Tuesday, August 28, 2007
VOTE in the Primary Run-off TODAY
I know it is a small ballot but it is races like these that literally every vote may make a difference.
James Ford Seale, a conviction long in coming
Story I wanted to pass along
Seale, reputed Klansman was found guilty and sentenced to 3 life terms this past Friday of conspiracy and 2 counts of kidnapping in the disappearence and death of Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore in 1964. I am proud to be part of the "New South" a South that not only frowns upon prejudice but continues to prosecute crimes of the past. When hearing a story like this I always think that I just wish this would go away, if it wasn't brought up then people would think differently of Mississippi. But the past is what it is, it cannot be changed now and all that can be done is the law followed. If people were murdered then the criminal can sought until his own death and I am proud that the law is being enforced even if it helps pick at old memories that many want to forget.
Links to other stories:
the Strange Pete Collins Story
I was talking to one of the co-editors of this blog and he hadn't heard this story so I thought I would put it up for others to read.
Pete Collins, a former Mississippi Highway Patrol trooper from Tupelo was once a highly decorated officer. More recently however, Collins was convicted of fondling a then 13 year old girl and was sentenced to 15 years with 10 suspended last Friday, the 25th. After he was transported to a Rankin County MDOC facility to begin his sentence he was found Sunday, the 27th dead in his cell from hanging. No note was left by Collins. Our prayers and sympathy goes out to both the young girl and her family and the Collins family.
CL article on this odd story
Daily Journal article on the odd story
Pete Collins, a former Mississippi Highway Patrol trooper from Tupelo was once a highly decorated officer. More recently however, Collins was convicted of fondling a then 13 year old girl and was sentenced to 15 years with 10 suspended last Friday, the 25th. After he was transported to a Rankin County MDOC facility to begin his sentence he was found Sunday, the 27th dead in his cell from hanging. No note was left by Collins. Our prayers and sympathy goes out to both the young girl and her family and the Collins family.
CL article on this odd story
Daily Journal article on the odd story
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Transition
All of my previous posts on this blog came from its old home, Mississippi Law, but it looks like we editors are having a bit of difference of opinion and I didn't want my posts to disappear in a moment of madness. For now I'll keep posting there but I think the end may be near and this will be the new home for MS Law.
SB 2117 - Extension of License for those on Active Duty
Interesting bill that is due back from the governor this week, 2117, concerns extending licenses for those on active duty with the National Guard or U.S. Armed Forces. These licenses include attorney's, architects, auctioneers, chiropractors, barbers, etc. I think this is a very good bill and look forward to it becoming law.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Jackson's Crime Problem
I am slightly reluctant to talk about Jackson because it is a single city in the state but it is the state's largest city and its capital so on some level the crime in Jackson matters to the state as a whole. Today Jackson's major newspaper, and the widest circulated paper in the state, had an editorial entitled "Development: Jackson 'flight' not unexpected" which I feel has some major flaws that I want to address.
The editorial states: "The biggest challenges were perceptions that crime made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family, that Jacksonians were helplessly watching urban decline pick up, as population bled torrents into the suburbs. Many of those perceptions remain, as do the fears that such new Census figures are sure to spur. But some don't, or shouldn't."
My first beef with this editorial is the phrase "perceptions that crime made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family", perhaps the more appropriate statement would have been the reality that crime has made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family. Crime is not a perception. Crime has been bad in the past and it continues to be bad in the City of Jackson. And for those who say it is getting better look at the statistics. The latest stats show increases in auto burglaries, grand larceny's, house burglaries, armed robberies, car jackings and stable if not increasing numbers for Rape and Homicide as compared across past weeks/months and last year. For all of the talk about how Jackson is better the numbers show it is not any better off than in recent history. This from a city that from 2003 stats had triple the national rate of murders and over double the national rate of rape, burglary, car theft and robbery. The people of Jackson and the editorial board of the Clarion Ledger need to face it, Crime is not a perception in Jackson.
My second beef is the proposal that downtown residential projects will reverse the declining tax base. People do need affordable housing to live in but many of the projects that are coming to downtown Jackson are not going to be what is affordable. The Ledger muddles the fact all of this increased square footage is not affordable to a vast majority of the Jackson citizenry. Additionally, the editorial ignores the fact that affordable housing is needed in all areas of the city not just downtown. It is needed out towards Highway 80, it is needed in North Jackson, affordable housing is needed all over the place, not just downtown where the location of being downtown automatically drives many projections right out of being affordable.
My final beef is the closing statement of: "Once more investment is made in crime fighting, including more jail space and a larger police force, and public confidence follows, that flight will be reversed." This is a nice thought but it is really Pollyannish. Jackson has for years been massively understaffed on the police force and has never filled its positions. Jail space has been needed for years and never has the City Council voted for it. A change in leadership happened 2 years ago with "Do Nothing" Harvey Johnson voted out of office in favor of Frank Melton who himself has done nothing to improve the ranks of the PD and to curb the crime problem. At some point you have to be positive and and other points you have to be realistic. This is a time to be realistic not give pat answers of "Oh, it will get better" when the things it takes to make it better don't ever happen. Some times the truth hurts and the Clarion Ledger and this editorial need to quit giving the sugar coating to the city's problems.
The editorial states: "The biggest challenges were perceptions that crime made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family, that Jacksonians were helplessly watching urban decline pick up, as population bled torrents into the suburbs. Many of those perceptions remain, as do the fears that such new Census figures are sure to spur. But some don't, or shouldn't."
The editorial goes on to talk about the passage of a large school bond issue, how "Despite the figures, downtown redevelopment is going full-speed ahead" and how affordable housing is being created. The Ledger goes on to speculate that "residential development downtown that would reverse the city's declining tax base".
The editorial then closes with: "Once more investment is made in crime fighting, including more jail space and a larger police force, and public confidence follows, that flight will be reversed."My first beef with this editorial is the phrase "perceptions that crime made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family", perhaps the more appropriate statement would have been the reality that crime has made Jackson an unsafe place to raise a family. Crime is not a perception. Crime has been bad in the past and it continues to be bad in the City of Jackson. And for those who say it is getting better look at the statistics. The latest stats show increases in auto burglaries, grand larceny's, house burglaries, armed robberies, car jackings and stable if not increasing numbers for Rape and Homicide as compared across past weeks/months and last year. For all of the talk about how Jackson is better the numbers show it is not any better off than in recent history. This from a city that from 2003 stats had triple the national rate of murders and over double the national rate of rape, burglary, car theft and robbery. The people of Jackson and the editorial board of the Clarion Ledger need to face it, Crime is not a perception in Jackson.
My second beef is the proposal that downtown residential projects will reverse the declining tax base. People do need affordable housing to live in but many of the projects that are coming to downtown Jackson are not going to be what is affordable. The Ledger muddles the fact all of this increased square footage is not affordable to a vast majority of the Jackson citizenry. Additionally, the editorial ignores the fact that affordable housing is needed in all areas of the city not just downtown. It is needed out towards Highway 80, it is needed in North Jackson, affordable housing is needed all over the place, not just downtown where the location of being downtown automatically drives many projections right out of being affordable.
My final beef is the closing statement of: "Once more investment is made in crime fighting, including more jail space and a larger police force, and public confidence follows, that flight will be reversed." This is a nice thought but it is really Pollyannish. Jackson has for years been massively understaffed on the police force and has never filled its positions. Jail space has been needed for years and never has the City Council voted for it. A change in leadership happened 2 years ago with "Do Nothing" Harvey Johnson voted out of office in favor of Frank Melton who himself has done nothing to improve the ranks of the PD and to curb the crime problem. At some point you have to be positive and and other points you have to be realistic. This is a time to be realistic not give pat answers of "Oh, it will get better" when the things it takes to make it better don't ever happen. Some times the truth hurts and the Clarion Ledger and this editorial need to quit giving the sugar coating to the city's problems.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Interesting note from the primaries
I found it very interesting that Mississippi, long considered a "Red State" as it has voted for the Republican candidate every year since the 1980. However, in the primary this past Tuesday around 442,000 voters voted in the Democratic primary elections while only around 187,000 voted in the Republican primary. This 442k in a primary is almost as many folks that voted for the Democrat candidate, John Kerry, in the last Presidential election.
Is it because of local elections, is it because there were better races on the Democrat ballot, is it because the Republicans were content with their options and didn't see the need to participate, is it a trend that may carry on to the statewide general and/or 2008 Presidential election? You tell me.
My thoughts are that are that it was a combo of the above issues, I think local elections are the biggest reason, I think the Republicans were fairly content and there was a big push on the Democrat side in the Dale/Anderson race. I don't think this is a trend in Mississippi though especially with the Democrat presidential candidate is probably either going to be Hillary, Obama or Edwards, none of which will carry Mississippi.
