ross is the more polished, smarter and probably more effective candidate. At some point political races are just popularity contest when the 2 candidates run on almost all of the same issues which is what Ross and Bryant are doing. Additionally, Bryant has the endorsement of the Home Builders Association, Realators Association, Paul Gallo (who has a wide audience in the Republican households) and Don Wildman (far-right Tupelo religous advocate/zealot) and as silly as it sounds endorsements do mean something when they all pile up for one person.

Judicial Qualifications

In the light of Judge Leslie Southwick having his nomination being taken back up today I wanted to try and put forth an open thread with more of a question.

What do you think are proper qualifications for a Federal Judge?

I think Polly, one of our new writers, is working on a Southwick post and you have already seen posts by me and comments by Representative Green on the subject so I open up the floor to you, the reader.

Party Registration for Primaries

I didn't want to let the week pass without at least touching on this story. Late last week US District Judge Allan Pepper ruled that political parties have a right to stop non-party members from voting in their primary elections and suggested that party registration and voter ID would do that. Several different issues that greatly influence Mississippi jump out of this.

1. parties can exclude non-party members

2. party registration is / will be required

3. voter i.d. is being pushed by the courts

I will take these issues separately:

1. I don't have a big problem with this idea, if a candidate is to be chosen as the "Democratic" or "Republican" candidate then only members of those parties are the people who should be selecting them. I realize the arguments such as "there are only 2 parties that can win" and "if you don't vote in the primary you're left with no choice" but to me if a candidate is to represent a party he should be voted to that position by members of that party, not outsiders. Now I'm starting to sound like Ellis Turnage, who IMO is a big nut-job, but on this idea maybe we agree.

2. Party registration being required is another good idea, how do you know who you are as a group without having a list of some sort. Fears of party registration go back to the Red Scare (and before I'm sure) in America but I just don't see the problem. Many people say that there are only 2 parties and if you can't vote in one of those primaries your choices are limited to an extent that it corrupts the process. I just don't believe that, if enough people are unhappy with a party that party will go away, if enough people who are unhappy form together a new party will be founded. History is our proving ground for this, in the beginning there were Federalist and Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republicans), there were Whigs and Free-Soilers, there were Know-nothings, Greenbacks and Populist Parties and there were Bull Mooser's, Socialist, Democrat and Republican parties, Parties come and go, power swings back and forth and the more power these "third-party" parties get the more neutralized the big 2 become, just look at the evolution of the Republican party from Lincoln to Reagan and look at how Republicans have changed from Willkie to Bush 43 (from economic conservatism to mass social spending and debt creation). All of this is said to show that just because you aren't voting in one of the big 2 parties doesn't mean your ideas won't be heard.

3. voter i.d. seems to be pushed by this ruling. I, personally am a fan of voter i.d. I think I understand the premise behind it's opponents that some voters feel hassled, that some voters become afraid because things like i.d. prevented them from voting 40 years ago.

Let me start with saying it is not that much of a hassle. If you can drag yourself up to the ballot box you can come up to the circuit clerks office and fill out a new voter registration form. If you don't have an i.d. because you don't drive then they can get you an i.d. just for voting, we have special i.d.'s for military, special i.d.'s for gun permits, this would not be a problem. And for the most extreme of cases, those shut-ins and disabled people I'm sure a decent exception could be offered of an in-home visit by a clerk's assistant to verify. Keep it mind these exceptions would rarely, if ever, be used.

As for those people who say well my grandma was harassed by a poll tax way back when and I shouldn't be hassled, you should grow up. Voter intimidation in the 60's and before did happen but that was 40 years ago, and now we actually have a system in place to deal with voter intimidation if it were to rear its ugly head. This simply is not a modern day problem and we cannot let fear of issues of a half a century ago influence something as important as getting an accurate voting system.

My one slight problem with this issue is that voter i.d. shouldn't be pushed by the courts, it should be pushed by the people. The people's voice is in the legislature and I simply do not understand the lock the "Black Caucus" has on any voter i.d. bill that comes through the State House of Representatives. Let it pass, your voters will be leery the first time but after that everything will be fine, people are scared of change, of the unknown, but this is a good thing that keeps everyone above board.

As always we welcome comments and ideas.

MS Supreme Court talks about Justice Court Judge Qualifications

I really found this opinion, Montgomery v. Lowndes County Democratic Executive Committee, interesting. Late last year myself and 2 other reference librarians I work with all considered running for an open Justice Court Judgeship in Rankin County. However, none of us lived in the district represented. We did a little research and could not find anything saying you must live in the district but common sense says you should live in the district and we all kind of dismissed the idea (plus we are all pretty busy so it was mostly just talk anyway).

Then last week the Supreme Court handed down the opinion in Montgomery which clearly provides that we were right about the law and wrong in our assumption. Apparently the only qualifications are those explicitly laid out in the Mississippi Constitution, Sec. 171 and 241, and being in the county is enough and being in the district in not required. This is despite a somewhat on point law, 23-15-359, and an Attorney General's Opinion that disagreed with where the Court went.

Let me take this as an opportunity to share that AG opinions are almost entirely worthless, they are kind of like Presidential singing statements and carry no weight and in modern day legalities carry no sway (unlike the sway they might have carried in the early 20th century). This is not a fault or indictment on the AG's office but just a simple truth that no one should pay attention to them because the courts do not.

As always feedback and/or discussion is welcomed.

