Legislature of Miss. v. Shipman

• Decision Date: 13 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 2015–CA–00605–SCT.,2015–CA–00605–SCT.
• Citation: 170 So.3d 1211
• Parties: LEGISLATURE OF the STATE of Mississippi v. Adrian SHIPMAN, Mississippi Attorney General's Office and Bobby Moak, et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

170 So.3d 1211

LEGISLATURE OF the STATE of Mississippi

v.Adrian SHIPMAN, Mississippi Attorney General's Office and Bobby Moak, et al.

No. 2015–CA–00605–SCT.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 13, 2015.

Michael B. Wallace, Jackson, Charles Edward Cowan, attorneys for appellant.

James A. Keith, Ridgeland, Carroll Rhodes, Hazlehurst, Office of the Attorney General by Paul E. Barnes, Danny E. Cupit, Latrice Westbrooks, attorneys for appellees.

EN BANC.

Opinion

COLEMAN, Justice, for the Court:

¶ 1. Adrian Shipman, one of the appellees in the above-styled case, filed a Petition Appealing the Attorney General's Ballot Title for Legislative Alternative Measure 42A in the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. As more fully set forth below, the petition, filed pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 23–17–13, asked the circuit court to review the ballot title drafted by the Attorney General pursuant to Mississippi Code Sections 23–17–33 and 23–17–9 for the so-called Alternative Measure 42A, which the Legislature proposed as an amendment to Measure 42, itself a ballot measure proposed by petition of qualified electors pursuant to Section 273 of the Mississippi Constitution. Although the Legislature of the State of Mississippi as appellant raises several issues, we hold that the circuit court had no authority to entertain an appeal of the Attorney General's ballot title for a legislatively created amendment to a ballot measure. Because the Circuit Court of Hinds County had no authority to hear the appeal, we reverse and render.

Facts and Procedural History

¶ 2. In March 2014, Luther T. Munford filed a proposed initiative measure with the Mississippi Secretary of State. If adopted, the proposed initiative measure, Initiative Measure 42, would amend Article 8, Section 201 of the Mississippi Constitution,¹ to provide as follows:

To protect each child's fundamental right to educational opportunity, the State shall provide for the establishment, maintenance and support of an adequate and efficient system of free public schools. The chancery courts of this State shall have the power to enforce this section with appropriate injunctive relief.

Fulfilling the duty imposed upon him by Mississippi Code Section 23–17–9, the Mississippi Attorney General drafted a ballot title for Measure 42 that reads, “Should the State be required to provide for the support of an adequate and efficient system of free public schools?”

¶ 3. That ballot title was challenged on appeal to the Circuit Court of Hinds County, First Judicial District, pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 23–17–13. The circuit court denied the challenge on April 25, 2014. Thereafter, sufficient signatures were obtained in support of Initiative Measure 42.

¶ 4. On October 6, 2014, the petition was submitted to the Secretary of State, who filed Initiative Measure 42 with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives on the first day of the 2015 Legislative Session. Thereafter, the House of Representatives adopted House Concurrent Resolution Number 9, which proposed an alternative to Initiative Measure 42. On January 14, 2015, the Senate adopted that resolution without amendment. Alternative Measure 42A would amend Article 8, Section 201 of the Mississippi Constitution and reads, “The Legislature shall, by general law, provide for the establishment, maintenance and support of an effective system of free public schools.” The Attorney General ultimately formulated a ballot title for Alternative Measure 42A which reads, “Should the Legislature provide for the establishment and support of effective free public schools without judicial enforcement?” Notice of the ballot title for Alternative Measure 42A was published by the Secretary of State on March 19, 2015.

¶ 5. On March 24, 2015, Shipman, “a qualified voter and resident of Lafayette County, Mississippi,” filed a Petition Appealing the Attorney General's Ballot Title for Legislative Alternative Measure 42A in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, First Judicial District. The petition asserted that Shipman was entitled to appeal pursuant to Section 23–17–13. According to Shipman, the ballot title for Alternative Measure 42A was “deficient as a matter of form” because it “does not constitute a true and impartial statement that describes the purpose of the alternative measure ... and it does not indicate, as clearly as possible, the essential differences in the measure[.]”

¶ 6. The Attorney General filed an entry of appearance in the matter and filed a response to Shipman's petition. The Attorney General argued that “the statutory 20–word limit imposes serious constraints on the information which can be included in a ballot title[,]” and that the ballot title “complies with all requirements of [S]ections 23–17–9 and 23–17–33[,]” as it “highlights the essential differences between the proposals in a fair, impartial, non-prejudicial, and non-argumentative way....”

