Hughes v. Hosemann
2011 Miss. LEXIS 436
Miss.2011Background
- In Nov 2008 Riley and Personhood Mississippi filed Measure 26 with the Secretary of State for placement on the general-election ballot.
- Hughes and Hemmins sued, challenging Measure 26 as violating Article 15, Section 273(5)(a) of the Mississippi Constitution (no amendments to the Bill of Rights via initiative).
- The Secretary accepted the measure and the ballot title/summary were prepared; the Legislature did not act, so the Secretary placed the measure on the ballot for the next statewide election.
- The circuit court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings; Intervenors were permitted to participate, and the final judgment favored the Secretary and Intervenors.
- On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that the pre-election challenge to the measure’s form and prerogative to issue an advisory opinion were controlling questions of law and that the measure was not ripe for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Measure 26 ripe for pre-election judicial review of form? | Hughes/Hemmins contend form invalidity can be reviewed pre-election. | Secretary/Riley argue pre-election review of form is improper and substantive review is not ripe. | Not ripe; pre-election review of form only. |
| May the court issue an advisory opinion on a pre-election measure? | Courts should determine validity of Measure 26 before ballot. | Court should not issue advisory opinions on pre-election measures. | Advisory opinions avoided; no pre-election adjudication of substance. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000) (pre-election form review; revenue-impact requirement;)
- Power v. Ratliff, 72 So. 864 (Miss. 1916) (no pre-enactment substantive review; legislative policy)
- Robertson, 93 So. 769 (Miss. 1922) (initiation rights; sufficiency of petition; pre-election validity)
- Barnett, 129 So.2d 638 (Miss. 1961) (minimum form requirements for initiatives)
- Ratliff, 72 So. 867 (Miss. 1916) (separation of powers; cannot preemptively adjudicate initiative validity)