Chaka D. Smith v. Charles E. Webster
233 So. 3d 242
| Miss. | 2017Background
- November 4, 2014 election for Mississippi Circuit Judge, Subdistrict 11-3: Webster certified winner (3,255 votes) over Smith (2,369 votes); 390 absentee ballots (Webster 296; Smith 94).
- Smith conducted statutorily authorized 12-day ballot-box examinations under Miss. Code § 23-15-911(1) and requested to photocopy/scan materials; county clerks refused.
- Smith filed an election-contest suit (and declaratory claims) in Quitman County, alleging election-law violations including widespread absentee defects and that geocoding showed many voters were misassigned to wrong subdistricts; she claimed up to 600 disputed votes.
- Trial judge denied broad copying requests (allowed limited, specific requests which Smith failed to make), excluded Smith’s expert evidence (geocoding unreliable/no foundation), and accepted for summary-judgment purposes Smith’s claims that all 390 absentee ballots were invalid and that 600 votes were improper.
- On summary judgment the judge found that even discarding all 390 absentee ballots and crediting Smith with all 600 disputed votes, Webster still prevailed by 84 votes; court also rejected Smith’s separation-of-powers and discovery-rule arguments.
- Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Webster.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Webster's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 23-15-911(1) grants a right to copy/scan ballot-box contents during the 12-day inspection | Smith: statute and discovery rules allow copying/scanning of nonconfidential election materials | Webster: statute grants only a right to examine; no statutory right to copy; discovery rules don’t displace statutory inspection limits | Court: No statutory right to copy/scan; §23-15-911(1) is unambiguous and does not permit copying |
| Whether Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 34) entitled Smith to copy ballot-box materials after suit filed | Smith: civil discovery rules apply and permit document copying | Webster: Rule 34 applies only to documents in a party’s possession/custody/control, not ballot boxes; statute/timeframe controls | Court: Rule 34 inapplicable (no party possessed the boxes); judge did not abuse discretion; Smith had opportunity to request specific items but failed to comply |
| Whether exclusion of Smith’s experts (geocoding and others) was an abuse of discretion | Smith: experts’ geocoding showed large misassignment and should be admitted | Webster: experts lacked foundation, reliability, and relevance; data unverified | Court: Exclusion proper—Cooper’s work lacked verification/certification from clerks; Brooks offered no opinion/report; Smith’s challenge waived in part |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact remained to preclude summary judgment | Smith: absentee ballots and misassigned voters create disputed facts that could change result | Webster: even crediting Smith (all 390 absentee ballots invalid and all 600 disputed votes to Smith), Webster still wins | Court: No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed because Smith’s math/assumptions still leave Webster ahead by 84 votes |
| Whether court abused discretion by not separately ruling on Rule 54(b) reconsideration motion | Smith: judge failed to rule on motion | Webster: dispositive order expressly dismissed all outstanding motions as moot | Court: No abuse—summary-judgment order disposed of outstanding motions including the Rule 54(b) motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Tunica County v. Hampton Co. Nat’l Sur., 27 So. 3d 1128 (Miss. 2009) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Cook v. Brown, 909 So. 2d 1075 (Miss. 2005) (upholding statutory 12-day ballot inspection time frame)
- McAdams v. Perkins, 204 So. 3d 1257 (Miss. 2016) (attorney-general opinions are persuasive but not binding)
- Bosarge v. LWC Props, LLC, 158 So. 3d 1137 (Miss. 2015) (summary-judgment response must set forth specific facts showing genuine issues)
- Fillingane v. Breland, 54 So. 2d 747 (Miss. 1954) (illegal ballots must be disregarded)