¶ 7. The Legislature of the State of Mississippi filed a Motion to Intervene. According to the Legislature, “[b]ecause [Shipman] has named no Defendants in the Petition, there is no party to this action who can or will represent the interest of the Legislature.” Along with its Motion to Intervene, the Legislature filed (1) an Answer and Defenses and (2) a Motion to Dismiss. In those pleadings, the Legislature argued, inter alia, that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over Shipman's petition “because no law vests this [c]ourt with jurisdiction[,]” and the petition “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because no law authorizes [Shipman] to contest the ballot title assigned by [the Attorney General] pursuant to” Section 23–17–33.

¶ 8. In April 2015, the circuit court conducted a hearing on Shipman's petition. On April 6, 2015, the circuit court entered its Order. The circuit court granted Shipman's petition and adopted a new ballot title for Alternative Measure 42A, which read, “Should the Legislature establish and support effective schools, but not provide a mechanism to enforce that right?”

¶ 9. Aggrieved, the Legislature appealed.

Discussion

¶ 10. Questions of jurisdiction and statutory interpretation, both of which come into play in today's case, present matters of law reviewed de novo. 5K Farms, Inc. v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue, 94 So.3d 221, 225 (¶ 14) (Miss.2012) (citing Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc. v. Duckworth, 990 So.2d 758, 759 (Miss.2008) ).

The Circuit Court of Hinds County lacked jurisdiction to hear Shipman's petition.

¶ 11. Although the Legislature raises several issues, the first—whether the Circuit Court of Hinds County had jurisdiction under Section 23–17–13 to hear Shipman's petition—disposes of the appeal. For the reasons given below, we hold that it did not.

¶ 12. Mississippi Code Section 23–17–13 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If any person is dissatisfied with the ballot title ... formulated by the Attorney General, he or she may, within five (5) days from the publications of the ballot title and summary by the office of the Secretary of State, appeal to the circuit court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County by petition setting forth the measure, the title or summary formulated by the Attorney General, and his or her objections to the ballot title or summary and requesting amendment of the title or summary by the court.

A copy of the petition on appeal together with a notice that an appeal has been taken shall be served upon the Secretary of State, upon the Attorney General and upon the person proposing the measure if the appeal is initiated by someone other than that person.... The court may hear arguments, and, within ten (10) days, shall render its decision and file with the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ballot title or summary as it determines will meet the requirements of Section 23–17–9. The decision of the court shall be final.

Miss.Code Ann. § 23–17–13 (Rev.2007). We hold the above-quoted Section 23–17–13 only provides a mechanism to appeal ballot titles formulated by the Attorney General for Section 23–17–1(1) ballot measures (those proposed via petition of qualified electors); it provides no mechanism for and does not authorize any court to entertain appeals of ballot titles written for amendments to measures proposed by the Legislature pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 23–17–31.

¶ 13. The statutory language at issue in the instant case can be confusing,² so it is worth pausing here to note the two different statutorily created items that we discuss extensively below. The first, “measures,” are amendments proposed to the Mississippi Constitution that derive from “petition of qualified electors.” Miss.Code Ann. § 23–17–1(1) (Rev.2007). The second are what Section 23–17–31 names as amendments to the previously defined measures. The Legislature drafts amendments to measures when it objects to a measure. Miss.Code Ann. § 23–17–31 (Rev.2007).

¶ 14. Our primary goal in interpreting statutes is “to adopt that interpretation which will meet the true meaning of the Legislature.” Scaggs v. GPCH–GP, Inc., 931 So.2d 1274, 1276 (¶ 10) (Miss.2006) (quoting Stockstill v. State, 854 So.2d 1017, 1022–23 (Miss.2003) ). We do not add language where we see fit. Scaggs, 931 So.2d at 1276 (¶ 10). We do not “decide what a statute should provide, but ... determine what it does provide.” Palermo v. LifeLink Found., Inc., 152 So.3d 1099, 1105 (¶ 13) (Miss.2014) (quoting Lawson v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 75 So.3d 1024, 1027 (Miss.2011) ).

A. Section 23–17–13 allows only the appeal of a ballot title drafted for “measures,” which is a statutorily defined term, includes only ballot initiatives proposed via petition of qualified electors, and excludes legislatively proposed amendments to measures.

¶ 15. Section 23–17–13 mandates that, to effect the appeal of a ballot title, the person dissatisfied with it may file a petition “setting forth the measure....” Miss.Code Ann. § 23–17–13 (Rev.2007). A copy...