Will Bardwell gets this right– the Circuit Court order dismissing the challenge to the “personhood” suit is a startlingly brazen dodge. The order accurately states the question– Is this an amendment to the state bill of rights, which is the constitution specifically prohibits amending by petition?– and then notes that there are enough signatures, and that’s that:
Plaintiffs carry a heavy burden in attempting to restrict the citizenry’s right to amend the Constitution. Initiative Measure No. 26 has received more than the required amount of signatures to be placed on the ballot and the Constitution recognizes the right of citizens to amend their Constitution. The Court finds plaintiffs have not met their burden.
Apparently, the court’s burden to explain its ruling is not so heavy. Will Bardwell hopes this gets fixed on appeal. I’ll ask Will whether he’s really astonished by the laziness of the judge (as his title for his blog post states), and note in passing that the court’s ruling, a denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, is interlocutory…
Kudos to friend of the blog and occasional commenter Kristen Hemmins, who was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Not surprised by this in any way….
Honestly, did anyone think for a moment that a judge running for election would conscientiously rule on this matter and then explain the reasoning for that ruling? This case had “punt” written all over it from the word go.
I was, and remain, a big fan of Judge Harrison’s. That’s what makes this so disappointing for me.
My first thought ran back to Judge DeLaughter’s opinion when he ruled in 2008 on the Senate special election date. Say what you will about DeLaughter, but it was a very thorough opinion. Ultimately, of course, it all went for naught, and he was reversed in a Supreme Court decision that reeked of results-oriented jurisprudence. Maybe Judge Harrison figured that it didn’t make any sense to break his neck over this thing, since, like DeLaughter’s work, his conclusion will be moot in another nine months or so. I don’t know.
Also, you’re unintentionally mischaracterizing my impressions a little, Tom. I don’t think Judge Harrison is lazy. I think this ruling was lazy. In my mind, at least, there’s an important difference.
I’ll ask Will whether he’s really astonished by the laziness of the judge (as his title for his blog post states)
Okay, I’ll bite: why is the laziness not astonishing?
I mean, I’ve seen one theory …
Possibly off-topic, but — setting aside for the moment the vapidity of Judge Harrison’s ruling — am I alone in thinking that the proposed constitutional change might have the unintentional effect of establishing that corporations are not persons for purposes of Mississippi constitutional law? Because if that were the case, it would be hilarious if the Mississippi Taliban’s efforts to further increase the state’s teen pregnancy rates actually bite the corporations that finance them on the butt.
I like your thinking, Alan, but looking at the court’s order — I don’t have the initiative text before me, only the court’s quotation — “person” would be changed to “include every human being from the moment of fertilization,” etc.
So it would add to the existing definition, not replace it.
(How long does it take to determine whether one’s been “fertilized”? Can a miscarried fetus’s wrongful-death heirs sue the parents for negligence? Will Judge Harrison give these matters any more thought than he gave the challenge to the initiative? Only time will tell.)
The biggest unintended consequence this measure will have is its effect on the laws of inheritance and the criminal law. Rest assured it will be a mess.
Those consequences are the best hope for a MSSC majority’s bouncing the initiative on the grounds urged by the plaintiffs. There’s nothing a court likes better than tossing a substantive hot potato on procedural grounds.