Mississippi Law

This is an open forum for discussing Mississippi Law, Legislation, Politics, and Government. Any aspect of the above are fair game, and no idea is too radical.

Monday, January 28, 2008

No word yet on the Senate Special Election

Still no word out from the Mississippi Supreme Court on how to properly read 23-15-855 of the Mississippi Code. For those who have been out of the loop Governor Barbour called for a special election to coincide with the General Election in November while Attorney General Jim Hood reads the law to state the election should be set for within 90 days after the resigning of Trent Lott.

If you are reading this you probably know the implications but I will rehash them anyway. Governor Barbour's selection to fill the seat temporary is Roger Wicker, former 1st District Representative, and the thought is that he stands a better chance of holding onto the seat over a Democratic challenger when the Presidential elections are held as Mississippi has voted overwhelming Republican in Presidential elections for the last 25 or so years.

Attorney General Jim Hood, a Democrat, seemingly could want the election in the shorter time frame to negate the "Presidential bump" that will assuredly come in a November election, to make the election more of a free-for-all which could benefit a less monied candidate such as all the Democrats in the race, it means the Democrats might be able to create a special push to the polls while Republican voters might be lazy, perhaps it's because Hood and Barbour have been sparring for years and it's just another stick in the eye to Barbour, or perhaps that is just what AG Hood thinks the law is and he is fighting for it.

We expect a ruling from the Court any day now (many thought that would be last Thursday or Friday) and I look for it this Thursday.

2 Comments:

At 9:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Barbour asked for the opportunity to make oral arguments before the Supreme Court, but Hood did not. The court has not granted Barbour's request. Does that mean that the court is more likely to rule in Barbour's favor? If the court were planning to rule against Barbour, wouldn't it be more likely to grant him an oral argument?

 
At 10:19 AM, Blogger B.C. Barnes said...

It very well could mean that they are leaning to siding with Barbour, which is what many expect because the Governor and the Court usually agree on most matters. While I don't know of any study showing arguments granted v. not granted we could speculate it to be a lean to the later date by the court.

Of course the flip side of this is that the AG didn't request and the Court hasn't granted so the AG is getting what he wanted (to this point) so perhaps it could be spun to favor the AG but I'm doubting it at this point.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home