Mississippi Advisory Opinions October 30, 1992: AGO 000006399 (October 30, 1992)

AGO 000006399.

Dear Mr. Kilpatrick:

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

"Recently, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi entered an Order approving the redistricting plan for Neshoba County, Mississippi, and ordering a special election for supervisors to be held on November 3, 1992. This special election coincides with the regularly scheduled election for County School Board members and Election Commissioners.

Once the qualifying deadline passed, only one (1) candidate qualified for Election Commissioner from Supervisor District 4 and, accordingly, she will be elected without opposition. She is currently the incumbent Election Commissioner from District 4. In addition, her husband qualified as one of three (3) candidates for the special election for Supervisor in District 4.

Since the Election Commissioners are charged with the responsibility of conducting and certifying the election, there appears to be an apparent conflict of interest from the standpoint of a wife conducting an election in which her husband is a candidate.

As Attorney for the Board of Supervisors of Neshoba County, Mississippi, it is respectfully requested that you issue an opinion regarding what participation, if any, the incumbent Election Commissioner from Supervisor District 4 can have in reference to performing her official duties as an Election Commissioner in this special election.

Due to the urgency of this matter, the Board of Supervisors respectfully requests an opinion prior to the election scheduled for November 3, 1992."

In response to your inquiry please see the enclosed copy of an opinion addressed to Honorable John L. Hatcher, dated July 14, 1987. In summary, that opinion states that Mississippi Code Annotated Section 23-15-217 (Revised 1990) does not prohibit an election commissioner from performing his or her statutory duties when the commissioner's spouse is a candidate. We now add that we find no other legal authority that would prevent an election commissioner, whose spouse is a candidate, from participating with the other commissioners in carrying out the commission's statutory responsibilities in connection with the November 3, 1992 Elections. A commissioner must, of course, always conduct himself in a manner so as not to raise any questions regarding the prohibition in the Ethics in Government Act, against the use of his office for pecuniary benefit for himself or his spouse, child or parent.

Sincerely,

MIKE MOORE, ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: Phil Carter Assistant Attorney General

PC:mfd Enclosure