Mississippi Advisory Opinions June 07, 1989: 19890607 (June 07, 1989)

Advisory Opinion Text

Honorable Nathan P. Adams, Jr.

Chancellor

P.O. Box 309

Greenville, MS 38701

Re: Payment of Court Reporters

Dear Judge Adams:

Attorney General Mike Moore has received your letter and has assigned it to me for reply. A copy of your letter is attached.

The Kirksey v. Mabus case does affect § 9–5–33(3) by abolishing the post system contemplated; thereby making it impossible to apply the intended formula. Therefore, this office is of the opinion you must look to the general law with respect to the payment of court reporters, § 9–13–19 of the Miss.Code Ann ., 1972, which sets the formula for payment of court reporters.

Very truly yours,

Mike Moore, Attorney General.

ATTACHMENT

May 17, 1989

Attorney General Mike Moore

Post Office Box 220

Jackson, Mississippi 39205–0220

Dear Attorney General Moore:

§ 9–5–33 of Mississippi Code of 1972 established post requirements for election of two chancellors to serve the Ninth Chancery District of Mississippi. The Place One chancellor was required to be a resident of either Washington, Sunflower or Humphreys County. The Place Two chancellor was required to be a resident of either Warren, Sharkey or Issaquena County. § 9–5–33(3) provides:

“(3) The expense of the court reporter serving Place One shall be prorated among the counties of Humphreys, Sunflower and Washington in proportion to the terms of court of the respective counties, and the expense of the court reporter serving Place Two shall be prorated among the counties of Issaquena, Sharkey and Warren in proportion to the terms of court of the respective counties.”

In Henry Kirksey, et al vs. Ray Mabus, Governor of Mississippi, et al, Civil Action No. J85–0960(B) the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, declared § 9–5–33 of Mississippi Code of 1972 as violative of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 . The Court ordered elections pursuant to a court plan that departed substantially from § 9–5–33 (1972) in that Post One was superseded by Sub-district One comprised of Sunflower and a portion of Washington County. Post Two became Sub-district Two comprised of Warren, Sharkey, Issaquena, Humphreys and a portion of Washington County.

§ 9–13–17(1) (1972) provides, “Court reporters for circuit and chancery courts shall be paid an annual salary of Twenty-five Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($25, 300.00) payable proportionately out of the general funds of the county treasuries of the several counties in each respective court district.” Emphasis added.

§ 9–13–19(2) (1972) provides:

“(2) The amount to be paid by each county toward the annual salary of the court reporter shall be determined by the number of weeks in which court is held in each county in proportion to the total number of weeks court is held in the district.” Emphasis added.

The Ninth Chancery District is composed of six counties: Washington, Sunflower, Humphreys, Warren, Sharkey and Issaquena. Scheduled court terms are as follows:

Washington	—15 weeks
Sunflower	—10 weeks
Humphreys	— 6 weeks
Warren	—18 weeks
Sharkey	— 3 weeks
Issaquena	— 2 weeks

Your advice with reference to the following questions would be appreciated:

1. Does Kirksey, et al vs. Mabus, Governor of Mississippi, et al, Civil Action No. J85–0960(B) U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, have the effect of declaring § 9–5–33 (1972) as illegal and unenforceable relating to expenses of the court reporters?

2. In the event the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, must court reporters for the Ninth Chancery District now be paid by each of the six counties proportionately pursuant to § 9–13–19 of Mississippi Code of 1972 ?

3. In the event that you find reporters must be paid pursuant to § 9–13–19 (1972), what formula should be applied by the counties?

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Yours very truly, Nathan P. Adams, Jr.