Actually, there are two related "laws," and the poster was pretty close on quoting the notion that is directly expressed in Mississippi law.
23-15-575. Participation in primary election.On that law, the voter's stated intentions control; but it is not allowed to "qualify" the voter by asking them, so the law is roughly toothless. That law does work, but only to the extent that the voter volunteers the incriminating information.No person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.
The "law" that a person can't split their votes between parties in the primary is based on a ruling by the state AG.
As a practical matter, it is easy to show an invalid "crossover" voter by pointing to the pollbooks, and those votes are invalid without asking the voter what their intentions were. "Crossover" as a narrow meaning in Mississippi election law, that being a person who votes in primaries for both parties. This is done by voting in the primary for one party, and the runoff for the other party.
Mississippi Code 97-13-35 - Voting; by unqualified person, or at more than one place, or for both parties in same primary.For the careful parser out there who notices the "same date" qualifier, that's covered too. The runoff is deemed to be part of the original primary, and for legal purposes, the primary and runoff are one election, held on the same day.Any person who shall vote at any election, not being legally qualified, or who shall vote in more than one county, or at more than one place in any county or in any city, town, or village entitled to separate representation, or who shall vote out of the district of his legal domicile, or who shall vote or attempt to vote in the primary election of one party when he shall have voted on the same date in the primary election of another party, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be fined not exceeding two hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not more than six months, or both.
MS AG Op., Brown (April 7, 1988) 1988 WL 250048There is, however, a statutory prohibition to "crossover" voting. Crossover voting may be defined as participation in the first primary of one political party and participation in the runoff primary of another party. Several Attorney General's opinions and case law has defined the first and second primary as one election process. The runoff primary has been described as a continuation of the first primary. Therefore, Miss. Code Ann. AS: 97-13-35 (1972), which prohibits participation in more than one primary on the same day, has been interpreted to prohibit crossover voting.
That's right but I will say it was not Lurker that was at all close to the MS law, it was the poster he responded to, which is what I think you meant.
Lurker's question is vacuous. I think it was designed to stir uncertainty in the original poster's assertion. This is why I exhibit a serrated edge with Lurker who professes to be a lawyer, but I think he's more of an imposter.
...so the law is roughly toothless
That's right and plenty of news outlets have drawn attention to that fact that this law is unenforceable. Many leftist rags and squawkers have also tried to insinuate that the McDaniel camp was using this law when in fact they are not.
The McDaniel campaign is using a solid law that is easy to enforce. It is that law stating that a person voting in the primary of one party may not crossover and vote in the other party's primary or the other party's runoff. Violation of this law is easily discovered by examining the poll books of both parties. During a runoff, the poll books are supposed to be 'switched'.
For example, a republican runoff polling station is supposed to have a democrat poll book for that precinct so they can see if a voter is ineligible by noting if they voted in the dem primary. They have the dem poll book in front of them to check.
But what the McDaniel team has uncovered is the dem poll books were not provided to the precincts so there is no way to know if the dem voters were eligible to vote or not UNLESS they can inspect the dem poll books and find out. This should have been done at the time of the vote but now they are having to go back and do it themselves and the Cochran-Barbour gang is blocking them. This is why they are in court.
Thanks for quoting the various legal passages.
You're right that that law is unenforceable against individual voters. However, it's obvious that the Cochran campaign made it a core part of their strategy to encourage violation of that law. I would think a court would take a dim view of a campaign that openly urged illegal voting!
That, of course, is in addition to hard evidence that a large number of people who voted in the Democrat primary voted in the Republican runoff, a straight-forward, provable violation of the law, which should have been prevented by the poll workers, I would think.