Mississippi Advisory Opinions May 01, 1986: 19860501 (May 01, 1986)

Advisory Opinion Text

Honorable Calvin A. Moore

Circuit Clerk

Lexington, Mississippi 39095

Dear Mr. Moore:

Attorney General Edwin Lloyd Pittman has received your letter of request and has assigned it to me for research and reply.

Your letter states:

“I would like to have an opinion in regard to the Special Election dealing with the Amendments and the Primary Election, that is to be held on June 3, 1986.

“What I would like to know is; if one set of poll workers could handle both elections? If so, what necessary steps should I take.”

The Mississippi Supreme Court in Barnes v. Barnett , 241 Miss. 206, 129 So.2d 638 (1961) upheld a Chancery Court ruling which refused to enjoin the holding of an election on a proposed constitutional amendment which was to be held at the same time and with the same officers who would conduct the concurrent Democratic Party primary election.

In Barnes the Court said:

“The bill of complaint alleged five principal grounds to support their claims that the proposed resolution was void, and the proposed election of June 7, 1960, would also be invalid, and should be enjoined from being held. They were: . . . .; (2) it would be improper to hold the special election on the constitutional amendment at the same time and with the same officers who would conduct the concurrent Democratic Party primary election; . . . .

HCR No. 43 clearly directed and called the election on the 'right to work' amendment for the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June 1960, which was June 7. It required that 'an election' shall be held at that time. Attached to the bill of complaint was an exhibit, which prevails over general allegations in the bill. It was a sample official ballot for the election, at the end of which were instructions by the secretary of state to ticket commissioners. They direct that the ballot should show 'only the proposed amendment to the constitution', and 'separate ballot boxes should be used from the primary election'. The bill charged further that the election on the constitutional amendment would be held at the same time of the Democratic Party primary election, and this would create confusion and invalidate the election. However, the exhibit showed that separate ballots were directed by the secretary of state to be used for the proposed amendment, and separate ballot boxes. Under these circumstances, this Court has previously approved the submission of a constitutional amendment on the same day at which another election is being held. In State ex rel McClurg v. Powell , 77 Miss. 543, 27 So. 927 (1900), it was observed that ' for seventy odd years the policy of the state' had followed that procedure. See also Brumfield v. Brock , 169 Miss. 784, 142 So. 745 (1932) .”

The Court concluded that “the bill of complaint on its face and for the above reasons was insufficient to state any ground for relief.”

We note that the instructions on the official sample ballot for the referendum on the proposed constitutional amendments to be voted on in the special election on June 3, 1986, cites Barnes and instructs that the official ballot should show only the proposed amendments to the Constitution and that separate ballot boxes should be used from those used in the primary election.

Therefore, in response to your inquiry, it is the opinion of this office that it is permissible for one set of poll workers to handle both the special election in question and a primary election on June 3, 1986.

In order to have the same poll workers conducting both elections, the county election commission and a county party executive committee must appoint the same individuals. In other words, the county election commission and a party executive committee could agree to cooperatively appoint the same individuals to conduct both a party primary and a special election.

Very truly yours,

Edwin Lloyd Pittman Attorney General.