Southwick Nomination

The latest news on Judge Leslie Southwick's nomination to the 5th circuit is that a second scheduled vote has been postponed, thereby putting him in some sort of holding pattern. For an article see here. I post this here because this blog has gotten a lot of traffic regarding Judge Southwick.

If you have any comments either pro or con regarding Judge Southwick we welcome debate at Mississippi Law and we welcome your point of view; however, if you are willing to dish it out please be willing to take it also.

Possession of a Weapon by a Felon, Mississippi Code 97-37-5

Ran across this statute last week and thought it might make for an interesting blog post. Below is the text of the statute. My commentary is the green text that is mixed in. If you have any comments please feel free to add them in.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or of the United States to possess any firearm or any bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm unless such person has received a pardon for such felony, has received a relief from disability pursuant to Section 925(c) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or has received a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.

(1c) This is an interesting list of "weapons": bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack or silencer. My issue with this list is who gets to decide what a certain type of knife is? Switchblade is fairly clear but a Bowie knife is more confusing, is their a length something has to be to be a Bowie or a Butcher knife is even more open to interpretation, are we talking a clever or a boning knife or any knife that can be found in the grocery store meat department? I don't see any definitions for these "weapons" so I guess discretion falls to the courts, but with that comes the problem of wrongful arrest if a cop thinks its a knife under this section but the judge doesn't. I wish this section was more clear.

(2) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not more than three (3) years, or both.

(2c) This section had a proposed amendment to make this a 10 year maximum penalty, up from 3 by HB 1552 (2007), but it did not get out of committee. I don't have a big problem with this amendment but I always worry about how many sentences get increased in election years for those about to try and reelected want to look "tough on crime".

(3) A person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state may apply to the court in which he was convicted for a certificate of rehabilitation. The court may grant such certificate in its discretion upon a showing to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant has been rehabilitated and has led a useful, productive and law-abiding life since the completion of his sentence and upon the finding of the court that he will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.

(3c) I like this provision, kind of a reward for being "rehabilitated". However, it does provide for discretion which can be good or bad with elected judges and could, in a broken system, allow for the purchasing of these certificates of rehabilitation with a lawyer who is buddies with a judge or a campaign contribution to the judge that slides past most voters.

Oktibbeha Co. Hospital v. Mississippi State University, MS Dept of Health and Premier Radiology

Issued last week by the MS Supreme Court was an interesting ruling, 2006-SA-00358-SCT, concerning the CON (Certificate of Need) process in Mississippi. For a slight bit of background I will say that to run a hospital or medical center of some sort in Mississippi you need a CON which is has many, many hoops to jump through and red tape to be crossed. I beleive they all have to start as legislation and the hoops and tape are administered by the MDOH. In this case it appears that the legislature passed a bill in 2004 that would allow a MRI system and a linear accelerator (I think they are similiar but different, but I'm no doctor) to be placed in Starkville with the condition that 2/3 of its operable time be allowed to the University for research purposes and 1/3 of its operable time could be for private use. With this bill the normal CON procedures were waved. The Oktibbeha Co. Hospital (OCH) objected to this, a suit followed and last week the MS Supreme Court ruled on it, saying that this bill was not unconstitutional and that use of these systems through Mississippi State is acceptable.

Now I will provide a bit of my take on this.

OCH was the only game in town for things like a MRI and with this bill they lose their local monopoly. I'm sure they are more upset by the 1/3 time that Premier Radiology is getting than the 2/3 research component for MSU.

I think MSU and more especially Premier pulled a bit of a fast one as Premier used the cover of a research university (really the research university in the state) to get access to machines that can exponentially expand their business without jumping through the hoops and redtape of a CON process.

Finally, I think OCH is pretty unhappy with their lawyers at this point. While the Court didn't completely blast the lawyers for not filing this constitutional challenge with the MS Attorney General's Office, as is required, they did make a remark and strike that entire part of the argument (one of the three issues). The Court didn't buy the argument that because MSU was served and technically the head lawyer at MSU is an AG attorney proper notice was given. This strikes me as a piece of bad lawyering as service and notice are one of the few things that is easy to get right and they didn't do so in this case.

Mississippi Legal News of Note

Couple of items I wanted to make sure and pass along in case you had missed them

- Ann Hannaford Lamar of Senatobia was appointed to the Mississippi Supreme Court by Governor Haley Barbour to fill departing Justice Kay Cobb's Northern District post. Lamar is a former Circuit Court Judge for the 17th district and former District Attorney. I know very little about Lamar but she looks qualified and has stayed out of the news for anything that might be considered "bad". On a personal not I would like to say I am glad Barbour appointed a female to replace the only female that was on the Court. I'm not a huge feminist supporter but females make up half of the population of the State there should be at least one on the State's Supreme Court.

- former Court of Appeals Judge and current nominee to the 5th Circuit, Leslie Southwick, has had his confirmation process started with the often contentious questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to some news articles opposite has arisen due to votes Southwick made while on the Court of Appeals. Southwick responded with [paraphrasing] I voted with an opinion that accurately reflected what the law in Mississippi states. I understand the groups that disagree with what these cases held and don't like Southwick's voting (not authoring) these opinions but a Judge's job is to rule on what is the law, not to make the law and if the law is not unconstitutional then there is not much the judge can do; and further if the law is not challenged as being unconstitutional they shouldn't even consider that. I'm not sure of the background on these complaints but what I have seen looks like certain groups are trying to make a problem where there is none to be made. For more discussion on this nomination I recommend googling Judge Southwick's name and there are many articles and blogs out there this week.