OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

Berger v. Barbour

Case Information

Date Filed: January 1, 2008
State: Mississippi
Issues: Voting Technology, Ballot Access
Courts that Heard this Case: Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County (Case 251-08-694CIV); Mississippi Supreme Court (Case 2008-M-01534-SCT)

Issue:

Whether the Mississippi special election between Republican Roger Wicker and Democrat Ronnie Musgrove for the Senate should appear near the top of the November 4th, so as to appear next to other federal races, or whether it should appear at the bottom of the ballot so as to clearly distinguish the race as a "special election." 

Status:

Plaintiff filed her Complaint with the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County.  The Circuit Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on 9/10/08; however, the Defendants successfully applied to the Mississippi Supreme Court to have the TRO set aside.  The Circuit Court subsequently ordered the Defendants to put the Senate race near the top of the ballot on 9/12/08.  The Defendants have appealed this order to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court ruled that placement of the race at the bottom of the ballot was illegal, but they did not order the governor to change the ballot.  Governor Barbour has agreed to move the race to the top of the ballot.  

Supreme Court Documents

  • Motion # 2008 - 2599 Petition for Extraordinary Writ Vacating and Setting Aside Temporary Restraining Order, or in the Alternative for Interlocutory Appeal with Immediately Stay, and for Other Relief (filed 9/10/08)
  • Order Entered Motion # 2008 - 2599 (entered 9/10/08)
  • Motion # 2008 - 2639 Petition for Extraordinary Writ Vacating Writ of Mandamus, Reversing and Rendering Declaratory Judgment, and Motion to Suspend the Rules, for Emergency Stay, and for Other Relief (filed 9/12/08)
  • Order Entered (entered 9/12/08)
  • Response filed Motion # 2008 - 2639 (filed 9/15/08)
  • Motion - 2008-2639 - Brief of Amicus Curiae State of Mississippi (filed 9/15/08)
  • Response filed Motion # 2008 - 2639 (filed 9/15/08)
  • Order Entered (entered 9/16/08)
  • Case Argued and Submitted (filed 9/17/08)
  • En Banc Order PDF (entered 9/18/08)

Circuit Court Documents

Related EL@M Stories

Commentary

Donald B. Tobin

FAQ on social welfare organizations

Donald B. Tobin

The Frank E. and Virginia H. Bazler Designated Professor in Business Law and a senior fellow at Election Law @ Moritz explains the nuances of social welfare organizations and federal regulations related to them.

more commentary...

In the News

Donald B. Tobin

How Did The IRS Get The Job Of Vetting Political Activity?

Professor Donald Tobin was interviewed by the Boston NPR station on its show Here & Now about the Internal Revenue Service's investigation into groups classified as social welfare organizations (marked by the 501(c)(4) tax classification). The IRS was in search of groups that are not focusing primarly on the social welfare of the country, but have a strong political advocacy facet. Political advocacy groups might want to be classified as 501(c)(4) organizations because under that classification they do not have to disclose their donors.

"The key is if you are going to be engaged in candidate-type advocacy, and if you're going to intervene in elections and engage in election advocacy, we want disclosure of who your donors are," Tobin said.

“What groups are trying to do here is avoid having to disclose,” Tobin continued. “By earning the classification of social welfare, they’re avoiding the campaign disclosure that’s required for political organizations. So that’s really the underpinning of why we have this mess of the IRS having to get in and investigate and figure out whether an organization is political or not.”

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Ohio Secretary of State Releases Report on Voter Fraud

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released a report today on voter fraud in Ohio during the 2012 general election. In a press release, Husted stated that while voter fraud does exist in Ohio, "it is not an epidemic." According to the report, 135 voter fraud cases have been referred to law enforcement for possible prosecution. Twenty of these cases involved voters attempting to vote in Ohio and another state. The report shows that 115 cases were referred to local Ohio county prosecutors. According to Husted as quoted in the Columbus Dispatch, most of these cases involved voters attempting to vote twice within the state, and in a "majority" of instances, only one vote was counted.

more info & analysis...