Supreme Court rules McDaniel will not have access to poll books

WLOX 13 ^ | July 17, 2014 | Chris Thies

[Hostage]

HARRISON COUNTY, MS (WLOX) - WLOX News has learned that Chris McDaniel's campaign will not have access to Harrison County poll books. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected McDaniel's petition for a court order to demand that Harrison County Circuit Clerk Gayle Parker release poll books from the June 24 Republican Party primary runoff election.

The court ruled that there is no legal requirement that poll books be included in the contents of ballot boxes. The order released on Thursday said poll books should be considered official records of all persons qualified to vote in a particular county and should be properly preserved by the circuit clerk.

The court also found that the circuit clerk must redact all voters' social security numbers, telephone numbers, birth date and age information before the records can be examined.​

[Norseman]

So Charles Johnson says to relax, that it’s not over.

Apparently of the nine judges, two didn’t participate and three didn’t rule either way, so four of them must have found against McDaniel, although I suppose of those voting it could have gone 3-1. The three who didn’t rule either way requested further information, so maybe it’s not over yet.

If some of you remember the poll book page that was illustrated after the election, verifying identity can be done because each voter had a unique number/bar code assigned to him or her. So redacting SS#, birthdate, phone #, and age shouldn’t be an issue. However, if they can charge for redacting, that is an issue.

[Cboldt]

-- My point is that the TTV lawsuit order needs to have this tolling provision included. --

What I was trying to get at was whether or not Mississippi election law freezes the evidence as of the date of filing the challenge, or if the courts will entertain gathering of evidence after they (the courts) have been petitioned for relief.

[Defiant]

OK, I just figured since Barbour was in office so long he must have appointed most of them. But regardless, they are all still part of the Republican machine in order to get elected, and that means beholden to Barbour.

[DrewsMum]

Not sure why you thought that. Or maybe your idea of justice, as pertains to the Lord, is skewed.

What was just about Joseph being sold into slavery? Eventually justice came, just not how we would have done it.

[Norseman]

>>This is a final decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court.<<

Thanks. Apparently this part of it is over then.

[Hostage]

The answer will be in MS Superior Local Court Rules. But a federal injunctive order should proceed as if the dates of local rules were reset to the date of the federal order. So whether MS freezes or allows further gathering is moot.

[Lurking Libertarian]

In reply to your comment on option 4, federal courts do not allow their decisions to be rendered moot due to state procedural deadlines. Federal ‘Tolling’ provisions in effect put states in suspension until a federal order has been entered, and then the time clock starts clicking on the next court day following the order.

There is no such automatic federal "tolling" rule that I am aware of. Can you cite me the statute or rule you think is applicable?

Of course, even without a rule, a federal judge could impose such a tolling by entering an order to that effect in this case, but no one has asked her to do so yet. (In fact, no one has even asked the federal judge yet to allow inspection of the voter rolls on an expedited basis; the only thing she's been asked to do so far is to enjoin the destruction of ballots and voter rolls, and she hasn't even ruled on that yet.) Moreover, McDaniel hasn't even joined the federal lawsuit yet; until and unless he does, he can't ask the federal court to do anything.

Further to option 4, federal courts hearing election cases understand the importance of time and will accommodate high profile cases to an expedited schedule.

They can and do, no question. But no one has asked this judge yet for any kind of relief like you are suggesting.

In reply to your comment on option 5, there are many federal court rulings upholding serious substantial candidates for federal office. These cases hinge on noy allowing state laws to foreclose on a serious candidate’s options and on not disenfranchising a large number of voters who voted for a candidate for federal office. In this case there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of voters who would be disenfranchised.

I don't think those federal decisions are applicable here, but we can just agree to disagree on that point.

I suspect that all this talk about federal court is going to be moot. If I had to guess (and it's just a guess), McDaniel is going to stay out of federal court because he doesn't have the litigation budget for a two-front war, and his best bet is the state election challenge.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

"I trust that you are prepared to have Him judge your arrogance."

I'm not afraid to stand before Him.

[GladesGuru]

This debacle can not be blamed on God, unless one believes God to be Democratic, corrupt, treasonous, and a liar and thief as well.

[Cboldt]

-- So whether MS freezes or allows further gathering is moot. --

Not if the plaintiff gets no federal order. And anyway, I think it's an interesting question of Mississippi law. It a candidate who contests the results of an election stuck with the evidence he's gathered as of the date of the challenge being filed? Is his opponent likewise "frozen" in gathering evidence?

If the Mississippi Supreme Court wants to get all literal, that 12 day window for viewing the contents of the ballot box is only for viewing the contents of the ballot box, and says nothing about a deadline for mounting a challenge based on viewing poll books.

Also, by Mississippi law, "There shall be also inclosed in said [ballot] box the tally list, the receipt booklet containing the signed names of the voters who voted; and the number of ballots voted must correspond with the number of names signed in said receipt booklet." Not sure what to make of that, other than there is a source of data, independent of the pollbooks, for who voted in the runoff.

I notice, in the Order, no mention of a distinction between the registration book, and the pollbooks. The Order claims that the pollbooks are "official records of all persons qualified to vote in a particular county." This statement is factually incorrect.

