Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

Trying to make sense of a crazy world, with limited success mostly
Post Reply
User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 11592
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:06 am
Location: Texoma and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired mechanical engineer
Verified:

MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#1

Post by Volkonski »



Ashton Pittman
@ashtonpittman
·
1h
A whopping 73% of Mississippians voted FOR medical marijuana in 2020.

The MS Supreme Court just struck the will of those voters down today—along with the ENTIRE ballot initiative process.

They also killed initiatives already underway for early voting & Medicaid expansion.

The court's ruling: The decades-old ballot initiative law says that petitioners must collect a certain number of signatures from each of the state's 5 congressional districts.

But since 2000, we've only had 4 districts. On this technicality, they neutered our initiative process.
“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.” ― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
User avatar
LM K
Posts: 3144
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:44 pm
Location: Oregon
Occupation: Professor Shrinky Lady, brainwashing young adults daily!
Contact:

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#2

Post by LM K »

That is infuriating! :mad:
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#3

Post by sugar magnolia »

LM K wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:47 pm That is infuriating! :mad:
Yes it is. And in the category of unintended consequences, there are apparently several R backed initiatives that will now be called into question, including their precious voter ID law.
Jim
Posts: 799
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:46 pm

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#4

Post by Jim »

SCOTUS?
User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:11 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left at the portrait of George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney. I am not your lawyer. My posts != legal advice.

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#5

Post by fierceredpanda »

Jim wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:58 pmSCOTUS?
SCOTUS doesn't get to preempt state supreme courts' interpretation of their own state laws, however asinine that interpretation may be.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple. The smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton
User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6556
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:15 am
Location: Too close to trump
Occupation: Hats. I do hats.
Verified:

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#6

Post by Slim Cognito »

:torches:

(for MSSC, not the people of MS)
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! ImageImageImage x4
User avatar
northland10
Posts: 5598
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 6:47 pm
Location: Northeast Illinois
Occupation: Organist/Choir Director/Fundraising Data Analyst
Verified: ✅ I'm me.

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#7

Post by northland10 »

fierceredpanda wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 6:10 pm
Jim wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:58 pmSCOTUS?
SCOTUS doesn't get to preempt state supreme courts' interpretation of their own state laws, however asinine that interpretation may be.
Unless it was somehow denying the civil rights of a specific class, which does not appear to be the case.
101010 :towel:
User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:07 am
Location: Maybelot
Verified: ✅✅

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#8

Post by Maybenaut »

I don’t know *anything* about MS law or it’s initiative process. But I know that CA’s process was a mess when I lived there. Well, maybe not so much the process itself but the the havoc resulting from the inability of the legislature to effectively budget because of it.
"Hey! We left this England place because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too!" -- Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#9

Post by sugar magnolia »

It's definitely a kick in the ass, but it's the fault of our legislators, not the court. The court was following the law that the legislature has failed to fix for the last 11 years. Nobody is happy about it, but it's not totally unexpected.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#10

Post by sugar magnolia »

Maybenaut wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 6:43 pm I don’t know *anything* about MS law or it’s initiative process. But I know that CA’s process was a mess when I lived there. Well, maybe not so much the process itself but the the havoc resulting from the inability of the legislature to effectively budget because of it.
Our state constitution says ever so many people from each of our 5 congressional districts, but we lost a district at the last census and the legislature never corrected the wording.
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#11

Post by bob »

SCOMS' 6-3 opinion.

I only skimmed the opinion, but the majority seems to take the position that it doesn't know if the five-congressional-districts provision was intended as a poison pill, but nonetheless accepts that it is.

And the repeated failures to fix this problem suggest an intent to stealthily abrogate the initiative process.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 5832
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:25 pm

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#12

Post by Suranis »

If the Legislature wanted it fixed, it would be.
Hic sunt dracones
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4918
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#13

Post by p0rtia »

LM K wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:47 pm That is infuriating! :mad:
IMO, that is tyranny.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#14

Post by sugar magnolia »

p0rtia wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:57 pm
LM K wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:47 pm That is infuriating! :mad:
IMO, that is tyranny.
I'm not sure how it's tyranny. Can you elaborate?
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4918
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#15

Post by p0rtia »

sugar magnolia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 6:22 am
p0rtia wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:57 pm
LM K wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:47 pm That is infuriating! :mad:
IMO, that is tyranny.
I'm not sure how it's tyranny. Can you elaborate?
Because it is an intentional ploy to nullify a democratic process, revealing, IMO a corruption of the system. One of the meanings of tyranny is to use political might (in this case given by the people) against the political will of the people. I'm speaking of both the legislature and the judiciary in combo, here.

