Update: Here’s a copy of Judge Green’s order in the ballot case. The actual ballot that Judge Green held improper is linked in this post.
She rejects the governor’s argument that she was being asked to enjoin the election, and refers to their actions as creating a "ball of confusion." She rejected the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
The statute that decides the issues: Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-367 and 23-15-511. She notes special election statute requires the special election bee "clearly distinguished." She quotes 511: "In those years when a special election shall occur on the same day as a special election, the names… shall be placed on the same ballot… but the general elections candidates shall be clearly distinguished from the special election candidate."
Judge Green says that the language of the statutes is clear and unambiguous and requires national elections to be first, and the special elections candidates are to be "clearly distinguished." She notes there is no provision for changing the law that national election candidates are to be first on the ballot.
There has not been a special election for candidates of national office governed by this statute.
She notes the defendants argued this was a change in voting procedures requiring preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. She states that it is not a change that requires preclearance. (Note: I am sure the defense lawyers know that they were presenting to Judge Green an argument–about preclearance under the Voting Rights Act–that she had no jurisdiction to reach).
Can imagine no reason to move the Senate race to the back of the ballot "except to secret the election or confuse the voters."
Declares that the commissioners are to follow law and place the Senate special election with the other national races, clearly demarked.
My comment: By granting declaratory relief, she is attempting to avoid the impact of cases that suggest there can’t be an injunction or mandamus against the governor, as noted yesterday in comments by Rooker Feldman. It will be interesting to see if that part of this ruling holds up.
I will be posting the ruling itself in a few moments.
