Mississippi Advisory Opinions January 21, 1992: 19920121 (January 21, 1992)

Advisory Opinion Text

Honorable W. David Dunn

Attorney

Columbus Municipal

School District

Post Office Drawer 1426

Columbus, Mississippi 39703

RE: COLUMBUS MUNICIPAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ISSUE

Dear Mr. Dunn:

Attorney General Mike Moore has received your letter of request and has assigned it to me for research and reply. Your letter is attached and incorporated herein for ease of reference. You have also provided for our examination a copy of the petition and signature pages filed with the school board. Specifically, based on the facts enumerated in your request, you pose the following question for consideration:

“As the Board's attorney, I have been authorized and directed to request your opinion concerning the Board's authority to consider the signatures contained on the pages of the petition and to count such signatures in determining whether the petition contains the statutorily required number of signatures to call a referendum on the lease-purchase.”

Your question has been directly answered by the Mississippi State Supreme Court in the case of City of Clinton v. Smith, 493 So., 2d 331 (Miss.1986). While recognizing that the law sanctions the distribution of multiple copies of a petition for obtaining signatures, the court said:

“On the other hand, where separate pages are distributed and signed individually, we recognize the potential for fraud and abuse; that is, persons might be induced to sign because a friend or neighbor has signed, without having any earthly idea what is being sought. For this reason, we hold that each signature of a registered voter, before that signature may be validated and counted toward the number of signatures required by statute, must appear upon a page which contains language expressing in an intelligible manner the desire of the signing party that a particular referendum election be called, that is, language sufficient that one reading it before signing would not likely be misled as to the effect and import of his or her signature.” 493 So.2d at 341 [Emphasis added]

Referring to signatures which do not appear on a page containing such language, the court held:

“Those signatures, therefore, may not lawfully be counted ...” Id .

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely yours,

Mike Moore, Attorney General.

Samuel W. Keyes, Jr., Assistant Attorney General.