Is it because of local elections, is it because there were better races on the Democrat ballot, is it because the Republicans were content with their options and didn't see the need to participate, is it a trend that may carry on to the statewide general and/or 2008 Presidential election? You tell me.
My thoughts are that are that it was a combo of the above issues, I think local elections are the biggest reason, I think the Republicans were fairly content and there was a big push on the Democrat side in the Dale/Anderson race. I don't think this is a trend in Mississippi though especially with the Democrat presidential candidate is probably either going to be Hillary, Obama or Edwards, none of which will carry Mississippi.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Harvard Charlie's Castle Doctrine Ad Fallacies
Here is the ad:
Fallacy #1 - Charlie didn't change the law all by himself, which is the clear insuation. He may have been principal author of the bill that passed but Sen. Ross was but one vote in the Senate, then the bill also passed the House and the Guv signed it. Charlie you didn't pass the bill and I wonder what the other 31 sponsers of the bill in the Senate think of the ad and the omission of their assistance.
Fallacy #2 - Darth Vadar doesn't live in Mississippi, now I have to say having Darth sneak up on your porch would be bad but come on, a Darth invasion in a local political ad is a little over the top.
Fallacy #3 - Ross implies he is a guy who gets stuff done for the people, "protecting families". Look at the bills Ross authored in 2007 that passed. A couple of minor changes to the MBCA, UPA, UCC and bills dealing with notaries, assistant d.a.'s, and a bill promoting toll roads. Not a whole lot of protecting the family going on there. In fact, Ross as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary let a bill, HB 1546 in 2005, that actually did help families die that had already passed the House. Oddly enough that bill was authored by now opponent, if Ross wins the GOP nomination, Jamie Franks.
Fallacy #1 - Charlie didn't change the law all by himself, which is the clear insuation. He may have been principal author of the bill that passed but Sen. Ross was but one vote in the Senate, then the bill also passed the House and the Guv signed it. Charlie you didn't pass the bill and I wonder what the other 31 sponsers of the bill in the Senate think of the ad and the omission of their assistance.
Fallacy #2 - Darth Vadar doesn't live in Mississippi, now I have to say having Darth sneak up on your porch would be bad but come on, a Darth invasion in a local political ad is a little over the top.
Fallacy #3 - Ross implies he is a guy who gets stuff done for the people, "protecting families". Look at the bills Ross authored in 2007 that passed. A couple of minor changes to the MBCA, UPA, UCC and bills dealing with notaries, assistant d.a.'s, and a bill promoting toll roads. Not a whole lot of protecting the family going on there. In fact, Ross as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary let a bill, HB 1546 in 2005, that actually did help families die that had already passed the House. Oddly enough that bill was authored by now opponent, if Ross wins the GOP nomination, Jamie Franks.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Best stuff comes in race for No. 2
I'm not normally a fan of the Greenwood Commonwealth paper but I liked this little editorial about the Lt. Governor's race.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
New laws that go into effect today
- House Bill 617 - State pays tuition, room and board for active military members.
- House Bill 1439 - Patients in nursing homes can choose their own pharmacist to serve their needs.
- Senate Bill 2057- Drivers must move a lane over when an emergency vehicle is aiding another motorist.
- Senate Bill 3034 - Consumers can freeze their credit reports with the three major bureaus if they have been a victim of identity theft.
- House Bill 423 - The state Commission of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks can study whether to allow hunting over grain.
- Senate Bill 2772 - Residents must have a permit to buy a stun gun.
- Senate Bill 2825 - Registered sex offenders cannot be on or near school campuses under most circumstances.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
No Smoke for You
Apparently this, no smoking anywhere thing is spreading across Mississippi. See the city of Ridgeland passing an ordinance banning smoking city wide. This adds Ridgeland to the list of Tupelo, Hattiesburg, Mantachie, Oxford and others. Let me first identify myself as someone who is not a smoker, never has been a smoker and am somewhat allergic to lots of smoke. Most would think I would be in favor this, I am not. However, people should look at ordnances like this as objectionably.
1. This isn't city/county property they are influencing, it's private property.
2. These cities are telling business how to operate and what type of clientele are acceptable.
3. If a restaurant/business wants to be smoke free it can do that without an ordinance.
4. If someone doesn't want to visit a restaurant/business because it is smokey then they can leave and go elsewhere. It is the same idea as changing the channel on your television if you don't like what is on.
5. If a business loses customers because of smoke that is their right and their business model will/should determine if they want to be smoke free.
6. Cigarettes are not illegal.
I am not saying that Ridgeland have done anything illegal, ordinances like this do most likely fall under "public welfare" and if the people vote to want it then they can have it in this great democracy we live in. What I am saying is that it's not smart, and its not fair. Ordinances like these are social segregation, instead of whites telling blacks "You can't live here" it's non-smokers telling smokers on their own private property "You can't smoke here". And don't start with arguments about well you can ban drugs on your own private property, it's because those things are per se violations of law, lighting a cigarette is not. I can, and have, walked out of a restaurant because it was too smokey, I have left a casino sooner rather than later because of smoke, these were my decisions and they my appropriate response to a businesses decision. Now the businesses don't get to make the decision anymore, that has been taken over by the anti-smoking special interest and the Board of Aldermen
1. This isn't city/county property they are influencing, it's private property.
2. These cities are telling business how to operate and what type of clientele are acceptable.
3. If a restaurant/business wants to be smoke free it can do that without an ordinance.
4. If someone doesn't want to visit a restaurant/business because it is smokey then they can leave and go elsewhere. It is the same idea as changing the channel on your television if you don't like what is on.
5. If a business loses customers because of smoke that is their right and their business model will/should determine if they want to be smoke free.
6. Cigarettes are not illegal.
I am not saying that Ridgeland have done anything illegal, ordinances like this do most likely fall under "public welfare" and if the people vote to want it then they can have it in this great democracy we live in. What I am saying is that it's not smart, and its not fair. Ordinances like these are social segregation, instead of whites telling blacks "You can't live here" it's non-smokers telling smokers on their own private property "You can't smoke here". And don't start with arguments about well you can ban drugs on your own private property, it's because those things are per se violations of law, lighting a cigarette is not. I can, and have, walked out of a restaurant because it was too smokey, I have left a casino sooner rather than later because of smoke, these were my decisions and they my appropriate response to a businesses decision. Now the businesses don't get to make the decision anymore, that has been taken over by the anti-smoking special interest and the Board of Aldermen
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
It's time for the gloves to come off in the Lt. Governor's race
The Republicans get to choose between Charlie Ross and Phil Bryant this August, a mere 2 months away and it seems like this week the campaign has really kicked into full gear. Ross started running campaign ads this week and Bryant can't be far behind. We have seen some jabs back and forth but Bryant's association with the Partnership and several jabs at failed audits. I haven't seen as much out of Bryant to this point but he is ahead in most polling so he might be holding out for now. Both Ross and Bryant have over a half million dollars in the bank, I believe last reports were that Ross had over a Million in Cash on Hand, and in two months any left over will just be wasted for one of them so see things pick up in the near future.
For my money I bet Bryant will win the nomination simply because not enough Repubs know Charlie Ross despite the fact, IMO, Ross is the more polished, smarter and probably more effective candidate. At some point political races are just popularity contest when the 2 candidates run on almost all of the same issues which is what Ross and Bryant are doing. Additionally, Bryant has the endorsement of the Home Builders Association, Realators Association, Paul Gallo (who has a wide audience in the Republican households) and Don Wildman (far-right Tupelo religous advocate/zealot) and as silly as it sounds endorsements do mean something when they all pile up for one person.
For my money I bet Bryant will win the nomination simply because not enough Repubs know Charlie Ross despite the fact, IMO, Ross is the more polished, smarter and probably more effective candidate. At some point political races are just popularity contest when the 2 candidates run on almost all of the same issues which is what Ross and Bryant are doing. Additionally, Bryant has the endorsement of the Home Builders Association, Realators Association, Paul Gallo (who has a wide audience in the Republican households) and Don Wildman (far-right Tupelo religous advocate/zealot) and as silly as it sounds endorsements do mean something when they all pile up for one person.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Judicial Qualifications
In the light of Judge Leslie Southwick having his nomination being taken back up today I wanted to try and put forth an open thread with more of a question.
What do you think are proper qualifications for a Federal Judge?
I think Polly, one of our new writers, is working on a Southwick post and you have already seen posts by me and comments by Representative Green on the subject so I open up the floor to you, the reader.
What do you think are proper qualifications for a Federal Judge?
