In re Bell

• Decision Date: 01 March 2007
• Docket Number: No. 2006-M-01895-SCT.,2006-M-01895-SCT.
• Citation: 962 So.2d 537
• Parties: In re William C. BELL.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

962 So.2d 537

In re William C. BELL.

No. 2006-M-01895-SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 1, 2007.

William E. Spell, Clinton, attorney for appellant.

EN BANC.

DICKINSON, Justice, for the Court.

¶ 1. Three judicial candidates filed a complaint in the Hinds County Chancery Court claiming that a fourth candidate made a false and misleading statement in violation of both Canon 5 of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 23-15-977.1 of the Mississippi Election Code. After the chancery court issued a temporary restraining order ("TRO") requiring the defendant to cease making the statement, the defendant filed an emergency appeal to this Court. Finding the plaintiffs' petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted by the chancery court, we vacated the TRO by order entered on November 6, 2006. The purpose of this opinion is to provide this Court's reasoning for dissolving the TRO.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

¶ 2. William C. Bell was a candidate for Chancery Judge of the Fifth Chancery Court District, Subdistrict 5-1. During the course of his campaign, Bell promised that, if elected, he would dedicate his time to "help clear the backlog of criminal cases in Hinds County."

¶ 3. On Saturday, November 4, 2006 — three days prior to the election — three other candidates ("Plaintiffs") for the same position filed a complaint in the Hinds County Chancery Court seeking, inter alia, a TRO. On that same day, the chancellor held a hearing and issued a TRO which temporarily restrained Bell "from making or publicizing further false and misleading claims that if he is elected as a Chancery Judge of the Fifth Chancery Court District, he will help clear the backlog of criminal cases in Hinds County, or any such similar claims."

¶ 4. Immediately thereafter, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, Bell filed a petition for an extraordinary writ asking that we dissolve the TRO. A quorum of this Court, sitting en banc, reviewed Bell's petition,¹ an answer filed by the three plaintiffs, and a response filed by Bell. With one justice dissenting, we found the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted by the chancery court, and we dissolved the TRO.

DISCUSSION

I.

¶ 5. The restraining order issued against Bell raises serious and substantial constitutional issues, such as prior restraint of the First Amendment right to free speech. There also is some logic to the argument that a system which forces one with aspirations of judicial office to jump into the political arena, raise money, and campaign for votes, and then judicially restrains the candidate from what he or she might say in the course of the campaign exhibits a touch of hypocrisy. But we need not address those concerns today because this case must be decided on a different level.

¶ 6. This case, brought in chancery court against a judicial candidate, alleges the candidate has violated — and is likely to continue to violate — the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct. Stated another way, and to be very clear, the cause of action alleged in this matter is the violation of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct, and the remedy sought for that violation is a restraining order, maturing into an injunction. Although restraining orders and injunctions frequently are issued by our chancery courts as remedies for various legal and equitable claims, they are not — and have never been — issued by our trial courts to remedy violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

¶ 7. We think it important to state at the outset that those who believe a judicial candidate or a judge has violated (or will violate) the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct have another forum in which to seek an appropriate remedy. As we will discuss herein, such claims must be filed with the Judicial Performance Commission in accordance with the Mississippi Constitution. And if the Judicial Performance Commission fails to act, the aggrieved party may seek a writ of mandamus from this Court, ordering the Commission to address the issue. But the aggrieved party is not allowed — and has never been allowed — to pursue as a cause of action such a claim in our state courts.

¶ 8. Article 1, Section 1, of the Mississippi Constitution establishes and empowers Mississippi's three separate branches of government, one of which is the judiciary. Under Article 6, which addresses the distribution of judicial power, the jurisdiction of the chancery court is established:

¶ 9. The chancery court shall have full jurisdiction in the following matters and cases, viz.:

(a) All matters in equity;

(b) Divorce and alimony;

(c) Matters testamentary and of administration;

(d) Minor's business;

(e) Cases of idiocy, lunacy, and persons of unsound mind;

(f) All cases of which the said court had jurisdiction under the laws in force when this Constitution is put in operation.

Miss. Const. art. 6, § 159.

