E-Filed Document May 28 2021 15:50:56 2020-IA-01199-SCT Pages: 18

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2020-IA-01199-SCT

IN RE INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 65:

MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL

AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND THE CITY OF MADISON;

THE CITY OF MADISON

PETITIONERS

V.

MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

RESPONDENT

MOTION FOR A REHEARING BY WOULD BE INTERVENORS

Procedure, Mississippi Early Voting Initiative 78 and Dr. David B. Allen, Sponsor of
Ballot Initiative 77, respectfully move to request a rehearing in this action. The Court’s

granting of a rehearing is warranted and urgently necessary in light of the impact on

fundamental constitutional rights of Movants and of Mississippi voters by this Court’s

decision in this case. This decision not only struck down Initiative 65 and potentially

voided Movants lawfully filed Initiatives, it has potentially succeeded in rendering void

for the second time in one hundred (100) years the rights of the voters to propose ballot

initiatives when their legislature and its leadership have failed or refused to act.

Mississippi Early Voting Initiative 78, hereinafter MEVI78, and Dr. David B.

Allen, Sponsor of Ballot Initiative 77, or Movants, request this rehearing because the

Respondent State of Mississippi has indicated it has no intention of requesting a

rehearing and Movants believe there are urgent errors of law and fact in the record that

led to this Court’s decision. It is these substantial deficiencies that are being respectfully

submitted by Movants in the instant motion for this Court’s due consideration.

ARGUMENT

A constitution cannot be changed by a court ruling, nor may it be changed by any

law. A constitution can only be changed by its own constitutionally mandated

amendment process. In its May 14, 2021 ruling, this Court violated this basic

foundational principle of constitutional law and voided a key section of the Constitution

of the State of Mississippi.

It is said that history does not repeat itself, but that it rhymes. However, in the

case of Mississippi and what happens when the will of the majority is opposed by the

powerful few, one could make the argument that history does in fact repeat itself. When

2
Mississippi adopted Section 273 (3) and its citizen-sponsored ballot initiative process in

1992, that accomplishment had been no easy feat. In fact, when it did so, it had been a

full seventy (70) years since the last similar initiative process had been struck down by

this Court, then, as now, on an administrative technicality. In that case, this Court felt that

in response to procedural rather than substantiv objections raised by petitioner, it could

not act; the court then, as now did act, by striking down the alleged offending

constitutional provision, thus depriving the voters of a fundamental right. Then, as now,

this Court suggested the legislature needed to “fix” the process and that the matter was

otherwise out of its hands.

Mississippians began demanding a citizen sponsored ballot initiative process in

order to hold their leaders accountable as far back as 1912. This spirit on the part of the

people has never faltered, but because achieving this right requires the consent of two

parties, i.e., the voters and the legislature, it has not been an easy task. Then, as now,

some in the legislative leadership over the years have been strongly opposed to the people

having this power and been opposed to accountability, hiding behind the lack of a

process. However, after great efforts on the part of certain legislators and voters, the

Constitution was finally amended to provide the voters this right in 1916. On March 26,

1917 this Court upheld the process when a particular ballot initiative referendum was

challenged. State v. Brantley, 113 Miss. 786 (Miss. 1917). The Assistant Attorney

General Lamar F. Easterling, who defended the process, wrote the following day that the

decision "settles the matter finally in this state."

Unfortunately, Attorney General Easterling spoke too soon. Five (5) years later, a

citizen group backing an initiative to change the allegedly outrageous salary of

3
Mississippi’s revenue agent (alleged to be $40,000 which would have been over half a

million in today’s dollars) turned in enough petition signatures to qualify the measure for

the November 1922 ballot. The measure was challenged by the agent. This Court

reversed its own 1917 judgment, using a technicality to find the entire provision

unconstitutional, just as this Court has done in this case. See State of Mississippi, ex rel.

Michael C. Moore, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi; Raymond Vecchio,

Oliver E. Diaz, Jr., and Others Similarly Situated v. Dick Molpus, Secretary of the State

of Mississippi, 578 So.2d 624 (Miss. 1991). Importantly, however, this Court also stated

it supported the ballot initiative process and opined that "[t]he Constitution is the product

of the people in their sovereign capacity. It was intended primarily to secure the rights of

the people against the encroachments of the legislative branch of the government" Power

v. Robertson, 130 Miss. 188, 93 So. 769 (Miss. 1922).