To me, McConnell refusing to consider Garland was also tyranny.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#16

Post by sugar magnolia »

p0rtia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 11:23 am
sugar magnolia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 6:22 am
p0rtia wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:57 pm

IMO, that is tyranny.
I'm not sure how it's tyranny. Can you elaborate?
Because it is an intentional ploy to nullify a democratic process, revealing, IMO a corruption of the system. One of the meanings of tyranny is to use political might (in this case given by the people) against the political will of the people. I'm speaking of both the legislature and the judiciary in combo, here.

To me, McConnell refusing to consider Garland was also tyranny.
It obviously wasn't intentional on the part of the legislature if it also puts their precious voter ID law at risk.

A lot of things can be called tyranny, but this no more tyranny than anything else that is ruled unconstitutional.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4918
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#17

Post by p0rtia »

sugar magnolia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:11 pm
p0rtia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 11:23 am
sugar magnolia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 6:22 am

I'm not sure how it's tyranny. Can you elaborate?
Because it is an intentional ploy to nullify a democratic process, revealing, IMO a corruption of the system. One of the meanings of tyranny is to use political might (in this case given by the people) against the political will of the people. I'm speaking of both the legislature and the judiciary in combo, here.

To me, McConnell refusing to consider Garland was also tyranny.
It obviously wasn't intentional on the part of the legislature if it also puts their precious voter ID law at risk.

A lot of things can be called tyranny, but this no more tyranny than anything else that is ruled unconstitutional.
I read it that the legislature intentionally allowed this to happen. Cooperation between legislature and judiciary. Perhaps I was wrong.
User avatar
sugar magnolia
Posts: 3228
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#18

Post by sugar magnolia »

p0rtia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 3:07 pm
sugar magnolia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:11 pm
p0rtia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 11:23 am

Because it is an intentional ploy to nullify a democratic process, revealing, IMO a corruption of the system. One of the meanings of tyranny is to use political might (in this case given by the people) against the political will of the people. I'm speaking of both the legislature and the judiciary in combo, here.

To me, McConnell refusing to consider Garland was also tyranny.
It obviously wasn't intentional on the part of the legislature if it also puts their precious voter ID law at risk.

A lot of things can be called tyranny, but this no more tyranny than anything else that is ruled unconstitutional.
I read it that the legislature intentionally allowed this to happen. Cooperation between legislature and judiciary. Perhaps I was wrong.
Nope. The legislature even tried to present alternate bills in case this happened but none of those bills passed because they each had something tacked on that wasn't acceptable. They dicked around and never changed the wording of the constitution after we lost a congressional district 11 years ago, but other than that, they weren't actively opposed to the initiative. I'm not sure they even realized the law needed changing until the Queen Bitch Mayor who filed the suit stepped in. The court was divided 6-3 but they (as far as I can tell) did what the law required.
User avatar
p0rtia
Posts: 4918
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:55 am

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#19

Post by p0rtia »

Thanks. I stand corrected.

Though it still sounds like the legislature knew what was coming and voted (or failed to vote) to let it come. The fact that various members attached poisoned pills to the bill doesn't change that.

So now I'm curious. Would you consider what McConnell did to Garland/Obama tyranny?
woodworker
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:58 am
Location: San Mateo, Calif
Occupation: Slave to my cats

Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process

#20

Post by woodworker »

sugar magnolia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 3:42 pm
p0rtia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 3:07 pm
sugar magnolia wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 2:11 pm
It obviously wasn't intentional on the part of the legislature if it also puts their precious voter ID law at risk.

A lot of things can be called tyranny, but this no more tyranny than anything else that is ruled unconstitutional.
I read it that the legislature intentionally allowed this to happen. Cooperation between legislature and judiciary. Perhaps I was wrong.
Nope. The legislature even tried to present alternate bills in case this happened but none of those bills passed because they each had something tacked on that wasn't acceptable. They dicked around and never changed the wording of the constitution after we lost a congressional district 11 years ago, but other than that, they weren't actively opposed to the initiative. I'm not sure they even realized the law needed changing until the Queen Bitch Mayor who filed the suit stepped in. The court was divided 6-3 but they (as far as I can tell) did what the law required.
I agree. The original drafting was poorly done and the law of unintended consequences said "look at me."
Post Reply

Return to “Current Politics”