I think Polly, one of our new writers, is working on a Southwick post and you have already seen posts by me and comments by Representative Green on the subject so I open up the floor to you, the reader.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Party Registration for Primaries
I didn't want to let the week pass without at least touching on this story. Late last week US District Judge Allan Pepper ruled that political parties have a right to stop non-party members from voting in their primary elections and suggested that party registration and voter ID would do that. Several different issues that greatly influence Mississippi jump out of this.
1. parties can exclude non-party members
2. party registration is / will be required
3. voter i.d. is being pushed by the courts
I will take these issues separately:
1. I don't have a big problem with this idea, if a candidate is to be chosen as the "Democratic" or "Republican" candidate then only members of those parties are the people who should be selecting them. I realize the arguments such as "there are only 2 parties that can win" and "if you don't vote in the primary you're left with no choice" but to me if a candidate is to represent a party he should be voted to that position by members of that party, not outsiders. Now I'm starting to sound like Ellis Turnage, who IMO is a big nut-job, but on this idea maybe we agree.
2. Party registration being required is another good idea, how do you know who you are as a group without having a list of some sort. Fears of party registration go back to the Red Scare (and before I'm sure) in America but I just don't see the problem. Many people say that there are only 2 parties and if you can't vote in one of those primaries your choices are limited to an extent that it corrupts the process. I just don't believe that, if enough people are unhappy with a party that party will go away, if enough people who are unhappy form together a new party will be founded. History is our proving ground for this, in the beginning there were Federalist and Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republicans), there were Whigs and Free-Soilers, there were Know-nothings, Greenbacks and Populist Parties and there were Bull Mooser's, Socialist, Democrat and Republican parties, Parties come and go, power swings back and forth and the more power these "third-party" parties get the more neutralized the big 2 become, just look at the evolution of the Republican party from Lincoln to Reagan and look at how Republicans have changed from Willkie to Bush 43 (from economic conservatism to mass social spending and debt creation). All of this is said to show that just because you aren't voting in one of the big 2 parties doesn't mean your ideas won't be heard.
3. voter i.d. seems to be pushed by this ruling. I, personally am a fan of voter i.d. I think I understand the premise behind it's opponents that some voters feel hassled, that some voters become afraid because things like i.d. prevented them from voting 40 years ago.
Let me start with saying it is not that much of a hassle. If you can drag yourself up to the ballot box you can come up to the circuit clerks office and fill out a new voter registration form. If you don't have an i.d. because you don't drive then they can get you an i.d. just for voting, we have special i.d.'s for military, special i.d.'s for gun permits, this would not be a problem. And for the most extreme of cases, those shut-ins and disabled people I'm sure a decent exception could be offered of an in-home visit by a clerk's assistant to verify. Keep it mind these exceptions would rarely, if ever, be used.
As for those people who say well my grandma was harassed by a poll tax way back when and I shouldn't be hassled, you should grow up. Voter intimidation in the 60's and before did happen but that was 40 years ago, and now we actually have a system in place to deal with voter intimidation if it were to rear its ugly head. This simply is not a modern day problem and we cannot let fear of issues of a half a century ago influence something as important as getting an accurate voting system.
My one slight problem with this issue is that voter i.d. shouldn't be pushed by the courts, it should be pushed by the people. The people's voice is in the legislature and I simply do not understand the lock the "Black Caucus" has on any voter i.d. bill that comes through the State House of Representatives. Let it pass, your voters will be leery the first time but after that everything will be fine, people are scared of change, of the unknown, but this is a good thing that keeps everyone above board.
As always we welcome comments and ideas.
1. parties can exclude non-party members
2. party registration is / will be required
3. voter i.d. is being pushed by the courts
I will take these issues separately:
1. I don't have a big problem with this idea, if a candidate is to be chosen as the "Democratic" or "Republican" candidate then only members of those parties are the people who should be selecting them. I realize the arguments such as "there are only 2 parties that can win" and "if you don't vote in the primary you're left with no choice" but to me if a candidate is to represent a party he should be voted to that position by members of that party, not outsiders. Now I'm starting to sound like Ellis Turnage, who IMO is a big nut-job, but on this idea maybe we agree.
2. Party registration being required is another good idea, how do you know who you are as a group without having a list of some sort. Fears of party registration go back to the Red Scare (and before I'm sure) in America but I just don't see the problem. Many people say that there are only 2 parties and if you can't vote in one of those primaries your choices are limited to an extent that it corrupts the process. I just don't believe that, if enough people are unhappy with a party that party will go away, if enough people who are unhappy form together a new party will be founded. History is our proving ground for this, in the beginning there were Federalist and Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republicans), there were Whigs and Free-Soilers, there were Know-nothings, Greenbacks and Populist Parties and there were Bull Mooser's, Socialist, Democrat and Republican parties, Parties come and go, power swings back and forth and the more power these "third-party" parties get the more neutralized the big 2 become, just look at the evolution of the Republican party from Lincoln to Reagan and look at how Republicans have changed from Willkie to Bush 43 (from economic conservatism to mass social spending and debt creation). All of this is said to show that just because you aren't voting in one of the big 2 parties doesn't mean your ideas won't be heard.
3. voter i.d. seems to be pushed by this ruling. I, personally am a fan of voter i.d. I think I understand the premise behind it's opponents that some voters feel hassled, that some voters become afraid because things like i.d. prevented them from voting 40 years ago.
Let me start with saying it is not that much of a hassle. If you can drag yourself up to the ballot box you can come up to the circuit clerks office and fill out a new voter registration form. If you don't have an i.d. because you don't drive then they can get you an i.d. just for voting, we have special i.d.'s for military, special i.d.'s for gun permits, this would not be a problem. And for the most extreme of cases, those shut-ins and disabled people I'm sure a decent exception could be offered of an in-home visit by a clerk's assistant to verify. Keep it mind these exceptions would rarely, if ever, be used.
As for those people who say well my grandma was harassed by a poll tax way back when and I shouldn't be hassled, you should grow up. Voter intimidation in the 60's and before did happen but that was 40 years ago, and now we actually have a system in place to deal with voter intimidation if it were to rear its ugly head. This simply is not a modern day problem and we cannot let fear of issues of a half a century ago influence something as important as getting an accurate voting system.
My one slight problem with this issue is that voter i.d. shouldn't be pushed by the courts, it should be pushed by the people. The people's voice is in the legislature and I simply do not understand the lock the "Black Caucus" has on any voter i.d. bill that comes through the State House of Representatives. Let it pass, your voters will be leery the first time but after that everything will be fine, people are scared of change, of the unknown, but this is a good thing that keeps everyone above board.
As always we welcome comments and ideas.
Monday, June 11, 2007
MS Supreme Court talks about Justice Court Judge Qualifications
I really found this opinion, Montgomery v. Lowndes County Democratic Executive Committee, interesting. Late last year myself and 2 other reference librarians I work with all considered running for an open Justice Court Judgeship in Rankin County. However, none of us lived in the district represented. We did a little research and could not find anything saying you must live in the district but common sense says you should live in the district and we all kind of dismissed the idea (plus we are all pretty busy so it was mostly just talk anyway).
Then last week the Supreme Court handed down the opinion in Montgomery which clearly provides that we were right about the law and wrong in our assumption. Apparently the only qualifications are those explicitly laid out in the Mississippi Constitution, Sec. 171 and 241, and being in the county is enough and being in the district in not required. This is despite a somewhat on point law, 23-15-359, and an Attorney General's Opinion that disagreed with where the Court went.
Let me take this as an opportunity to share that AG opinions are almost entirely worthless, they are kind of like Presidential singing statements and carry no weight and in modern day legalities carry no sway (unlike the sway they might have carried in the early 20th century). This is not a fault or indictment on the AG's office but just a simple truth that no one should pay attention to them because the courts do not.
As always feedback and/or discussion is welcomed.
Then last week the Supreme Court handed down the opinion in Montgomery which clearly provides that we were right about the law and wrong in our assumption. Apparently the only qualifications are those explicitly laid out in the Mississippi Constitution, Sec. 171 and 241, and being in the county is enough and being in the district in not required. This is despite a somewhat on point law, 23-15-359, and an Attorney General's Opinion that disagreed with where the Court went.
Let me take this as an opportunity to share that AG opinions are almost entirely worthless, they are kind of like Presidential singing statements and carry no weight and in modern day legalities carry no sway (unlike the sway they might have carried in the early 20th century). This is not a fault or indictment on the AG's office but just a simple truth that no one should pay attention to them because the courts do not.
As always feedback and/or discussion is welcomed.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Southwick Nomination
The latest news on Judge Leslie Southwick's nomination to the 5th circuit is that a second scheduled vote has been postponed, thereby putting him in some sort of holding pattern. For an article see here. I post this here because this blog has gotten a lot of traffic regarding Judge Southwick.
If you have any comments either pro or con regarding Judge Southwick we welcome debate at Mississippi Law and we welcome your point of view; however, if you are willing to dish it out please be willing to take it also.
