Tunica County Democratic Executive Committee v. Craig Jones, 233 So. 3d 792

Background

Craig Jones challenged the Tunica County Democratic Executive Committee’s (TCDEC) determination that he was unqualified to run in the Democratic primary for Tunica County Supervisor, Beat 5, by filing a petition under Miss. Code § 23-15-961; the circuit court found Jones qualified and ordered his name on the primary ballot.
TCDEC appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court but failed to timely prosecute the appeal; the appeal was dismissed and mandate issued, yet Jones’s name was nonetheless not placed on the August 4, 2015 primary ballot, which McKinley Daley won.
Jones then filed in the qualifications cause to vacate Daley’s nomination and to order a special primary; the circuit court vacated the primary and ordered a special election on November 2, 2015.
The general election proceeded November 3, 2015 (with the primary vacated), and independent William Pegram defeated Daley; the Board appointed Daley as interim, and no election contest was filed challenging the general election.
Jones moved under M.R.C.P. 60 to set aside the court’s November 2 order; the circuit court granted relief on February 18, 2016, vacated its prior order, and declared Pegram the duly elected supervisor. TCDEC appealed.
The Mississippi Supreme Court held the circuit court exceeded its authority under § 23-15-961 by vacating and later vacating-again orders affecting elections (no election contests had been filed) and therefore vacated the November 2, 2015 and February 18, 2016 orders; the uncontested election results remain.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (TCDEC)	Defendant's Argument (Jones/Pegram)	Held
Whether circuit court had authority under § 23-15-961 to vacate primary and order special election	Court had authority to remedy an invalid nomination arising from failure to follow judicial directive; equitable relief necessary	§ 23-15-961 is limited to determining candidate qualifications; it does not authorize vacating elections or ordering special elections	Court: No. § 23-15-961 only permits qualification determinations; vacating/ordering elections is beyond that statute and judge’s appointment, so those orders were vacated
Whether an election contest procedure was required to challenge the primary/general election results	TCDEC sought equitable relief and argued fairness required a new election	Jones: election contests have specific statutory procedures (e.g., §§ 23-15-921, -927); none were filed, so court lacked authority	Court: An election contest is the exclusive statutory remedy to challenge primary/general results; absent such, court cannot invalidate elections or order new ones
Whether trial court properly used Rule 60 to set aside its November 2 order	TCDEC argued Rule 60 relief inappropriate to undo election-related orders it previously defended	Jones argued Rule 60 relief was appropriate because November 2 order exceeded statutory authority and equitable relief was warranted	Court: Rule 60 could apply to the November 2 order, but the circuit court exceeded Rule 60’s scope by affirmatively seating Pegram; thus the later actions were unauthorized and vacated
Whether Pegram could be declared winner and be seated by the circuit court without an election contest	TCDEC argued equitable correction required seating the proper Democratic nominee or ordering new election	Pegram/Jones argued seating Pegram was necessary to prevent continued harm and to recognize uncontested general-election result	Court: Circuit court lacked authority under § 23-15-961 to declare and seat Pegram; because no election contest was filed, uncontested general-election results stand

Key Cases Cited

Hale v. State Democratic Exec. Comm., 168 So. 3d 946 (Miss. 2015) (standard of review in candidate-qualification cases)
In re Wilbourn, 590 So. 2d 1381 (Miss. 1991) (statutory provision is exclusive remedy for election-contest issues)
Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1260 (Miss. 2011) (court will not issue advisory opinions)