James v. Westbrooks
Decision Date | 25 April 2019 |
Docket Number | NO. 2018-EC-00469-SCT,2018-EC-00469-SCT |
Citation | 275 So.3d 62 |
Parties | Ceola JAMES v. Latrice WESTBROOKS |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CEOLA JAMES (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: WILLIE GRIFFIN, Greenville
BEFORE RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN AND BEAM, JJ.
¶1. Former Court of Appeals Judge Ceola James lost the 2016 election for the Court of Appeals by nearly twenty-two thousand votes. James filed an election contest against the winner, Judge Latrice Westbrooks.1 James alleged Westbrooks improperly affiliated with the Democratic Party and improperly aligned herself with a political candidate, Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi's Second United States Congressional District. James argued that she received all of the "legal" votes due to Westbrooks's alleged violations of election law and pleaded that she is entitled to hold the judicial post won by Westbrooks.
¶2. Westbrooks filed a motion for summary judgment. At the hearing on Westbrooks's motion, the trial court found that James had failed to submit proof that Westbrooks had improperly aligned her campaign with a political candidate or political party and granted summary judgment in favor of Westbrooks. We affirm.
James alleged that these activities violated Mississippi Code Sections 23-15-973 and 23-15-976 and caused voters to align Westbrooks's campaign with the Democratic Party and with Representative Thompson's campaign.
¶4. Section 23-15-973 provides the following:
It shall be the duty of the judges of the circuit court to give a reasonable time and opportunity to the candidates for the office of judge of the Supreme Court, judges of the Court of Appeals, circuit judge and chancellor to address the people during court terms. In order to give further and every possible emphasis to the fact that the said judicial offices are not political but are to be held without favor and with absolute impartiality as to all persons, and because of the jurisdiction conferred upon the courts by this chapter, the judges thereof should be as far removed as possible from any political affiliations or obligations. It shall be unlawful for any candidate for any of the offices mentioned in this section to align himself with any candidate or candidates for any other office or with any political faction or any political party at any time during any primary or general election campaign. Likewise it shall be unlawful for any candidate for any other office nominated or to be nominated at any primary election, wherein any candidate for any of the judicial offices in this section mentioned, is or are to be nominated, to align himself with any one or more of the candidates for said offices or to take any part whatever in any nomination for any one or more of said judicial offices, except to cast his individual vote. Any candidate for any office, whether nominated with or without opposition, at any primary wherein a candidate for any one of the judicial offices herein mentioned is to be nominated who shall deliberately, knowingly and willfully violate the provisions of this section shall forfeit his nomination, or if elected at the following general election by virtue of said nomination, his election shall be void.
Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-973 (Rev. 2018). Similarly, Mississippi Code Section 23-15-976 provides that "[a] judicial office is a nonpartisan office and a candidate for election thereto is prohibited from campaigning or qualifying for such an office based on party affiliation...." Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-976 (Rev. 2018).
¶5. James requested that the trial court void the 2016 election and declare James to be the winner under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-973. Alternatively, James requested that the trial court order a new election and disqualify Westbrooks from running, due to her improper alignment with Thompson. James also requested attorneys' fees and damages from Thompson.2
¶6. Multiple sample ballots were attached as exhibits to James's petition. The first two sample ballots were identical, save for the named county (one from Sunflower County and the other from Warren County). Both ballots were entitled "SAMPLE OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC ELECTION BALLOT" for the general election on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Four candidates were named alongside their photos, with the bubble next to their name darkened. The first candidate listed was Hillary Clinton for United States president. Above her name was the word "DEMOCRAT." The second candidate listed was Thompson for the United States House of Representatives. Above Thompson's name was the word "DEMOCRAT." The third candidate was Jim Kitchens for Supreme Court. Above Justice Kitchens's name read, "NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL ELECTION." The fourth candidate listed was Westbrooks for Court of Appeals, which also read, "NONPARTISAN JUDICIAL ELECTION." Both sample ballots were "Paid For By Friends of Bennie Thompson." James also attached sample ballots from the 2008, 2010, and 2012 general elections that were "Paid For By Friends of Bennie Thompson" and one "Official General Election Ballot" from Warren County.
¶7. Westbrooks filed an answer and affirmative defenses to James's second amended petition. Westbrooks then filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment. Westbrooks argued that James failed to state a claim under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-951, because James had failed to allege that she received a majority of the "legal" votes cast at the election.
Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-951 (Rev. 2018).
¶9. James made one claim and one request for relief under this statute: (1) that the Warren County Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear her petition; and (2) that the circuit clerk of Warren County was to serve a copy of the petition on the respondents. The record on appeal reflects that James did not request a jury trial under this statute or any other statute. Rather, James requested relief solely under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-973, i.e. , that the election of Westbrooks be declared void.
¶10. Next, Westbrooks argued that James failed to state a claim under Section 23-15-976, for James failed to present any evidence or to allege any facts that Westbrooks campaigned or qualified for judicial office based on political party affiliation.
Westbrooks also argued that James failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under Section 23-15-973. Specifically, Westbrooks argued that the use of a sample ballot is authorized by the commentary to Canon 5A(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that "a candidate does not publicly endorse another candidate for public office by having that candidate's name on the same ticket." Further, Westbrooks argued that any violation of the statute by a non-judicial candidate was beyond the scope of Section 23-15-973. Although Westbrooks argued that Sections 23-15-973 and 23-15-976 are unconstitutional, she did not provide notice to the attorney general as required under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 24(d).
¶11. James responded to Westbrooks's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, summary judgment. In addition to the sample ballots attached to her second amended petition, James attached three affidavits. The first was her own affidavit, which stated the following: The sample ballot was the same ballot discussed above in Paragraph 6. The second affidavit was completed by Roosevelt Holly, which reads, The same sample ballot was attached. The third affidavit, completed by Margaret G....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Folson v. Fulco
...PARTICIPATING.1 "Summary judgment is an appropriate procedural device capable of being utilized in election disputes." James v. Westbrooks , 275 So. 3d 62, 67 (Miss. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rush v. Ivy , 853 So. 2d 1226, 1229 (Miss. 2003) ).2 This rule derives from......
-
James v. Thompson
...that James "failed to submit proof that [Judge] Westbrooks had improperly aligned her campaign with a political candidate or political party." Id. On appeal, we affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment. Id. ¶4. James also filed a complaint against Thompson on August 15, 2017, al......
-
Gunasekara v. Barton
... ... himself an official resident of [the state]. He must ... actually reside there permanently ... Bryant v. Westbrooks , 99 So.3d 128, 133 (Miss. 2012) ... (first alteration in original) (quoting Young , 968 ... So.2d at 1264). Therefore, Barton correctly ... declined to address the constitutionality of a statute in an ... election contest pursuant to Rule 24(d). See James v ... Westbrooks , 275 So.3d 62, 66 (Miss. 2019) ... ¶56 ... Although Gunasekara argues that she is attacking ... ...