If you have any comments either pro or con regarding Judge Southwick we welcome debate at Mississippi Law and we welcome your point of view; however, if you are willing to dish it out please be willing to take it also.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Possession of a Weapon by a Felon, Mississippi Code 97-37-5
Ran across this statute last week and thought it might make for an interesting blog post. Below is the text of the statute. My commentary is the green text that is mixed in. If you have any comments please feel free to add them in.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or of the United States to possess any firearm or any bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm unless such person has received a pardon for such felony, has received a relief from disability pursuant to Section 925(c) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or has received a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.
(1c) This is an interesting list of "weapons": bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack or silencer. My issue with this list is who gets to decide what a certain type of knife is? Switchblade is fairly clear but a Bowie knife is more confusing, is their a length something has to be to be a Bowie or a Butcher knife is even more open to interpretation, are we talking a clever or a boning knife or any knife that can be found in the grocery store meat department? I don't see any definitions for these "weapons" so I guess discretion falls to the courts, but with that comes the problem of wrongful arrest if a cop thinks its a knife under this section but the judge doesn't. I wish this section was more clear.
(2) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not more than three (3) years, or both.
(2c) This section had a proposed amendment to make this a 10 year maximum penalty, up from 3 by HB 1552 (2007), but it did not get out of committee. I don't have a big problem with this amendment but I always worry about how many sentences get increased in election years for those about to try and reelected want to look "tough on crime".
(3) A person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state may apply to the court in which he was convicted for a certificate of rehabilitation. The court may grant such certificate in its discretion upon a showing to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant has been rehabilitated and has led a useful, productive and law-abiding life since the completion of his sentence and upon the finding of the court that he will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
(3c) I like this provision, kind of a reward for being "rehabilitated". However, it does provide for discretion which can be good or bad with elected judges and could, in a broken system, allow for the purchasing of these certificates of rehabilitation with a lawyer who is buddies with a judge or a campaign contribution to the judge that slides past most voters.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or of the United States to possess any firearm or any bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm unless such person has received a pardon for such felony, has received a relief from disability pursuant to Section 925(c) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, or has received a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.
(1c) This is an interesting list of "weapons": bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack or silencer. My issue with this list is who gets to decide what a certain type of knife is? Switchblade is fairly clear but a Bowie knife is more confusing, is their a length something has to be to be a Bowie or a Butcher knife is even more open to interpretation, are we talking a clever or a boning knife or any knife that can be found in the grocery store meat department? I don't see any definitions for these "weapons" so I guess discretion falls to the courts, but with that comes the problem of wrongful arrest if a cop thinks its a knife under this section but the judge doesn't. I wish this section was more clear.
(2) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not more than three (3) years, or both.
(2c) This section had a proposed amendment to make this a 10 year maximum penalty, up from 3 by HB 1552 (2007), but it did not get out of committee. I don't have a big problem with this amendment but I always worry about how many sentences get increased in election years for those about to try and reelected want to look "tough on crime".
(3) A person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state may apply to the court in which he was convicted for a certificate of rehabilitation. The court may grant such certificate in its discretion upon a showing to the satisfaction of the court that the applicant has been rehabilitated and has led a useful, productive and law-abiding life since the completion of his sentence and upon the finding of the court that he will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.
(3c) I like this provision, kind of a reward for being "rehabilitated". However, it does provide for discretion which can be good or bad with elected judges and could, in a broken system, allow for the purchasing of these certificates of rehabilitation with a lawyer who is buddies with a judge or a campaign contribution to the judge that slides past most voters.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Oktibbeha Co. Hospital v. Mississippi State University, MS Dept of Health and Premier Radiology
Issued last week by the MS Supreme Court was an interesting ruling, 2006-SA-00358-SCT, concerning the CON (Certificate of Need) process in Mississippi. For a slight bit of background I will say that to run a hospital or medical center of some sort in Mississippi you need a CON which is has many, many hoops to jump through and red tape to be crossed. I beleive they all have to start as legislation and the hoops and tape are administered by the MDOH. In this case it appears that the legislature passed a bill in 2004 that would allow a MRI system and a linear accelerator (I think they are similiar but different, but I'm no doctor) to be placed in Starkville with the condition that 2/3 of its operable time be allowed to the University for research purposes and 1/3 of its operable time could be for private use. With this bill the normal CON procedures were waved. The Oktibbeha Co. Hospital (OCH) objected to this, a suit followed and last week the MS Supreme Court ruled on it, saying that this bill was not unconstitutional and that use of these systems through Mississippi State is acceptable.
Now I will provide a bit of my take on this.
OCH was the only game in town for things like a MRI and with this bill they lose their local monopoly. I'm sure they are more upset by the 1/3 time that Premier Radiology is getting than the 2/3 research component for MSU.
I think MSU and more especially Premier pulled a bit of a fast one as Premier used the cover of a research university (really the research university in the state) to get access to machines that can exponentially expand their business without jumping through the hoops and redtape of a CON process.
Finally, I think OCH is pretty unhappy with their lawyers at this point. While the Court didn't completely blast the lawyers for not filing this constitutional challenge with the MS Attorney General's Office, as is required, they did make a remark and strike that entire part of the argument (one of the three issues). The Court didn't buy the argument that because MSU was served and technically the head lawyer at MSU is an AG attorney proper notice was given. This strikes me as a piece of bad lawyering as service and notice are one of the few things that is easy to get right and they didn't do so in this case.
Now I will provide a bit of my take on this.
OCH was the only game in town for things like a MRI and with this bill they lose their local monopoly. I'm sure they are more upset by the 1/3 time that Premier Radiology is getting than the 2/3 research component for MSU.
I think MSU and more especially Premier pulled a bit of a fast one as Premier used the cover of a research university (really the research university in the state) to get access to machines that can exponentially expand their business without jumping through the hoops and redtape of a CON process.
Finally, I think OCH is pretty unhappy with their lawyers at this point. While the Court didn't completely blast the lawyers for not filing this constitutional challenge with the MS Attorney General's Office, as is required, they did make a remark and strike that entire part of the argument (one of the three issues). The Court didn't buy the argument that because MSU was served and technically the head lawyer at MSU is an AG attorney proper notice was given. This strikes me as a piece of bad lawyering as service and notice are one of the few things that is easy to get right and they didn't do so in this case.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Mississippi Legal News of Note
Couple of items I wanted to make sure and pass along in case you had missed them
- Ann Hannaford Lamar of Senatobia was appointed to the Mississippi Supreme Court by Governor Haley Barbour to fill departing Justice Kay Cobb's Northern District post. Lamar is a former Circuit Court Judge for the 17th district and former District Attorney. I know very little about Lamar but she looks qualified and has stayed out of the news for anything that might be considered "bad". On a personal not I would like to say I am glad Barbour appointed a female to replace the only female that was on the Court. I'm not a huge feminist supporter but females make up half of the population of the State there should be at least one on the State's Supreme Court.
- former Court of Appeals Judge and current nominee to the 5th Circuit, Leslie Southwick, has had his confirmation process started with the often contentious questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to some news articles opposite has arisen due to votes Southwick made while on the Court of Appeals. Southwick responded with [paraphrasing] I voted with an opinion that accurately reflected what the law in Mississippi states. I understand the groups that disagree with what these cases held and don't like Southwick's voting (not authoring) these opinions but a Judge's job is to rule on what is the law, not to make the law and if the law is not unconstitutional then there is not much the judge can do; and further if the law is not challenged as being unconstitutional they shouldn't even consider that. I'm not sure of the background on these complaints but what I have seen looks like certain groups are trying to make a problem where there is none to be made. For more discussion on this nomination I recommend googling Judge Southwick's name and there are many articles and blogs out there this week.
- Ann Hannaford Lamar of Senatobia was appointed to the Mississippi Supreme Court by Governor Haley Barbour to fill departing Justice Kay Cobb's Northern District post. Lamar is a former Circuit Court Judge for the 17th district and former District Attorney. I know very little about Lamar but she looks qualified and has stayed out of the news for anything that might be considered "bad". On a personal not I would like to say I am glad Barbour appointed a female to replace the only female that was on the Court. I'm not a huge feminist supporter but females make up half of the population of the State there should be at least one on the State's Supreme Court.