For reasons unbeknownst to us, the Mississippi legislature declined to remedy the

technicality cited by this Court over the next seventy (70) years, in spite of this Court’s

holding, and Mississippians had no means to correct the process and restore their rights.

It was only in 1992 when Section 273(3), the subject citizen sponsored initiative, was

finally readopted following multiple efforts going back at least to the 1970s, including a

failed attempt to revive the long dormant 1914 Initiative and Referendum Amendment by

asking this Court to overrule Power v. Roberson. The request to revive the 1914 IR

amendment was dismissed not on the merits, but on the grounds of being time-barred by

this Court; this Court also suggested that case was wrongly decided, finding that

“[w]eight considerations of finality and repose counsel restraint in the face of sixty-eight

year old precedent, even if we be convinced it was wrongly decided. In most settings, the

4
mere fact that a prior ruling may have been wrong – even badly wrong – is not enough to

move the judicial hand. State ex rel, Moore v. Molpus, 578 So.2d 633.

When the Section 273(3) initiative was approved in the 1992 election, it was

approved by an astounding seventy percent (70%) of the popular vote, indicating

continuing broad support for the provision. Now, sadly, history appears to be repeating

itself: pursuant to a complaint filed by Petitioner, a small town mayor who is opposed to

the substance of the initiative allegedly because she personally opposes medical

marijuana, the subject of Ballot Initiative 65, this Court has invalidated a substantially

similar process that it invalidated ninety-nine (99) years ago, and then, as now, is placing

the blame and the onus for corrective action on the legislature. Movants believe the

instant case was erroneously decided and also that it will be eventually found to have

been so, if not now by this Court, then by some future court. Movants also fear this

Court’s suggested remedy of calling on the legislature may very well meet the same fate

as that of the ballot initiative process struck down by this Court in 1922. In short, history

has shown us that a few in the legislature are able to stop necessary changes without

accountability and then avoid accountability to the citizens almost entirely. Indeed, in this

case, it is a few members of the legislature in alliance with an aggrieved mayor who are

using a technicality to convince this Court to wrongly rewrite the Mississippi

Constitution without the consent of those who, according to the Constitution and the

principles this country was founded upon, retain the ultimate authority to amend it: the

voters.

The legislature and the voters are co-equal partners in this ballot initiative

process; however, it is solely the voters who are being penalized by this decision. We,

5
generations of Mississippians, are being penalized for the weaknesses and deficiencies of

the legislature as a whole, whether it be the legislature’s alleged error in the drafting of

Section 273(3); and/or its inaction due to what appears now in hindsight to be a naïve

reliance on the opinions of other branches of government; and/or even a concerted effort

by a few, who, in bad faith have prevented the so-called needed “fix” that has been

proposed numerous times, all along intending to use it as a weapon only when the voters

finally succeeded in passing an initiative of which certain leadership in the legislature did

not approve. In any case, regardless of the legislature’s motivations, the Court’s instant

decision to void the current ballot initiative process because the legislature failed to

correct an alleged technical deficiency, only to see members of the legislature provide

this very technical deficiency argument to this Court, is in direct conflict with the Court’s

statement in Power that the ballot initiative process “was intended primarily to secure the

rights of the people against the encroachments of the legislative branch of the

government.” Ibid. Movants submit these listed points of law and fact that, in the opinion

of the Movants, this Court has overlooked or misapprehended, and respectfully requests

this Court grant a rehearing.

ERRORS OF LAW

1. The Court should defer to the Secretary of State as per this Court’s own recent

precedent.

In a relatively recent decision, this Court ruled that great deference must be shown

by the Court to other branches of government due to its status as a separately elected

6
office. In that case, Attorney General Jim Hood asked the judicial branch of government

to void several pardons granted by Governor Haley Barbour, alleging the applicants

failed to publish notice as required by Section 124 of the Mississippi Constitution.

