Legislature of the State of Mississippi v. Adrian Shipman
170 So. 3d 1211
Miss.2015Background
- Shipman, a qualified voter, challenged the Attorney General’s ballot title for Legislative Alternative Measure 42A in circuit court under Mississippi Code §23-17-13.
- Initiative Measure 42 proposed to amend Art. 8, §201 of the Mississippi Constitution and was accompanied by an AG ballot title.
- Alternative Measure 42A, adopted by the Legislature, would amend the same constitutional provision; the AG drafted a ballot title for 42A.
- The circuit court sua sponte revised the ballot title for 42A and entered an order reforming it, prompting the Legislature to appeal.
- The Court held §23-17-13 authorizes appeals only for AG ballot titles on elector-initiated measures, not for amendments to measures proposed by the Legislature, so the circuit court lacked jurisdiction.
- The decision reversed and rendered, dismissing Shipman’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the AG’s ballot title for an amendment to a measure | Shipman contends §23-17-13 covers amendments to measures | Legislature argues §23-17-13 does not apply to legislative amendments | No jurisdiction; §23-17-13 applies only to elector-proposed measures |
| Whether the term “measure” in §23-17-13 includes amendments to measures | The statute should cover amendments | Statutory definition limits to elector-proposed measures | Ambiguous but legislative definition confines to elector-proposed measures; no appeal for amendments |
| Effect of §23-17-33 and §23-17-9 interplay on appeal rights | Appeal rights extend via §23-17-33/9 | Appeal rights do not extend to amendments | Appeal rights do not apply to amendments; wrong target for appeal |
| Whether notice and time-trial provisions of §23-17-13 apply to amendments | Publication and five-day limit should apply | No applicable publication/notice for amendments | Not applicable; cannot harmonize with amendment framework |
| Whether reviewing the ballot title for an amendment would be a nonjusticiable political question | Review would infringe separation of powers | N/A in light of jurisdictional holding | Court avoided addressing merits; jurisdictional defect dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Ghane v. Mid-S. Inst. of Self Def. Shooting, Inc., 137 So.3d 212 (Miss. 2014) (political question and judicial review considerations)
- Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So.3d 1260 (Miss. 2011) (pre-election review limits; ripeness doctrine)
- City of Jackson v. United Water Services, Inc., 47 So.3d 1160 (Miss. 2010) (intervention and appellate procedure controls)
- Palermo v. LifeLink Found., Inc., 152 So.3d 1099 (Miss. 2014) (statutory construction approach; intent of Legislature)
- Tellus Operating Grp., LLC v. Maxwell Energy, Inc., 156 So.3d 255 (Miss. 2015) (statutory interpretation methodology; plain meaning)