- former Court of Appeals Judge and current nominee to the 5th Circuit, Leslie Southwick, has had his confirmation process started with the often contentious questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to some news articles opposite has arisen due to votes Southwick made while on the Court of Appeals. Southwick responded with [paraphrasing] I voted with an opinion that accurately reflected what the law in Mississippi states. I understand the groups that disagree with what these cases held and don't like Southwick's voting (not authoring) these opinions but a Judge's job is to rule on what is the law, not to make the law and if the law is not unconstitutional then there is not much the judge can do; and further if the law is not challenged as being unconstitutional they shouldn't even consider that. I'm not sure of the background on these complaints but what I have seen looks like certain groups are trying to make a problem where there is none to be made. For more discussion on this nomination I recommend googling Judge Southwick's name and there are many articles and blogs out there this week.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Mississippi and the Line-Item Veto
There currently is a debate brewing in Mississippi legal/political circles as Governor Barbour has used a line-item veto to eliminate a 5.5 million dollar expenditure that was passed this past legislative session and Attorney General Jim Hood had objected to this. For articles/editorials regarding the veto see here,Clarion Ledger Editorial, and here, Hattiesburg American Article. The appropriate sections of the Mississippi Constitution appear to be Section 73, Section 72, and Section 69 presented below.
The lines seem to be drawn with Barbour relying on Section 73 of the MS Constitution and Hood relying on the the decision in Barbour v. Delta Correctional Facility Authority, 871 So.2d 703 in which the MS Supreme Court ruled a line-item veto as unconstitutional. My reading of this opinion is it was narrowly tailored to address what appears to be a rather unusual situation with correctional appropriations. I found the dissent by (soon to be departing the Court) Justice Cobb more persuasive and helpful to show that there is also case law supporting the ability to use a line-item veto in certain circumstances. What these cases seem to turn on is whether the bill is an appropriations bill (see Sec. 69) or not. Theoretically all appropriations are supposed to be done only in appropriations bills but bleedover is not that uncommon where legislating is combined with funding. If it is an appropriation then the governor can line-item veto, if not then no line-item option. The bills in question here are HB 1681 and HB 1689 both of which appear to be appropriations bill to me and therefore able to be line-item vetoed.
Section 73. Veto of parts of appropriations bills.
The Governor may veto parts of any appropriation bill, and approve parts of the same, and the portions approved shall be law.
Section 72. Approval or disapproval of bill by Governor; veto override process.
Every Bill which shall pass both Houses shall be presented to the Governor of the state. If he approve, he shall sign it; but if he does not approve, he shall return it, with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the objections at large upon its Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds (2/3) of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, with the objections, to the other House, by which, likewise, it shall be reconsidered; and if approved by two-thirds (2/3) of that House, it shall become a law; but in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the Governor within five (5) days (Sundays excepted) after it has been presented to him, it shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by adjournment, prevented its return, in which case such Bill shall be a law unless the Governor shall; veto it within fifteen (15) days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him, and such Bill shall be returned to the Legislature, with his objections, within three (3) days after the beginning of the next session of the Legislature.
Section 69. Contents of appropriations bills.
General appropriation bills shall contain only the appropriations to defray the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government; to pay interest on state bonds, and to support the common schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject. Legislation shall not be engrafted on the appropriation bills, but the same may prescribe the conditions on which the money may be drawn, and for what purposes paid.
The lines seem to be drawn with Barbour relying on Section 73 of the MS Constitution and Hood relying on the the decision in Barbour v. Delta Correctional Facility Authority, 871 So.2d 703 in which the MS Supreme Court ruled a line-item veto as unconstitutional. My reading of this opinion is it was narrowly tailored to address what appears to be a rather unusual situation with correctional appropriations. I found the dissent by (soon to be departing the Court) Justice Cobb more persuasive and helpful to show that there is also case law supporting the ability to use a line-item veto in certain circumstances. What these cases seem to turn on is whether the bill is an appropriations bill (see Sec. 69) or not. Theoretically all appropriations are supposed to be done only in appropriations bills but bleedover is not that uncommon where legislating is combined with funding. If it is an appropriation then the governor can line-item veto, if not then no line-item option. The bills in question here are HB 1681 and HB 1689 both of which appear to be appropriations bill to me and therefore able to be line-item vetoed.
Section 73. Veto of parts of appropriations bills.
The Governor may veto parts of any appropriation bill, and approve parts of the same, and the portions approved shall be law.
Section 72. Approval or disapproval of bill by Governor; veto override process.
Every Bill which shall pass both Houses shall be presented to the Governor of the state. If he approve, he shall sign it; but if he does not approve, he shall return it, with his objections, to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the objections at large upon its Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds (2/3) of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, with the objections, to the other House, by which, likewise, it shall be reconsidered; and if approved by two-thirds (2/3) of that House, it shall become a law; but in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the Governor within five (5) days (Sundays excepted) after it has been presented to him, it shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by adjournment, prevented its return, in which case such Bill shall be a law unless the Governor shall; veto it within fifteen (15) days (Sundays excepted) after it is presented to him, and such Bill shall be returned to the Legislature, with his objections, within three (3) days after the beginning of the next session of the Legislature.
Section 69. Contents of appropriations bills.
General appropriation bills shall contain only the appropriations to defray the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government; to pay interest on state bonds, and to support the common schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject. Legislation shall not be engrafted on the appropriation bills, but the same may prescribe the conditions on which the money may be drawn, and for what purposes paid.
link to the blog of the cartoonist who did the below cartoon.
Monday, April 30, 2007
National Article regarding MS Governor's race
This isn't a home for promoting certain campaigns but I saw this article regarding John Arthur Eaves, Democratic Gubanatorial candidate, in the Washington Post. It is rare that MS gets national press that isn't derogatory in some manner so when I see an article that isn't taking a swipe at MS I thought I might pass it along.
Link to the article here.
Link to the article here.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Camera's in the Courtroom
As I watch the news tonight I can't help but think back 6 or 7 years to a speech I heard in undergrad. The speaker was (then) Mississippi Supreme Court Chief Justice Ed Pittman and the speech was about putting camera's in the courtrooms to help make the courts more transparent. This seemed to be very important for Chief Justice Pittman and has become one of his most notable pieces of his legacy on the bench.
This speech has revisted me with the most recent trial of Frank Melton where a camera in the courtroom has been fed to the Jackson television stations and is live streaming on their websites for anyone to view when court is in session. Additionally, most oral arguments before the Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are broadcast on the Supreme Courts website. Back in 2001 I though Justice Pittman's idea of the camera's was good but now it seems as they are actually working as he planned it seems like a terrific idea, allowing us a look into trials ranging from Edgar Ray Killen to Frank Melton to Haley Barbour v. the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi, all of which were streamed across the state for those who wanted to watch.
For live videos feeds of the Supreme Court & the Court of Appeals see here
For the statement released by the Court when camera's were first allowed see here
For the most recent streaming involving the mayor of our state capital you can go to WLBT, WAPT or WJTV and catch their streams.
This speech has revisted me with the most recent trial of Frank Melton where a camera in the courtroom has been fed to the Jackson television stations and is live streaming on their websites for anyone to view when court is in session. Additionally, most oral arguments before the Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are broadcast on the Supreme Courts website. Back in 2001 I though Justice Pittman's idea of the camera's was good but now it seems as they are actually working as he planned it seems like a terrific idea, allowing us a look into trials ranging from Edgar Ray Killen to Frank Melton to Haley Barbour v. the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi, all of which were streamed across the state for those who wanted to watch.
For live videos feeds of the Supreme Court & the Court of Appeals see here
For the statement released by the Court when camera's were first allowed see here
For the most recent streaming involving the mayor of our state capital you can go to WLBT, WAPT or WJTV and catch their streams.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Clarion Ledger doin the hard work
Wanted to make sure and pass along this good compilation. The CL has compiled the Senate voting records for SB - 2391 (Abortion clarifications), 2764 (Disbanding the Board of Health), 2375 (Toll Roads), 3215 (Economic Development), 2470 (felony firearm possession); HB 238 (Education Funding), 423 (Deer Baiting), 1500 (Windstorm, Insurance Law Changes); SCR 621 (food/cigarette tax swap). I encourage you to follow the above links to read the bills for yourselves.
Link
Link
Friday, April 13, 2007
New Laws - SB 2369 - Phys Ed for K-8 Students
The Mississippi Healthy Students Act, SB 2369, was passed this past session requiring Kindergarten through 8th grade students to get 150 minutes of exercise per week and 45 minutes of health per week. Additionally high school students are required to get a .5 credit in phys ed or physical activity. This also appears to create local school health councils with members appointed from parents, teachers, students, administrators and about anyone else you can think of.
For the actual logistics dealing with this new law it looks like in Section 2 paragraph 3 the legislature is supposed to appropriate money to hire a "physical activity coordinator" and the schools must adopt a Wellness Plan by the beginning of the 2006-07 school year (which is almost over) and beginning with the 2008-09 school year the "plan shall also promote increased physical activity, healthy eating habits and abstinence from the use of tobacco and illegal drugs through programs that incorporate healthy lifestyle choices ..." The entire act is effect on July 1, 2007.
