Legal Opinion · Dissent

Steve Hale v. Mississippi Democratic Executive Committee

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 2015No. 2015-EC-00965-SCTPublished

1DissentColeman, Justice

• ¶ 36. I would hold that Mississippi Code Section 23-15-299(7) requires prospective candidates to provide “absolute proof, subject to no contingencies’.’ that they will meet all qualifications prior to the general election. Stone was required to produce absolute proof, at the time he filed to run for office, that he would have been be a two-year resident of Senate District 10 at the time of the November election. Because Stone did not meet this burden, I would reverse the circuit judge’s decision to qualify him for the Senate District 10 race. Therefore, with respect, I dissent.

¶ 37. We…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hairston v. HairstonMississippi Supreme Court · 1854
  2. Newman v. NewmanMississippi Supreme Court · 1990
  3. City of Jackson v. LewisMississippi Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Boyd v. TISHOMINGO CTY. DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEMississippi Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Smith v. DeereMississippi Supreme Court · 1943

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API