Attorney General Hood was asking this court to interpret and apply another branch’s

application of a constitutional issue, just as in this case. This Court declined to do so then,

holding that the separation of powers doctrine applied and that the Court had no authority

to review the actions of the Governor with regard to the process of the pardons for

compliance with Mississippi Constitution Section 124, stating:

This case is about whether this Supreme Court has the right, authority, and
power to declare itself superior to, and above, both the other two branches
of government in all matters of constitutional compliance. While this
Court clearly has the constitutional duty to interpret the content of laws
passed by the Legislature and executive orders issued by the governor, we
decline - as have so many other courts before us - to assume for ourselves
the absolute power to police the other branches of government in fulfilling
their constitutional duties to produce laws and executive orders, unless
there is alleged a justiciable violation of a personal right.

In re: Charles Hooker, David Gatlin, Nathan Kern, Anthony McCray,

The Court acknowledged it had been asked by the attorney general to review a host of

cases and issues for compliance with the constitution and then stated:

[w]e need not discuss these issues because, even assuming the attorney
general's views are correct, the controlling issue is not whether Section
124 requires applicants for pardons to publish notice - it clearly does. The
controlling issue is whether the judicial branch of government has
constitutional authority to void a facially-valid pardon issued by the
coequal executive branch, where the only challenge is compliance with
Section 124's publication requirement. Ibid.

7
As in the Barbour decision, the instant case does not raise a justiciable violation of a

personal right. Under Section 270, the Secretary of State serves as the office that makes

the determination as to whether the initiative signature gathering was sufficient to comply

with the relevant constitutional and statutory law. Based on its review of the signatures, it

was the decision by the Office of the Secretary of State to place Initiative 65 on the ballot

to be presented to the people for a vote on November 3, 2020. Sufficiency of deferential

review is the appropriate standard, not de novo. Due to its status as a separately elected

office tasked with compliance with the Mississippi Constitution, this Court must defer to

this other separately elected office and find that the sponsors of Ballot Initiative #65

complied with the Mississippi Constitution.

2. The Court is legislating from the bench absent any authority to do so.

As noted by the dissenting Justices Maxwell and Chamberlin, the Mississippi

Supreme Court majority has effectively ended the ballot initiative process in the

foundational governing document of our state. Overruling a constitutional provision is

not the province of this Court. This Court of course can and should interpret and apply

the Constitution to the facts before it; however, here it is voiding an entire constitutional

provision, right, and power owned by the people of the state of Mississippi. Indeed, much

is made in the opinion of the requirement to strictly construe the language of Section

273(3) and of the Court’s inability to interpret the provision to fit the current situation.

Petitioner argued and this Court apparently agreed that literalism and a reading of the

“plain meaning of the words and terms” is required in a reading of the constitution.

Textualism mandates that a reading of the constitution binds the reader not only to the

8
text of the Constitution but also to the intentions revealed by that language. In finding

the use of five (5) congressional districts at the time to be fatal to a time when there are

four (4) congressional districts, this Court is legislating that the legislature and the people

wanted the provision to be limited only to a magical period in time when there were five

(5) congressional districts, no more, no less. There is no such intent evident in either the

constitution nor in the application of basic common sense as applied to this situation. Had

the legislature and the voters wished to sunset the provision it would have said so. By

injecting this supposition into the analysis of the document in order to claim to be

addressing the intent of the drafters, the Court has committed an additional grievous

error.

The people of this state in their wisdom created the courts for the purpose of the

court’s pursuit of impartial application of the law and the constitution, justice and

protection of their rights and interests from special interests who are opposed or who act

in a manner contrary to the founding principles of this country, that is, government by the

people, for the people, and of the people. It created the courts to apply the law and the

constitution to the ever evolving and changing facts and realities of the day. It did not

create the courts as a legislative body that would use changes in society to fabricate a

reason to strike down fundamental provisions simply because the authors of the provision

did not foresee some change. Indeed, If the U.S. Supreme Court were to so strictly

construe the 1st Amendment’s protections for free speech as Petitioner argues the Court

must do in this case, then that court would never have applied those same freedom of

speech protections to money, in the form of campaign finance donations, which it has

done for a long time. The United States Supreme Court does not strike down provisions

9
of the United States Constitution: it invalidates legislation and executive actions that

conflict with the constitution. Such is the limited role of this court as well. Section 273

(3) clearly states “The people reserve unto themselves the power to propose and enact

constitutional amendments by initiative.” See Miss. Const. Art. 15, Section 273(3). In

light of the 1922 decision by this Court striking down the prior ballot initiative, this reads

like a clear warning by the drafters to the Court not to overstep its authority again. And

yet, here we are again.

