Mississippi Advisory Opinions December 07, 1994: AGO 94-0774 (December 07, 1994)

Advisory Opinion Text

Constance Slaughter–Harvey, Esquire

Assistant Secretary of State

Post Office Box 136

Jackson, Mississippi 39205–0136

Re: Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act

Dear Ms. Harvey:

Attorney General Mike Moore has received your letter of request and has assigned it to me for research and reply. Your letter states:

“This letter is in regard to a problem this office has encountered in the portion of House Bill 1809 (1994 Reg.Sess.) entitled as the ‘Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act’.

Sections 84 and 85 of the bill both address the number of votes a candidate must receive in multijudge districts in order to be elected. At line 1096 of Section 84, the Act states the candidate must receive a majority of votes cast for the office in order to be elected. At line 1130 of Section 85, the Act states the candidates with the highest number of votes shall be elected. The basic question, therefore, is whether a majority vote or a plurality vote is required in order to be elected in multijudge judicial districts (with the exception of those districts exempted from Sections 84 and 85).

A review of the contested multijudge judicial offices for the November 8, 1994, general election reveals that this question may become an issue in at least five districts: Chancery Court Districts 12 and 18; and Circuit Court Districts 1, 5, and 14.

We would appreciate your assistance in helping to clarify this important issue. As you know, the runoff election for judicial candidates will be November 22, 1994, thus this office will need to certify the general election results quickly in order that county election commissioners can prepare regular ballots and absentee ballots for the runoff.”

Section 84 of House Bill 1809 (Chapter 564), Laws of 1994, now codified as Mississippi Code Annotated, Section 23–15–982 (Supp.1994) is a part of the “Nonpartisan Judicial Election Act” (the Act) and provides:

“(1) Majority of vote equals any excess of the total vote for all candidates divided by the number of judgeships to be filled divided by two (2).

If some or all candidates in a multijudge election do not receive a majority of the vote, then candidates equal in number to twice the number of remaining positions to be filled and having the highest votes shall run in a runoff election. In such event, if there is not a sufficient number of remaining candidates equal to twice the number of remaining positions to be filled, then all remaining candidates shall run in the runoff election.

(2) Any tie votes which require resolution to determine who shall enter a runoff election shall be determined by the commissioners of election in the manner prescribed by Sections 23–15–601 and 23–15–605.

Candidates equal to the remaining number of positions to be filled who have the highest votes in the runoff election are elected.

Any tie votes which must be determined in order to decide who is elected as a result of a runoff election shall be determined by the State Election Commission in the manner prescribed by Sections 23–15–601 and 23–15–605.

(3) The provisions of this section shall apply only to districts and subdistricts which are multijudge districts except for the Eighth, Tenth, Sixteenth and Twentieth Chancery Court Districts and the Second and Nineteenth Circuit Court Districts.”

Section 85 of the Act is now codified as Section 23–15–983 and provides:

“At the general election, the candidates equal to the number of positions to be filled and having the highest votes shall be elected.

Any tie votes in the general election which must be resolved in order to determine who is elected, shall be resolved in the manner prescribed by Sections 23–15–601 and 23–15–605.

The provisions of this section shall apply only to districts and subdistricts which are multijudge districts except for the Eight, Tenth, Sixteenth and Twentieth Chancery Court District and the Second and Nineteenth Circuit Court District.”

A general rule of statutory construction is that statutory provisions dealing with the same subject matter, must be construed together and, if possible, read into each other so as to make a consistent whole. See Western Line Consolidated School District v. Greenville Municipal Separate School District , 433 So.2d 958 (1983).

In applying the above stated principle we conclude that Section 23–15–983 (section 85 of the Act) must be read as providing that the candidates in a multijudge district election equal to the number of positions to be filled who received a majority vote as defined in Section 23–15–982 (section 84 of the Act) having the highest votes shall be elected. It then becomes clear that, with the exceptions noted in your letter, a majority vote is required for election in a multijudge judicial district.

Sincerely,

Mike Moore Attorney General

Phil Carter Assistant Attorney General.