Comments on: Mississippi State Court Refuses to Clarify Distribution Requirement for Initiatives http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/06/08/mississippi-state-court-refuses-to-clarify-distribution-requirement-for-initiatives/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:28:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=5721 By: Jim Riley http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/06/08/mississippi-state-court-refuses-to-clarify-distribution-requirement-for-initiatives/comment-page-1/#comment-730771 Jim Riley Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:59:43 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=6646#comment-730771 Seems like Mississippi could make a belated VRA Section 5 filing, saying that they are dividing the state into 4 districts which will be used for (1) electing representatives; and (2) requiring 20% of initiative petitions from each of the four and making it possible to file 20% from a non-existent 5th. The DOJ could say that you can continue to use the 4 districts for (1), but not for (2) and that Mississippi should continue to use the 5 1990 districts for initiatives. Seems like Mississippi could make a belated VRA Section 5 filing, saying that they are dividing the state into 4 districts which will be used for (1) electing representatives; and (2) requiring 20% of initiative petitions from each of the four and making it possible to file 20% from a non-existent 5th.

The DOJ could say that you can continue to use the 4 districts for (1), but not for (2) and that Mississippi should continue to use the 5 1990 districts for initiatives.

]]> By: Michael Seebeck http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/06/08/mississippi-state-court-refuses-to-clarify-distribution-requirement-for-initiatives/comment-page-1/#comment-730052 Michael Seebeck Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:51:45 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=6646#comment-730052 So in other words, because 5 doesn't equal four, there is no controversy? While in a math class not dividing by zero that makes sense, in this case the judge is an idiot. A simple constitutional amendment to drop the number in favor of "each" district would solve it, but the better way is to eliminate the requirement altogether--which is why that won't happen. So in other words, because 5 doesn’t equal four, there is no controversy?

While in a math class not dividing by zero that makes sense, in this case the judge is an idiot.

A simple constitutional amendment to drop the number in favor of “each” district would solve it, but the better way is to eliminate the requirement altogether–which is why that won’t happen.

]]> By: Steve Rankin http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/06/08/mississippi-state-court-refuses-to-clarify-distribution-requirement-for-initiatives/comment-page-1/#comment-730010 Steve Rankin Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:19:13 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=6646#comment-730010 Fillingane is one of a group of three or four Republican senators who prevented the voter ID bill from getting out of committee. This group apparently did not like the early voting provision that was included in the bill. Mississippi Republicans have been trying to get voter ID enacted since the mid-1990s, and there's considerable anger toward this group for blocking it. Fillingane's initiative is an effort to redeem himself. Secretary of State Hosemann is also a Republican. Fillingane is one of a group of three or four Republican senators who prevented the voter ID bill from getting out of committee. This group apparently did not like the early voting provision that was included in the bill.

Mississippi Republicans have been trying to get voter ID enacted since the mid-1990s, and there’s considerable anger toward this group for blocking it. Fillingane’s initiative is an effort to redeem himself.

Secretary of State Hosemann is also a Republican.

]]>