Interpreting a provision within the context of the entire document, and then

applying that provision to the facts at hand is absolutely not “legislating from the bench”

as claimed by Petitioner. However, voiding a constitutional provision clearly does

constitute legislating from the bench.

If the Supreme Court can strike down sections of the constitution, what is to keep

future Supreme Courts from striking down additional provisions that it deems imperfect?

As discussed above, it has done so twice now; once in 1922, after upholding the same

provision before, and now in this case, and both times to the severe detriment of the

authors of the very constitution it seeks to uphold. And just as before, it has done so when

individual members of the legislature or other elected officials complained because they

did not like the specific results of the citizen sponsored initiative process. Elected

officials, whether they be the Revenue agent in 1922 or Petitioner, who fears medical

marijuana, or the legislature, who has known of the voters’ desire and efforts to pass

medical marijuana for many years through numerous attempted ballot initiatives, but

refused or failed to act, have glibly tossed the rights of the people under the bus as so

10
much collateral damage all in the service of their own personal interests. The role of the

Supreme Court must be one of great deference to the Constitution, flawed or not, and in

the interests of all the citizens of the State of Mississippi, not just a few. This unfortunate

decision has now allowed elected officials to rob the voters of a fundamental right owned

by them, and for the second time it has done so not because a provision became

unconstitutional due to later provisions adopted in that constitution but based on a

technicality. All decisions must be read with the fullest intent to understand and apply the

law to the facts, as opposed to a narrow intent to invalidate.

3. The Court cannot make a law that is retroactive from the date of the court

ruling thereby invalidating votes by electors that have already been certified in

an election.

This decision by the Court come overs six (6) months after the November 2020

elections ballots by the voters had already been certified by the Secretary of State, and

citizens and corporations have already taken action in reliance on the State’s certification.

If the Court can invalidate certified votes by the electorate several months after an

election and after certification, where will this end? Can this Court invalidate Initiative

27, or others? There must be finality in the electoral process and the voters must be able

to rely upon the results. If the Court begins voiding votes months or even years after

votes have been certified, we are potentially on troublesome path where history and

legalities may be potentially rewritten to change the current circumstances in a manner to

reflect the will of those currently, and temporarily, in authority. Over six (6) months after

11
an election is simply far too late to nullify the voters’ decision on initiative 65 made in

the November 3, 2020 election.

4. The Court lacks the authority to strike down any provision of the Constitution,

the founding document from whence it derives its sole authority and power.

Just as the enactment of an amendment to our state constitution requires the will

of both the legislature and the voters, so too does its potential erasure. The people and the

legislature, in concert, set up this provision of the constitution. The judiciary is a creature

of the constitution and as such creature, it is tasked with interpreting and applying the

constitution. It cannot void the constitution. The judiciary, in its very important role

interpreting the law in statutory and constitutional provisions, can and indeed should

strike down legislation and administrative rule-making that is unconstitutional. However,

as to the constitution, it can only interpret, and where it cannot determine the meaning or

application because of competing arguments from different parties to the constitution, it

must decline to issue a ruling for fear of causing harm to the constitution and the will of

the voter. In short, it cannot both nullify or erase the authority and will of the voters and

still be in compliance with the authority granted to it under the constitution.

ERRORS OF FACT

1. The intention of the 1992 legislature can only be understood by the actual

language of the amendment and the legislative history surrounding the

legislative amendment.

The Court suggests the vague possibility of some possible legislative “intent” for

this provision to sunset at some future, unknown date. This speculative, unknown

12
triggering date would supposedly, possibly, occur IF and when our Congressional District

numbers changed. There is simply no evidence of such an intent by the legislature or, for

that matter, by the people, the only other party who has the authority to revise, overrule,

or void portions of the Constitution in concert with the legislature. In fact, history shows

that Mississippians, by a wide margin, have fought for a citizen sponsored ballot

initiative process since 1912 when the state had eight (8) seats in the U.S. Congress. This

is evidence of an ongoing, indeed, perennial, widespread desire to hold our state

representatives and leaders accountable through the ballot initiative process.

