Skip to main content

Mississippi Advisory Opinions December 21, 2005: AGO 2005-00631 (December 21, 2005)

Up to Mississippi Advisory Opinions

Collection: Mississippi Attorney General Opinions
Docket: AGO 2005-00631
Date: Dec. 21, 2005

Advisory Opinion Text

The Honorable David Jordan

AGO 2005-631

No. 2005-00631

Mississippi Attorney General Opinions

December 21, 2005

The Honorable David Jordan

State Senator

District 24

504 Bowie Lane

Greenwood MS 38930

Re: Municipal Election

Dear Senator Jordan:

Attorney General Jim Hood has received your recent letter and has assigned it to me for research and response. Your letter reads as follows.

I am David Jordan, President of the Greenwood City Council. I am in a runoff election with a candidate for city councilman of Ward 6 - Greenwood, Mississippi.

My question is: Does it break the law for my opponent George Ellis, who is handing out fish plates every Saturday with the following language saying “Thank you for your support. George Ellis - Candidate for Councilman Ward 6.”

The date of the election is January 10, 2006.

We understand from our conversation with you on this matter that the candidate who is your opponent has been distributing catfish dinners to various voters in Ward 6 for several weeks, and that the candidate and his supporters drive a van from house to house within the ward giving the catfish dinners to selected voters. The catfish dinners themselves are in lidded, disposable styrofoam lunch plates, on the top of which is a placard with the words. “Thank you for your support. George Ellis - Candidate for Councilman Ward 6.”

Miss. Code Ann. Section 23-15-899 (1972) reads as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer to sell his vote and it shall be likewise unlawful for any person to offer money or anything of substantial value to anyone for his vote. Anyone violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than Fifty Dollars ($50.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or imprisoned not more than six (6) months, or both.

Therefore, under Section 23-15-889, if a person offers money or “anything of substantial value” to anyone “ for ” his vote has committed a misdemeanor (emphasis added). A plain reading of the words in this statute suggests that the thing of value offered must be in exchange for the elector's vote, that is, a quid pro quo . Further, the thing of value offered must be of “substantial” value.

Campaign rallies for candidates for public office where catfish dinners are served are part of the political culture of Mississippi. For a violation of Section 23-15-889 to occur, the thing of value offered must be of “substantial” value. The Legislature has not provided any direction as to precisely what value in the context of this statute constitutes “substantial” value. Given that offering catfish dinners to voters at campaign events sponsored by political campaigns are commonplace throughout the state, we doubt that anyone seriously alleges that offering or accepting such a catfish dinner rises to the level of buying or selling one's vote.

However, in the facts you provide, the candidate is not simply providing catfish dinners at a campaign rally, but is going door to door for weeks prior to the election, often to the same voters who are receiving multiple free meals delivered to their door by the same candidate. Taken individually, such free meals may not constitute “substantial” value. Taken cumulatively, however, they may.

You also state that the meal containers have attached to them a sign thanking the voter for his or her support, and which bears the name of the candidate. While this sign taken alone may infer that voting for the candidate is a condition of receiving the free meal, your letter does not indicate that meals are being provided only in exchange for a voter's promise to vote for the candidate. Clearly, however, if a candidate requires a voter to vote for him as a condition of receiving anything or things of substantial value in return, he would be in violation of Section 23-15-889. Ultimately, whether a violation of the statute occurs in a particular case would be a factual question which cannot be decided in an Attorney General's Opinion.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss this matter or if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jim Hood Attorney General.

Reese Partridge Special Assistant Attorney General.