Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; October 28, 2010; Mississippi; State Supreme Court
The case involves an election contest with significant procedural issues. The plaintiffs, Cedric Abston and the Democratic Committee, initially sought circuit-court review of a municipal election commission's decision under an incorrect statute and were time-barred from pursuing their amended complaint under the right statute. The trial court found that Abston was disqualified due to the improper formation of the Democratic Committee, which prevented him from qualifying as a candidate. Although advised by the trial court to proceed under Mississippi Code Section 11-51-75 (appeal by bill of exceptions), their amended complaint was ultimately dismissed as untimely.
On appeal, the plaintiffs argued for the first time that their initial complaint should have been treated as a writ of certiorari under Mississippi Code Section 11-51-93, which would afford them a six-month window to file, rather than the ten days required for an appeal by bill of exceptions. However, the court determined that procedural bars prevent consideration of this argument since the plaintiffs did not invoke certiorari jurisdiction during the preliminary hearings. The court concluded that the trial court applied the correct procedure and that the appeal by certiorari was not applicable in this case. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's decision.
Writs of certiorari allow courts to review decisions of inferior courts, as specified in Mississippi Code Section 11-51-95, which encompasses all tribunals below the circuit court. Both appeal by bill of exceptions and certiorari serve as general appellate provisions in similar contexts, such as challenges to election decisions by boards of supervisors. Abston and the Democratic Committee initially sought a pre-election remedy regarding candidate qualifications in a general election, despite municipal elections being excluded from this remedy. The town argued for a post-election challenge under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-951, but the circuit court noted that the committee's aim was not to contest an election but to dispute the municipal authority’s claim of their improper formation. The trial court deemed an appeal by bill of exceptions appropriate under Mississippi Code Section 11-51-75.
Abston and the Democratic Committee later argued, referencing Crider v. Howard, that their judicial review petition should have been treated as an appeal by writ of certiorari. However, this argument was raised for the first time on appeal, and unlike Crider, where the plaintiffs could not specify their jurisdictional basis, here, the petitioners had already invoked Mississippi Code Section 11-51-75. The court found no error in the trial court’s interpretation of the statute.
In McIntosh v. Sanders, the court dismissed similar claims regarding disqualified candidates, emphasizing the primacy of specific statutes over general ones when addressing election contests. In contrast to McIntosh, which dealt with candidate qualifications, this case focuses on the legitimacy of the Democratic Committee’s formation, which is not specifically addressed by election laws.
Waiving the procedural bar, the trial court determined that the appropriate mechanism for relief was an appeal by bill of exceptions, not a petition for certiorari or under the elections code. The claims of Cedric Abston and the Democratic Committee were found to be time-barred. The lower court's findings, which are upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence, indicated that the complaint was dismissed because the bill of exceptions was not filed within the ten-day limit after the Election Commission’s meeting adjournment. The Democratic Committee and Abston argued that the dismissal was erroneous due to insufficient evidence regarding their notice of the Election Commission's decision, but this was deemed irrelevant as the statute explicitly requires the appeal to be filed within ten days without a notice condition. Citing precedent, the court reaffirmed that lack of a timely bill of exceptions defeats subject matter jurisdiction. Even if a notice requirement existed, the court upheld the trial court's finding that Abston had actual notice of the decision on March 23, 2009. Consequently, as the bill of exceptions was not filed within the statutory timeframe, the motion to dismiss was correctly granted. The court acknowledged procedural flaws in the election commission meetings but affirmed that the appeal process was appropriately applied, leading to the dismissal being upheld.
The judgment has been affirmed with Chief Justice Waller and Justices Carlson, Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, and Chandler concurring, while Justice Graves concurs in the result only. Under Mississippi law, specifically Miss.Code Ann. 11-51-75 (Rev. 2002), any individual aggrieved by a decision of a board of supervisors or municipal authorities may appeal within ten days of the session's adjournment where the decision was made. The appeal must include a bill of exceptions, signed by the president of the respective board or authority. The context of this appeal coincided with a mayoral election, referencing various statutes including Miss.Code Ann. 23-15-961 (Rev. 2007) and notable case law such as Johnson v. State and McIntosh v. Sanders.
The minutes from a March 23, 2009, meeting, where the Election Commission ruled the Democratic Committee non-compliant with the law, were submitted as evidence, noting the presence of Ab-ston’s attorney. No testimony was provided on the merits of the issue. The document cites several precedents and statutes, emphasizing the procedural framework for appealing decisions and the importance of the minutes as part of the record.