¶ 10. This Court has previously stated that "`[t]he constitution makers of 1890 knew, when they invested the chancery court with full jurisdiction of all matters in equity, (Sec. 159 of Const.) that the supreme court had theretofore held that equity is defined as that system of justice which was administered by the high court of chancery in England . . . .'" Mitchell v. Rawls, 493 So.2d 361, 364 (Miss.1986) (quoting Griffith's Mississippi Chancery Practice § 584 (2d Ed.1950)). Thus, the equitable jurisdiction and power of the chancery court is limited to the system of justice administered by England's high court of chancery.²

¶ 11. Based upon this authority, we have searched in vain for citation of authority which suggests that the high court of chancery in England entertained and adjudicated disputes between candidates for public office.³ Instead, as this Court held in In re McMillin, 642 So.2d 1336, 1339 (Miss.1994), "[c]hancery courts in this state do not have the jurisdiction to enjoin elections or to otherwise interfere with political and electoral matters which are not within the traditional reach of equity jurisdiction." See also Goodman v. Rhodes, 375 So.2d 991, 994 (Miss.1979) (Court dissolved injunction because chancery court had no jurisdiction to determine the candidates whose names should appear on the ballot); Brumfield v. Brock, 169 Miss. 784, 788, 142 So. 745, 746 (1932) ("By a long line of decisions this court has held that courts of equity deal alone with civil and property rights and not with political rights."). Thus, the challenge to Bell's conduct does not fall within the chancery court's equitable jurisdiction.⁴

¶ 12. It is true of course that, in a proper case, restraining orders and injunctions are within the jurisdiction of our chancery courts. See, e.g., S. Bus Lines, Inc. v. Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Employees, 205 Miss. 354, 374, 38 So.2d 765, 768 (1949) (injunction allowed in chancery to enjoin unlawful conspiracy to commit violence); Miss. Theatres Corp. v. Hattiesburg Local Union No. 615, 174 Miss. 439, 449, 164 So. 887, 890 (1936) (injunction allowed in chancery to restrain breach of contract). But these and other cases require that an application for injunctive relief be predicated upon some legal or equitable claim which will, at some point, proceed to the merits. Indeed, an applicant for injunctive relief must demonstrate, inter alia, a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the claim. City of Durant v. Humphreys County Mem'l Hosp./Extended Care Facility, 587 So.2d 244, 250 (Miss.1991). No such showing could be made in this case.

II.

¶ 13. The courts which make up our judiciary are not authorized to resolve every claim and dispute that may arise between our citizens. The plaintiff must file a complaint which alleges some cognizable claim or cause of action against the defendant. Absent some colorable claim that a candidate or other defendant committed a tort or violated a statute or constitutional provision, our courts consistently have refused to adjudicate election disputes. For instance, this Court held in 1907 that

[t]here is no provision in the law for the courts to entertain contests between rival candidates of a particular political party, and determine for that party which of the candidates shall be declared its nominee . . . . The only contests that the courts can entertain are those originating under general election laws.

Ramey v. Woodward, 90 Miss. 777, 781, 44 So. 769, 769 (1907). See also Howard v. Sheldon, 151 Miss. 284, 294, 117 So. 839, 839 (1928) (citing Ramey and recognizing that "courts should not assume such jurisdiction").

¶ 14. Our courts do, however, have jurisdiction and constitutional authority to adjudicate election-related claims of violation of a statute or constitutional provision.⁵ For instance, in City of Grenada v. Harrelson, 725 So.2d 770, 774 (Miss.1998), this Court found that the circuit court erred in failing to enjoin an election that was based on improper ward lines. The circuit court had found that, based on this Court's decision in McMillin, it did not have the authority to enjoin the election. Id. at 773. In overruling the trial court, this Court stated:

This Court has long followed the doctrine of non-judicial interference in the election scheme. See In re Wilbourn, 590 So.2d 1381 (Miss.1991). However, we have said, "`[A court] can direct an official or commission to perform its official duty or to perform a ministerial act, but it cannot project itself into the discretionary function of the official or the commission. Stated differently, it can direct action to be taken, but it cannot direct the outcome of the mandated function.'" In re Wilbourn, 590 So.2d at 1385 (quoting Hinds County Democratic Executive Committee v. Muirhead, 259 So.2d 692, 695 (Miss.1972)). We have also said, "[t]hus, a court could, if necessary, compel by mandamus an election commission or executive committee to perform its statutory...