The couple of questions I had when reading this is when do schools have to be compliant?, and why wait until 08-09 to put physical activity in the Wellness Plan if the Act is effective July 2007? This bill, SB 2369, looks so bare that you can't really tell what is going on. It makes a blanket statement of more minutes for Phys Ed and Health but no start date because, at least to me, it doesn't appear to be an actual part of a Wellness Plan that doesn't go into effect until 2008 and even if it did what looks like the Wellness Plan seems to be the same thing people have been wanting for years.
My assumptions are that the more Phys Ed starts this August (of 2007) and these magical plans don't have to incorporate Phys Ed until 2008 (which will actually be after they are already in effect).
If anyone can provide clarity on this for me, please do so. I think I agree with the premise but this appears to be a prime example of legislative confusion.
For the actual logistics dealing with this new law it looks like in Section 2 paragraph 3 the legislature is supposed to appropriate money to hire a "physical activity coordinator" and the schools must adopt a Wellness Plan by the beginning of the 2006-07 school year (which is almost over) and beginning with the 2008-09 school year the "plan shall also promote increased physical activity, healthy eating habits and abstinence from the use of tobacco and illegal drugs through programs that incorporate healthy lifestyle choices ..." The entire act is effect on July 1, 2007.
The couple of questions I had when reading this is when do schools have to be compliant?, and why wait until 08-09 to put physical activity in the Wellness Plan if the Act is effective July 2007? This bill, SB 2369, looks so bare that you can't really tell what is going on. It makes a blanket statement of more minutes for Phys Ed and Health but no start date because, at least to me, it doesn't appear to be an actual part of a Wellness Plan that doesn't go into effect until 2008 and even if it did what looks like the Wellness Plan seems to be the same thing people have been wanting for years.
My assumptions are that the more Phys Ed starts this August (of 2007) and these magical plans don't have to incorporate Phys Ed until 2008 (which will actually be after they are already in effect).
If anyone can provide clarity on this for me, please do so. I think I agree with the premise but this appears to be a prime example of legislative confusion.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Insurance Law Update
Just wanted to provide a short annotation of proposed bills (that are alive as of last Monday or passed) for 2006 and 2007. I know there is probably a small audience for this type of info but for those select few here you go:
To get to the bill language go here and then find the bill by scrolling down the page
2007 – Singed by governor
- HB 1311 - Insurance producers; provide time limit to appeal licensing decisions of Commissioner of Insurance.
- HB 1313 – Insurance companies; revise financial reporting requirements with the Commissioner of Insurance.
- SB 2337 – State income tax credit for purchase of private insurance to cover long-term care insurance
2007 – alive but not fully passed either, awaiting signature or in conference
HB 753 – mentions windstorm in non-amended sections
HB 1312 – Insurance rebate monies; county must designate fire investigator and require training
HB 1485 – revise requirements on bail bondsmen
HB 1500 – Mississippi Economic Growth and Redevelopment Act of 2007 (Windstorm)
HB 1524 – public adjusters; provide for licensure and regulation by Commissioner of Insurance
HB 1727 – income tax and insurance premium tax; authorize a credit for certain investments made by qualified development entities
SB 2644 – State Employees Health Insurance Management Board; add directors of JUCO Board and PERS
SB 2809 – Auto liability insurance; place lienholder’s name on insurance check as loss payee
SB 3050 – Mississippi Economic Growth and Redevelopment Act of 2007 (Windstorm)
SB 3090 – City of Pascagoula; authorize payment of retirees’ health insurance premiums
2006 – all signed by the governor
HB 720 – Bail Agents, require certain license requirements
HB 984 – Risk retention/purchasing groups; delete annual registration fee
HB 1175 – revising the definition of “insurance” under the Preneed Cemetery and Funeral Registration Act
SB 2006 – Insurance Coverage; require notice of cancellation mailed to creditor loss payee
SB 2056 – Med Mal Insurance Availability Plan; authorize Tort Claims Board to transfer assets and liabilities
SB 2076 – Insurance agents; exempt from examination applicants for credit property license
SB 2332 – Prohibit rate increases on auto insurance for active military personal; MCPA
SB 2381 – authorize ADR procedure for personal lines insurance claims (DOI)
SB 2382 – Insurance agent/producer licensing laws; make technical changes (DOI)
SB 2424 – Unauthorized insurance agents; extend repealer on law prohibiting commission payments
SB 2557 – Insurance premium finance law/sale of checks law; make technical changes
SB 2849 – allow pooling of liabilities under an employers liability insurance policy; Workers’ Comp Comm.
SB 2963 – Exemption from Health Savings Accounts; execution
To get to the bill language go here and then find the bill by scrolling down the page
2007 – Singed by governor
- HB 1311 - Insurance producers; provide time limit to appeal licensing decisions of Commissioner of Insurance.
- HB 1313 – Insurance companies; revise financial reporting requirements with the Commissioner of Insurance.
- SB 2337 – State income tax credit for purchase of private insurance to cover long-term care insurance
2007 – alive but not fully passed either, awaiting signature or in conference
HB 753 – mentions windstorm in non-amended sections
HB 1312 – Insurance rebate monies; county must designate fire investigator and require training
HB 1485 – revise requirements on bail bondsmen
HB 1500 – Mississippi Economic Growth and Redevelopment Act of 2007 (Windstorm)
HB 1524 – public adjusters; provide for licensure and regulation by Commissioner of Insurance
HB 1727 – income tax and insurance premium tax; authorize a credit for certain investments made by qualified development entities
SB 2644 – State Employees Health Insurance Management Board; add directors of JUCO Board and PERS
SB 2809 – Auto liability insurance; place lienholder’s name on insurance check as loss payee
SB 3050 – Mississippi Economic Growth and Redevelopment Act of 2007 (Windstorm)
SB 3090 – City of Pascagoula; authorize payment of retirees’ health insurance premiums
2006 – all signed by the governor
HB 720 – Bail Agents, require certain license requirements
HB 984 – Risk retention/purchasing groups; delete annual registration fee
HB 1175 – revising the definition of “insurance” under the Preneed Cemetery and Funeral Registration Act
SB 2006 – Insurance Coverage; require notice of cancellation mailed to creditor loss payee
SB 2056 – Med Mal Insurance Availability Plan; authorize Tort Claims Board to transfer assets and liabilities
SB 2076 – Insurance agents; exempt from examination applicants for credit property license
SB 2332 – Prohibit rate increases on auto insurance for active military personal; MCPA
SB 2381 – authorize ADR procedure for personal lines insurance claims (DOI)
SB 2382 – Insurance agent/producer licensing laws; make technical changes (DOI)
SB 2424 – Unauthorized insurance agents; extend repealer on law prohibiting commission payments
SB 2557 – Insurance premium finance law/sale of checks law; make technical changes
SB 2849 – allow pooling of liabilities under an employers liability insurance policy; Workers’ Comp Comm.
SB 2963 – Exemption from Health Savings Accounts; execution
Thursday, March 1, 2007
SB 3036 - Domestic Violence, Revising Protective Orders
What caught my eye about this bill is how many times it has been amended so when I started actually looking at the current amendments I was quiet surprised as how actively it changes the current law for a bill I have not heard anyone mention. For text of the bill with its latest amendments see here . This bill appears to currently be to conference as it has passed both the House and Senate but with different language. Primary changes that could occur with this bill are:
1. creation and implementation of a Mississippi Protective Order Registery (looks a lot like the Sex offender registry to me for those of you who think the SOFR is illegal/unconstitutional).
2. Costs of attorney's fees for the "protected" are to be paid by the violator is a protective order is deemed appropriate.
3. Lots of restrictions can be placed in accordance with this protective order bill, this has typically already been in the purview of the judge but this would make it statutory where I do not believe it has been so clearly delineated before
1. creation and implementation of a Mississippi Protective Order Registery (looks a lot like the Sex offender registry to me for those of you who think the SOFR is illegal/unconstitutional).
2. Costs of attorney's fees for the "protected" are to be paid by the violator is a protective order is deemed appropriate.
3. Lots of restrictions can be placed in accordance with this protective order bill, this has typically already been in the purview of the judge but this would make it statutory where I do not believe it has been so clearly delineated before
Thursday, February 8, 2007
In the news this week
Couple of articles I wanted to reference
First is the passing in the Senate of SB 2617 which is a voter-id bill, for a CL article see here. (It appears this bill is currently held on a motion to reconsider) This bill is traditionally killed in the House but I, personally, am a big proponent of voter-id and think those who speak out against it are just making themselves look foolish by telling stories of slippery slopes that just won't happen in 2006. Perhaps in 1996 (or 1986) these responses would have been more appropriate but not now. Now virtually everyone has ID of some sort, and if they don't they should, this isn't a poll tax or way to hinder the vote, it is in fact a way to insure your right to vote is safer because there should be no way with an ID check that if you are properly on the roll that someone else has voted in your stead.
