Mississippi Advisory Opinions June 17, 1991: AGO 000004425 (June 17, 1991)
Collection: Mississippi Attorney General Opinions
Docket: AGO 000004425
Date: June 17, 1991
Advisory Opinion Text
AGO 000004425.
DOCK
AUTH Phil Carter
DATE 19910617
RQNM Peggy Jones
SUBJ Justice Court Judges
SBCD 100
TEXT Peggy A. Jones, Esquire
Attorney for Marshall County
Board of Supervisors
Post Office Box 417
Holly Springs, Mississippi 38635
Dear Ms. Jones
Attorney General Mike Moore has received your letter of request and has assigned it to me for research and reply. Your letter states:
"I called you Monday on behalf of the Marshall County Board of Supervisors. At that time, you gave a verbal opinion that the Board of Supervisors could continue to pay the salary of a Justice Court Judge who has announced and qualified as a candidate for Sheriff.
For your reference, I am enclosing a copy of an Attorney General's Opinion dated March 22, 1991, which relates to this issue. This opinion was issued over your signature.
The issue which concerns the Marshall County Board of Supervisors is whether they can continue to pay the salary of a Justice Court Judge, even though he has qualified and is running for the office of Sheriff and will not resign as Justice Court Judge. You indicated in your oral opinion that this would be an ethical matter and not a legal matter and that you saw no problem with the Board continuing to pay the salary. We would appreciate confirmation of this in writing."
Our opinion addressed to Honorable J.R. Parham, Jr., et al. dated March 22, 1991 is based on Canon 7 of the Mississippi Code of Judicial Conduct as interpreted by the Mississippi State Supreme Court in Mississippi Judicial Performance Commission v. A.J. Peyton, 555 So. 2d 1036 (1990) involving a similar situation. In Parham we stated that to avoid being in violation of Canon 7, a Justice Court Judge must resign his office in order to be a candidate for the non-judicial office of Sheriff. However, while a judge who refuses to resign in order to run for a non-judicial office is subject to disciplinary action by the Judicial Performance Commission, we are of the opinion that the salary would continue so long as the judge in question remains in office or a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise.
Sincerely,
MIKE MOORE, ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: Phil Carter Special Assistant Attorney General
PC:mfd Enclosure