MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
- 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
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
- 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
That is infuriating!
"The jungle is no place for a cellist."
From "Take the Money and Run"
From "Take the Money and Run"
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3228
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
- 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
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
- 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
(for MSSC, not the people of MS)
Pup Dennis in training to be a guide dog & given to a deserving vet. Thx! x4
- 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
Unless it was somehow denying the civil rights of a specific class, which does not appear to be the case.fierceredpanda wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 6:10 pmSCOTUS doesn't get to preempt state supreme courts' interpretation of their own state laws, however asinine that interpretation may be.
101010
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
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
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3228
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
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.
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3228
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
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.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.
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
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.
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.
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
If the Legislature wanted it fixed, it would be.
Hic sunt dracones
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3228
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
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.
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3228
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
It obviously wasn't intentional on the part of the legislature if it also puts their precious voter ID law at risk.p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 11:23 amBecause 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.
A lot of things can be called tyranny, but this no more tyranny than anything else that is ruled unconstitutional.
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
I read it that the legislature intentionally allowed this to happen. Cooperation between legislature and judiciary. Perhaps I was wrong.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 2:11 pmIt obviously wasn't intentional on the part of the legislature if it also puts their precious voter ID law at risk.p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 11:23 amBecause 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.
A lot of things can be called tyranny, but this no more tyranny than anything else that is ruled unconstitutional.
- sugar magnolia
- Posts: 3228
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:54 pm
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
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.p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 3:07 pmI read it that the legislature intentionally allowed this to happen. Cooperation between legislature and judiciary. Perhaps I was wrong.sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 2:11 pmIt obviously wasn't intentional on the part of the legislature if it also puts their precious voter ID law at risk.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.
A lot of things can be called tyranny, but this no more tyranny than anything else that is ruled unconstitutional.
Re: MS Supreme Court strikes down initiative process
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?
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?
-
- 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
I agree. The original drafting was poorly done and the law of unintended consequences said "look at me."sugar magnolia wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 3:42 pmNope. 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.p0rtia wrote: ↑Sat May 15, 2021 3:07 pmI read it that the legislature intentionally allowed this to happen. Cooperation between legislature and judiciary. Perhaps I was wrong.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.