Second is the passing in the Senate of SB 2795 an abortion bill, this is a quiet similar bill, if not the same, as was killed last year; for a CL article see here. The jist of the bill is that it would eliminate abortion in Mississippi, excepting in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. I highly suggest you read the actual language of the bill as I do not mean to mischaracterize any portion of it.
As always we welcome questions, feedback, personal takes on these or any other issues dealing with Mississippi Law.
First is the passing in the Senate of SB 2617 which is a voter-id bill, for a CL article see here. (It appears this bill is currently held on a motion to reconsider) This bill is traditionally killed in the House but I, personally, am a big proponent of voter-id and think those who speak out against it are just making themselves look foolish by telling stories of slippery slopes that just won't happen in 2006. Perhaps in 1996 (or 1986) these responses would have been more appropriate but not now. Now virtually everyone has ID of some sort, and if they don't they should, this isn't a poll tax or way to hinder the vote, it is in fact a way to insure your right to vote is safer because there should be no way with an ID check that if you are properly on the roll that someone else has voted in your stead.
Second is the passing in the Senate of SB 2795 an abortion bill, this is a quiet similar bill, if not the same, as was killed last year; for a CL article see here. The jist of the bill is that it would eliminate abortion in Mississippi, excepting in cases of rape, incest or life of the mother. I highly suggest you read the actual language of the bill as I do not mean to mischaracterize any portion of it.
As always we welcome questions, feedback, personal takes on these or any other issues dealing with Mississippi Law.
Monday, January 29, 2007
MS Marriage Laws
The Clarion Ledger in Jackson had an intersting editorial today referencing HB 167. Link to the editorial is here. Basically the thought is that the time has passed where a 3 day waiting period and a blood test are now obsolete (and more so, an obsticle for tourism and the drive-thru wedding that casino destinations are known for). Does anyone have any thoughts on changing the law, Is Mississippi in the dark ages or is this just another left-wing progression pushed on Mississippians.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Favorite Proposals
Not much is making news in legislation this week, more talk about Haley Barbour filing his financial report showing before campaigns even get fired up he raised the 3rd largest amount ever, in Mississippi state politics. Due to the slowness of the week I wanted to mention a favorite proposal of mine, House Resolution 1 proposed by Jamie Franks.
It, quiet simply, would place House Roll Call votes on the internet for public viewing I am not really sure why it hasn't been like this in the past, especially since they put in the new boards and voting boxes a couple of years ago.
If you have a proposal you like or would like to discuss let us know.
It, quiet simply, would place House Roll Call votes on the internet for public viewing I am not really sure why it hasn't been like this in the past, especially since they put in the new boards and voting boxes a couple of years ago.
If you have a proposal you like or would like to discuss let us know.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
State of the State
Here is a link to Governor Barbour's State of the State address from last night. While not legal persay it gives a good indication of upcoming veto's and legislative pushes from the governor's office and Mississppi Republicans in general.
Think of it what you will, if someone wants to talk about a specific part of it post a comment and we can run with it.
Think of it what you will, if someone wants to talk about a specific part of it post a comment and we can run with it.
Friday, January 12, 2007
HB 238 - K-12 Education Full Funding Passes the House
Not necessarily the most exciting topic but in an election year it looks like no one wants to squabble over Education funding. For more details see the Daily Journal article, the Hattiesburg American article or this Clarion Ledger article, all of which led their papers today. The vote was 119-1 in the House and the Governor says at this level of full funding (they moved the number down a couple of week ago) he will sign it.
On the more political side of it I think we saw a backdoor compromise between parties that don't like each other. It appears to me that the Democrats pushed hard and loud for fully funding MAEP even before the session started. Barbour and the Republicans balked and contentiousness seemed in the air. However, Ed Chief, Hank Bounds seemed to recalculate the numbers for MAEP, the number went down and now Barbour has an amount he is willing to spend and the Democrats get a fully funded MAEP (even though it is less than previous thought). It looks like this may actually be a year for bipartisanship (and spending) with elections right around the corner.
Link to the actual text of HB 238.
On the more political side of it I think we saw a backdoor compromise between parties that don't like each other. It appears to me that the Democrats pushed hard and loud for fully funding MAEP even before the session started. Barbour and the Republicans balked and contentiousness seemed in the air. However, Ed Chief, Hank Bounds seemed to recalculate the numbers for MAEP, the number went down and now Barbour has an amount he is willing to spend and the Democrats get a fully funded MAEP (even though it is less than previous thought). It looks like this may actually be a year for bipartisanship (and spending) with elections right around the corner.
Link to the actual text of HB 238.
Katrina victim defeats State Farm yesterday
I feel like we would be remiss from mentioning a first major court victory for a homeowner who lost their house in Hurricane Katrina and was denied coverage by their insurer. Here is a link to the article reflecting on the 200k-plus in compensatory damages and 2.5 million in punitive damages awarded to the plaintiffs.
I am a little too close to this situation to talk about specifics with Katrina lawsuits but some of the other mods on this board may want to talk more about this ruling and what may or may not come of it and the other cases filling the coastal county's dockets.
I am a little too close to this situation to talk about specifics with Katrina lawsuits but some of the other mods on this board may want to talk more about this ruling and what may or may not come of it and the other cases filling the coastal county's dockets.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Judge Leslie Southwick
Judge Southwick after several years as a Mississippi Court of Appeals judge has been nominated by President Bush for appointment to the 5th circuit. For a Clarion Ledger editoral about this see here.
This nomination has my full support, as if it needed it, as I have known Judge Southwick for about 5 years meeting him while in lawschool as he taught an Administrative Law class I took. This is a man of great intellect (teaching atleast 3 different subjects at Mississippi College School of Law in Ethics, Administrative Law and Oil and Gas), a sharp humor, and a very good and thorough writer as evidenced by his Court of Appeals opinions which can be found at the MS Supreme Court website, here. I also personally like how Judge Southwick doesn't mind writing dissents and it helps to further show he isn't lazy and takes the position of appellate judge as serious as it should be viewed (unlike some other appellate judges out there).
This nomination has my full support, as if it needed it, as I have known Judge Southwick for about 5 years meeting him while in lawschool as he taught an Administrative Law class I took. This is a man of great intellect (teaching atleast 3 different subjects at Mississippi College School of Law in Ethics, Administrative Law and Oil and Gas), a sharp humor, and a very good and thorough writer as evidenced by his Court of Appeals opinions which can be found at the MS Supreme Court website, here. I also personally like how Judge Southwick doesn't mind writing dissents and it helps to further show he isn't lazy and takes the position of appellate judge as serious as it should be viewed (unlike some other appellate judges out there).
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Raising the Minimum Wage in Mississippi?
This seems to be one of the most talked about topics early this legislative session (excepting the grumbling about Taxes, MAEP and the Democrats with their Day 1 budget bills). House Bill 237 raising the minimum wage from the federally mandated $5.15 to $6.25 and then $7.25 in 2008 passed the house early this week only to be held on a motion to reconsider before it was released to the senate. Linked below is the most recent article from the Clarion Ledger regarding this hot topic. LINK
We welcome any discussion on this or other topics.
We welcome any discussion on this or other topics.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
2007 Legislative Session starts today
I wanted to give a couple of important items regarding the session.
To reach members of the Mississippi House in session: (601) 359-3770. To send a fax, (601) 359-3728.
To reach members of the Mississippi Senate in session: (601)359-3770. To send a fax, (601) 359-3935.
Please be nice to the ladies who answer the phones, I personally know a couple of them from an internship I had at the capitol a few years ago and they put up with a lot of crap from a lot of rude people who should know that there is nothing the secretarial staff can do but pass along the message.
Also if you have any ideas for proposed legislation get it on it, NOW. Deadlines for dropping bills are early every year except the first after an election (next year). I believe the deadline is in the middle of January. If you want to be an actual part of the process then go with a good idea, written out, preferably in bill format that way they can just send it to the committee attorney to make sure it is correctly formatted to be dropped in the box.
To reach members of the Mississippi House in session: (601) 359-3770. To send a fax, (601) 359-3728.
To reach members of the Mississippi Senate in session: (601)359-3770. To send a fax, (601) 359-3935.
Please be nice to the ladies who answer the phones, I personally know a couple of them from an internship I had at the capitol a few years ago and they put up with a lot of crap from a lot of rude people who should know that there is nothing the secretarial staff can do but pass along the message.
Also if you have any ideas for proposed legislation get it on it, NOW. Deadlines for dropping bills are early every year except the first after an election (next year). I believe the deadline is in the middle of January. If you want to be an actual part of the process then go with a good idea, written out, preferably in bill format that way they can just send it to the committee attorney to make sure it is correctly formatted to be dropped in the box.
