337 So.3d 1053
Miss.2022Background
- December 9, 2019 Greenville city council elections: Ward 1 — William Brock (180) defeated Oliver Johnson (171); Ward 6 — James Wilson (204) defeated Chauncy Wright (116).
- Johnson and Wright filed election-contest petitions in late December 2019 alleging various voting irregularities (affidavit-ballot procedures, distance limits, poll-watcher conduct, and other improprieties).
- The cases were consolidated; Brock and Wilson moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. No formal discovery requests were made by the contestants.
- The circuit court held a hearing allowing testimony, then granted summary judgment for Brock and Wilson, finding contestants failed to prove the alleged irregularities affected the election results.
- Contestants filed motions for reconsideration; the court denied them on June 15, 2020. The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper in election contests alleging voting irregularities | Johnson/Wright argued alleged procedural violations and other irregularities justified overturning results or a new election | Brock/Wilson argued plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence showing the irregularities changed the outcome and failed to pursue discovery | Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiffs failed to show an essential element (that irregularities affected vote totals) so defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
| Whether affidavits/testimony relied on by plaintiffs could defeat summary judgment | Plaintiffs claimed affidavits/testimony would show improper votes or procedures that altered results | Defendants pointed out the affidavits plaintiffs referenced were not in the record submitted to the court | Court refused to consider affidavits not in the record and faulted appellants for failing to include essential evidence; summary judgment stands |
| Whether failure to pursue discovery or seek a continuance bars contestants' claims | Plaintiffs said further discovery after ballot-box inspection might yield evidence of irregularities | Defendants noted plaintiffs never served discovery requests or asked for a continuance before or during the summary-judgment hearing | Court emphasized plaintiffs’ failure to pursue discovery and that mere speculation about potential evidence cannot defeat summary judgment |
| Standard for ordering a new election based on irregularities | Plaintiffs argued procedural departures destroyed election integrity or altered totals | Defendants relied on rule that a new election is warranted only if enough illegal votes would change the result or so many votes are disqualified the voters’ will is indiscernible; fraud/willful violations matter | Court applied Rizzo two-prong test and related precedent and held plaintiffs did not meet standards (no proof of enough illegal/disqualified votes or willful fraud) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Griffith, 664 So. 2d 177 (Miss. 1995) (summary judgment may be used in election disputes)
- Rizzo v. Bizzell, 530 So. 2d 121 (Miss. 1988) (two-prong test for ordering special election: enough illegal votes to change result or so many disqualified votes that will is indiscernible)
- Galloway v. Travelers Ins. Co., 515 So. 2d 678 (Miss. 1987) (if nonmovant will bear burden at trial and fails to establish an essential element, movant is entitled to judgment)
- Strantz v. Pinion, 652 So. 2d 738 (Miss. 1995) (mere allegations without detailed facts insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Adams v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 831 So. 2d 1156 (Miss. 2002) (unsupported speculation and allegations cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Jenkins v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 794 So. 2d 228 (Miss. 2001) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Shelton v. Kindred, 279 So. 2d 642 (Miss. 1973) (appellant bears burden to ensure record contains data essential to appellate review)