I'd have to read the pleadings set before it to further substantiate my suspicion, but errors of fact, like this one where the court cites a statute (23-15-135. Registrar to keep registration book and pollbooks) then omits referring to a significant part of it (existence of registration books), often portend deliberate intellectual dishonesty.

The pollbook is defined in Mississippi election law. It is not a list of persons qualified to vote in a particular county.

23-15-125. Form of pollbooks. The pollbook of each voting precinct shall designate the voting precinct for which it is to be used, and shall be ruled in appropriate columns, with printed or written headings, as follows: date of registration; voter registration number; name of electors; date of birth; and a number of blank columns for the dates of elections.

There is also a massive weasel wording in the Order, "access to information contained in poll books is governed by 23-15-165. 23-15-165 relates to access to the registration book.

23-15-165. Implementation of centralized database of registered voters

Granted, pollbooks and registration books contain much of the same information, but the function of a pollbook includes creating a traceable record of the conduct of a given election. The registration book does not have this function.

The Order has a typo referring to 23-15-165(a)-(b). That should be 23-15-165(6)(a)-(b)

(6)(a) Social security numbers, telephone numbers and date of birth and age information in statewide, district, county and municipal voter registration files shall be exempt from and shall not be subject to inspection, examination, copying or reproduction under the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983.

(b) Copies of statewide, district, county or municipal voter registration files, excluding social security numbers, telephone numbers and date of birth and age information, shall be provided to any person in accordance with the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 at a cost not to exceed the actual cost of production.

So, somebody in the state put material in the pollbooks, that is in violation of the law. In particular, the pollbooks include SSN, phone number and age information, and NONE of this is part of the form of pollbook defined in 23-15-125. Why should a candidate bear the cost of the state redacting what it wasn't supposed to put in, in the first place?

No overarching point to the above, just observations on reading the order and the law.

[AmericanVictory]

Are you speaking of the lawsuit that has been reported as having been filed by True the Vote? What is the reason that it claims that they have standing? Do you have a citation to the federal law that you mention?

[Agamemnon]

I'm not afraid to stand before Him.

Perhaps at this moment you're not. I suspect your smugness will catch up to you soon enough on the day that we all stand before Him in judgement.

Revelation 15:3: "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints."

I John 1:9: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

God by definition is "faithful and just."

Man's pride is manifest in his spirit of arrogance.

Zephaniah 3:5: "The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame."

And, yes, that would be you.

Call a just God a liar, and prepare to be judged accordingly.

Your "I'm not afraid to stand before Him" is likely to go something like this:

I'm getting the popcorn.

[Din Maker]

I'm telling you folks; this whole ordeal has gotten me so angry I have a hard time sleeping at night. If it ends up that Chris is not on the ballot, I will volunteer to go spend part of the month of October in MS and help organize a "Conservatives for Childers" movement.... and help them get every one of Chris' supporters, I possibly can, to vote for the Dem on Nov. 4. At least he is Pro-Life and Pro-2nd Amendment. 150,000 of Chris' supporters and 100,000 MS Democrat votes, will be more than enough to send Thad home with a drool tray. This is all out war and all is fair in love and war.

[Redmen4ever]

The federal law:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/mississippi-gop-state-sued-over-vote-fraud/

[Nero Germanicus]

Mississippi Supreme Court elections are non-partisan so there is no party identification of candidates on the ballot.

[Cboldt]

-- At issue is whether a Mississippi court must admit evidence (original poll books) after the deadline. --

I found some, maybe all of the pleading set before the Mississippi Supreme Court.

McDaniel v. Parker Petition for Mandamus
State of Mississippi Response to Petition
Clerk (Parker) of Harrison Country Response to Petition

All the election materials have been made available to the Petitioner or his representatives. The only information which has been "excluded" from the original "poll books" is the "date of birth" of all registered voters of Harrison County whether they voted or not contained in the "poll books" or "voter registration files". ...

Petitioner misleads this Honorable Court as Parker has NOT refused to permit access to original poll books or ANY other "voting records". All records have been produced or made available to the Petitioner or his representatives, including the original poll books, excluding the date of birth.

McDaniel Response in McDaniel v. Parker

Parker's response is fairly sarcastic and accusatory, worth a read. She claims that McDaniel's people have not made an effort to view the pollbooks, which she claims are open to them except for date of birth information. She also notes that the cost of redaction is nominal, less than $1,000 for 120 pollbooks in her county.

[Cboldt]

But the racial sensitivity at Barbour headquarters was suggested by an exchange between the candidate and an aide who complained that there would be ''coons'' at a campaign stop at the state fair. Embarrassed that a reporter heard this, Mr. Barbour warned that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks.

AGE ISSUE IS FOCUS OF MISSISSIPPI RACE - NYTimes, October 20, 1982

I know that's old, but it popped up in a July 15, 2014 blog post by Frank Hurdle, a lawyer in Mississippi.

[BlackElk]

ping for later

[WKB]

Thanks for the ping

[Defiant]

Mississippi Supreme Court elections are non-partisan so there is no party identification of candidates on the ballot.

So are you suggesting that the Mississippi Supreme Court is not part of the Mississippi political machine because they are elected and there is no party ID on the ballot?