2007 Legislative Calendar
Link to the official calendar.
1/10 Deadline for making REQUESTS for general bills and constitutional amendments to be drafted.***
1/15 Deadline for INTRODUCTION of bills and constitutional amendments.*
1/30 Deadline for COMMITTEES TO REPORT bills and constitutional amendments originating in OWN House.*+
2/8 Deadline for ORIGINAL FLOOR ACTION on bills and constitutional amendments originating in OWN House.*
2/9 Deadline for reconsideration and passage of bills and constitutional amendments originating in OWN House.*
2/12 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider bills and constitutional amendments originating in OWN House.*
2/21 Deadline for ORIGINAL FLOOR ACTION on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OWN House.
2/22 Deadline for RECONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE OF APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OWN House.
2/23 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OWN House.
2/27 Deadline for COMMITTEES TO REPORT bills and constitutional amendments originating in OTHER House.*+
3/7 Deadline for ORIGINAL FLOOR ACTION on bills and constitutional amendments originating in OTHER House.*
3/8 Deadline for RECONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE of bills and constitutional amendments originating in OTHER House.*
3/9 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider bills and constitutional amendments originating in OTHER House.*
3/13 Deadline for ORIGINAL FLOOR ACTION on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OTHER House.
3/14 Deadline for RECONSIDERATION/PASSAGE of APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OTHER House.
3/15 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OTHER House.
3/16 Deadline to concur or not concur in amendments from OTHER House to APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills.
3/18 Deadline for INTRODUCTION of LOCAL and PRIVATE bills that are REVENUE bills.
3/19 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider concurrence or nonconcurrence in APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills.
3/22 Deadline to CONCUR or not concur in AMENDMENTS from OTHER HOUSE to GENERAL bills and CONSTITUTIONAL amendments.
3/24 Deadline for CONFERENCE REPORTS on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills to be filed.**+
3/25 Deadline for INTRODUCTION of LOCAL and PRIVATE bills that are not REVENUE bills.
3/26 Deadline for FINAL ADOPTION of CONFERENCE REPORTS on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills and for CONFERENCE REPORTS on GENERAL BILLS and CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS to be filed.**+
3/27 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider conference reports on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills.
3/28 Deadline for first consideration of conference reports on general bills and constitutional amendments.
3/29 Deadline for filing conference reports on general bills and constitutional amendments that had been recommitted for further conference.+
3/30 Deadline for adoption of conference reports on general bills and constitutional amendments after recommittal.
3/31 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider conference reports on general bills and constitutional amendments.
4/1 SINE DIE
* Appropriation, revenue, and local and private bills, and bills to restore suffrage are excluded from these deadlines. For purposes of the deadlines herein set forth, the term "revenue bills" shall include only those bills whose primary purpose is to increase or decrease taxes or to authorize the issuance of bonds or the borrowing of money. Bills which are primarily for regulatory purposes which have revenue provisions included shall not be considered as revenue bills for deadline purposes. The deletion from a bill of the features which made it a revenue bill shall render the bill a general bill for deadline purposes.
** Conference reports on all bills must be filed with the Secretary/Clerk no later than the time of adjournment on the day prior to being called up and considered. Appropriation bills which actually appropriate money and are recommitted for further conference are excluded from the requirement that the subsequent conference report be filed and lay on table one (1) day before being considered; however, original action must be taken on all appropriation conference reports by 2:00 p.m. on the 84th/119th day and subsequent reports must be filed no later than 6:00 p.m.
*** Requests for general bills and constitutional amendments to be drafted must be made no later than 8:00 p.m. on the 9th/45th day. The Rules Committee of the House or Senate, as the case may be, may authorize any member of its respective house to make requests, for one or more general bills or constitutional amendments to be drafted, after the expiration of the deadline for making such drafting requests but before the deadline for introduction of bills and constitutional amendments, upon a determination by the Rules Committee that such drafting requests are in response to conditions of an emergency nature arising subsequent to the deadline for making requests for general bills and constitutional amendments to be drafted.
+ Committee reports and conference reports that are subject to being filed on these deadlines must be filed with the Secretary/Clerk no later than 8:00 p.m.
Whenever the word "day" appears in this rule, it shall mean calendar day.
The above schedule shall not be deviated from except by the passage of a concurrent resolution adopted by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the membership of the House and Senate present and voting.
1/10 Deadline for making REQUESTS for general bills and constitutional amendments to be drafted.***
1/15 Deadline for INTRODUCTION of bills and constitutional amendments.*
1/30 Deadline for COMMITTEES TO REPORT bills and constitutional amendments originating in OWN House.*+
2/8 Deadline for ORIGINAL FLOOR ACTION on bills and constitutional amendments originating in OWN House.*
2/9 Deadline for reconsideration and passage of bills and constitutional amendments originating in OWN House.*
2/12 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider bills and constitutional amendments originating in OWN House.*
2/21 Deadline for ORIGINAL FLOOR ACTION on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OWN House.
2/22 Deadline for RECONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE OF APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OWN House.
2/23 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OWN House.
2/27 Deadline for COMMITTEES TO REPORT bills and constitutional amendments originating in OTHER House.*+
3/7 Deadline for ORIGINAL FLOOR ACTION on bills and constitutional amendments originating in OTHER House.*
3/8 Deadline for RECONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE of bills and constitutional amendments originating in OTHER House.*
3/9 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider bills and constitutional amendments originating in OTHER House.*
3/13 Deadline for ORIGINAL FLOOR ACTION on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OTHER House.
3/14 Deadline for RECONSIDERATION/PASSAGE of APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OTHER House.
3/15 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills originating in OTHER House.
3/16 Deadline to concur or not concur in amendments from OTHER House to APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills.
3/18 Deadline for INTRODUCTION of LOCAL and PRIVATE bills that are REVENUE bills.
3/19 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider concurrence or nonconcurrence in APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills.
3/22 Deadline to CONCUR or not concur in AMENDMENTS from OTHER HOUSE to GENERAL bills and CONSTITUTIONAL amendments.
3/24 Deadline for CONFERENCE REPORTS on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills to be filed.**+
3/25 Deadline for INTRODUCTION of LOCAL and PRIVATE bills that are not REVENUE bills.
3/26 Deadline for FINAL ADOPTION of CONFERENCE REPORTS on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills and for CONFERENCE REPORTS on GENERAL BILLS and CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS to be filed.**+
3/27 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider conference reports on APPROPRIATIONS and REVENUE bills.
3/28 Deadline for first consideration of conference reports on general bills and constitutional amendments.
3/29 Deadline for filing conference reports on general bills and constitutional amendments that had been recommitted for further conference.+
3/30 Deadline for adoption of conference reports on general bills and constitutional amendments after recommittal.
3/31 Deadline to dispose of motions to reconsider conference reports on general bills and constitutional amendments.
4/1 SINE DIE
* Appropriation, revenue, and local and private bills, and bills to restore suffrage are excluded from these deadlines. For purposes of the deadlines herein set forth, the term "revenue bills" shall include only those bills whose primary purpose is to increase or decrease taxes or to authorize the issuance of bonds or the borrowing of money. Bills which are primarily for regulatory purposes which have revenue provisions included shall not be considered as revenue bills for deadline purposes. The deletion from a bill of the features which made it a revenue bill shall render the bill a general bill for deadline purposes.
** Conference reports on all bills must be filed with the Secretary/Clerk no later than the time of adjournment on the day prior to being called up and considered. Appropriation bills which actually appropriate money and are recommitted for further conference are excluded from the requirement that the subsequent conference report be filed and lay on table one (1) day before being considered; however, original action must be taken on all appropriation conference reports by 2:00 p.m. on the 84th/119th day and subsequent reports must be filed no later than 6:00 p.m.
*** Requests for general bills and constitutional amendments to be drafted must be made no later than 8:00 p.m. on the 9th/45th day. The Rules Committee of the House or Senate, as the case may be, may authorize any member of its respective house to make requests, for one or more general bills or constitutional amendments to be drafted, after the expiration of the deadline for making such drafting requests but before the deadline for introduction of bills and constitutional amendments, upon a determination by the Rules Committee that such drafting requests are in response to conditions of an emergency nature arising subsequent to the deadline for making requests for general bills and constitutional amendments to be drafted.
+ Committee reports and conference reports that are subject to being filed on these deadlines must be filed with the Secretary/Clerk no later than 8:00 p.m.
Whenever the word "day" appears in this rule, it shall mean calendar day.
The above schedule shall not be deviated from except by the passage of a concurrent resolution adopted by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the membership of the House and Senate present and voting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
