Mississippi Advisory Opinions November 16, 1984: 19841116 (November 16, 1984)

Advisory Opinion Text

Elections - Local Option

Honorable Gilford Dabbs

Attorney for City of Quitman

Post Office Box 47

Quitman, Mississippi 39355

Dear Mr. Dabbs:

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

Your letter states:

“As attorney for the City of Quitman, Mississippi, I am requesting that you issue an opinion dealing with the following facts:

“1. In June of 1981 an election was held in the City of Quitman dealing with local option as called for in Section 67-3-9 of Miss. Code Ann. (1972) , dealing with the sale of beer in the City of Quitman. At that time the majority of the qualified electors voting in the election voted that beer would not be sold in the City of Quitman. As you are aware, said Section further provides that an election cannot be called for in the City more than once in each five-year period.

“2. Assuming that under Section 67-3-7, which deals with local option elections in counties, an election is called for and the question of whether or not beer should be sold in the county is put on the ballot. Then for our record I would like an opinion from you as to these questions:

“(a) Can all qualified voters in the county vote in said election or are those qualified voters who live within the municipality of the City of Quitman barred from voting?

“(b) Should the election that is called for county-wide pass, then will the sale of beer be prohibited in the corporate limits of the City of Quitman, since an election was held on the matter in the City Limits of Quitman in 1981?

“(c) If the answer to question (b) is in the negative, then is it necessary for another election to be called in the City of Quitman on the question of the sale of beer to see that same is prohibited, if a majority of the electors so desire, and must said period of time for the calling of said election be five years from the June 1981 election, or in light of the passage of the county-wide issue, be called at any time?”

The Mississippi Supreme Court in Lee County Drys v. Anderson , 231 Miss. 222, 230 (1957) approved a statement from 30 Am. Jur. “Intoxicating Liquors”, Section 187 by quoting it as follows:

“Generally, the vote in a local option unit is binding on its entire territory, in the absence of some statutory provision to the contrary. The adoption of local option, for instance, by a county or district as a whole, prohibits the sale of liquor in any of the cities, towns, villages, or subdivisions therein, except where the vote in any municipality or subdivision is, by statute, made to operate independently of the general vote. Likewise, when the unit has adopted prohibition, it remains in force until it is revoked by a vote of the adopting territory as a whole, unless the statute confers on some portion of the unit the right to revoke independently of the whole. However, a vote may be taken in a town, although a local option law has been adopted in a precinct including the town, where, since the local option law was adopted, the town has been made a new political subdivision with power to vote on the liquor question.” 30 Am. Jur., Intoxicating Liquors, Sec. 187. See Martin, et al v. Board of Supervisors of Winston County, 181 Miss. 363, 178 So. 315.

Since the general rule as stated above is that the vote in a “local option unit” is binding on its entire territory, it is the opinion of this office that the qualified electors of a municipality would be eligible to vote in a local option election held in the county in which the municipality is located. Therefore, in response to your first question the qualified electors of Clarke County who reside within the corporate limits of the City of Quitman would not be barred from voting in a county-wide local option election to be held in Clarke County regardless of the fact that a local option election has been held previously in said municipality.

Having already stated our opinion that the qualified county electors who reside inside the corporate limits of a municipality which has previously held a local option election are eligible to vote in such an election held on a county-wide basis, it is our further opinion that said municipality would be bound by the outcome of that election.

Therefore in response to your second and third questions, it is the opinion of this office that if the results of the county-wide election authorize the sale of beer, such sales would be lawful within the corporate limits of all municipalities within the county regardless of the results of any previous municipal election on the same question until such time as another county or municipal election is held in accordance with Mississippi Code Annotated, §§ 67-3-7 or -9 (1972) respectively, and results in a majority vote favoring the prohibition of such sales. The statutory prohibition that no election on this question can be ordered more often than once in five (5) years would prevent the City of Quitman from holding another election on the question until June of 1986.

Very truly yours,

Edwin Lloyd Pittman, Attorney General