Perennial candidate Shawn O'Hara this year attempted to run for both the Democratic nomination for State Treasurer and the Reform Party nomination for Governor. The Democratic Executive Committee told O'Hara "no way", and O'Hara subsequently filed suit in Hinds County Circuit Court. Judge Gowan entered his ruling today, telling O'Hara that such a dual candidacy is prohibited by statute and that the Democratic Executive Committee was correct in refusing to put his name on the ballot.
O'Hara has three days to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. (For you legal geeks out there, this is one of the rare instances in which appellants proceed via bill of exceptions.)
3 comments:
Which office did he file for last - Dem for Treasurer or Reform for Governor? The statutes were changed in 2007 (following Chancellor Patton and Buffington's ill-advised attempts to run for reelection and promotion on the same ballot) to say that if a candidate qualifies for more than one office, the last one filed is the only valid qualification and all others are immediately void.
I'm willing to make a small wager that the Dem State Committee didn't look into which was the last filed. Any takers?
James, I'm having trouble locating the statute amendment that states such an order; would you mind giving that code to clarify?
James, Gowan is a sharp judge, and I'm certain he was aware of the amendment. In fact, the plain language of the statute he cites in the Order references what you mention. Here is the text of 23-15-299(7):
Upon receipt of the proper fee and all necessary information, the proper executive committee shall then determine whether each candidate is a qualified elector of the state, state district, county or county district which they seek to serve, and whether each candidate meets all other qualifications to hold the office he is seeking or presents absolute proof that he will, subject to no contingencies, meet all qualifications on or before the date of the general or special election at which he could be elected to office. The executive committee shall determine whether the candidate has taken the steps necessary to qualify form more than one (1) office at the election. The committee also shall determine whether any candidate has been convicted of any felony in a court of this state, or has been convicted on or after December 8, 1992, of any offense in another state which is a felony under the laws of this state, or has been convicted of any felony in a federal court on or after December 8, 1992. Excepted from the above are convictions of manslaughter and violations of the United States Internal Revenue Code or any violations of the tax laws of this state unless the offense also involved misuse or abuse of his office or money coming into his hands by virtue of his office. If the proper executive committee finds that a candidate either (a) is not a qualified elector, (b) does not meet all qualifications to hold the office he seeks and fails to provide absolute proof, subject to no contingencies, that he will meet the qualifications on or before the date of the general or special election at which he could be elected, or (c) has been convicted of a felony as described in this subsection, and not pardoned, then the name of such candidate shall not be placed upon the ballot. If the proper executive committee determines that the candidate has taken the steps necessary to qualify for more than one (1) office at the election, the action required by Section 23-15-905, shall be taken.
Section 23-15-905 is what you are referring to, and it says what you assert it does. I'm sure Gowan dealt with that. I do wonder, though, if O'Hara said he mailed both qualifying documents in at the same time, which would be an interesting question for the Supreme Court.
Post a Comment