In the instant opinion, this Court stated that “[t]he only evidence of the intent of

the drafters that passed the amendment process is the intent found in the text itself, and

…..hat text clearly evidences an intent to cap the signatures at twenty percent of qualified

electors of a single congressional district.” This is wholly incorrect. Because the drafters

were using the congressional districts in place at the time, the only intent one can surmise

from this provision is the intent of the legislature and the voters that the ballot initiative

demonstrate broad, geographic diversity in its support. Five (5) districts happened to be

an easy selection to make because it was a defined, contiguous, geographic area that

happens to be also one of the most well-known defined geographic areas beyond the

county division, by the voters. But if geographical diversity in support is the intent, which

is the most logical explanation, then Petitioner’s argument clearly fails because requiring

signatures from five (5) congressional districts shows greater geographic diversity in

support than from four (4) congressional districts.

13
 Moreover, had the legislature and the voters of 1992 wished to sunset the subject

ballot initiative provision, it would have said so. Indeed, there is no certainty that the

number of congressional districts would ever change in the history of this state. We could

have retained five (5) seats forever and had the ballot initiative process into perpetuity.

There is simply no rational basis for an argument that the authors of the amendment

believed that somehow the number five (5) was a magical triggering number and any

others, 3, 4, 6, 7, or even 8, the latter which it had during the time of the prior amendment

were incompatible with a constitutional right.

Indeed, the Secretary of State can follow the will and the intent of the 1992 voters

and legislature by choosing to either continue to use the five (5) congressional districts as

set forth in the amendment; or alternatively, by using whatever the current redrawn lines

would be, whether it was for (4) four new districts like today, or five (5) differently

drawn ones, as suggested in the Court’s opinion hypothetical. The purpose of the

congressional districts for the US Congress is to ensure that the principle of one person,

one vote is adhered to, so district lines may change. But in this matter of a ballot

initiative, the purpose of using the congressional districts is only for showing broad

enough support throughout the state. The one person, one vote principle, does not come

into play until the extremely lengthy, onerous, and complicated ballot initiative process is

completed.

2. The Court and Petitioner incorrectly stated that not enough signatures were

collected to support the Initiative based on a an allocation across four (4)

instead of five (5) districts.

14
 Petitioner made the argument, accepted by this Court, that an insufficient number

of votes from each of the current four (4) congressional districts were had simply because

there were fewer required per district under the five (5) congressional district formula

which was used. There was no attempt whatsoever to find evidence to establish whether

this argument was true or false. Indeed, Petitioner claimed to attempt to do so would be

too much trouble for the clerks. Not only is that statement false and shows the Petitioner

has little understanding of how Circuit Clerks function, for an elected official to claim

that protecting and guarding the rights of the voters is “too much trouble” is truly

appalling. It is our understanding that many County Clerks cease certifying/counting

signatures in Congressional districts after the 20% threshold is reached. Many, many

more signatures were collected than were necessary and the Court could have requested

the Office of the Secretary of State to provide all of the filed petitions for an audit.

However, this was an assumption made with no efforts to find evidence to establish

whether it was true or false. Given that Initiative 65 received overwhelming support by

the voters in the November 2020 election (74% approval), it is arguable that there was a

sufficient number from each of the current four (4) districts had an effort been made to

count them. There is simply no proof that the number of signatures required under a four

(4) congressional district formula were not gathered. There is only this unproven

accusation based on an erroneous assumption and perhaps ignorance of the process that

the percentage was not sufficient.

3. A misleading and faulty comparison was made by Petitioners between the

passage of bills and amendments to the Constitution thus leading this Court to

believe the processes were comparable and that the comparison had significance.

15
 Amending a state constitution is not a short-term event nor an easy, simple, nor

frequent proposition; indeed, this is by design, precisely because of its import and

significance. There are numerous restrictions and requirements in place that, by their very

nature, serve to limit the number of Initiatives attempted and placed. Then even once

passed, they are subject to approval by the voters. But several legislators opposed to the

right of the citizens to hold them accountable glibly in their Amicus Brief cited bill after

bill that had been passed by them over the years as though this were evidence of the

legislature’s intent not to enact the technical fix in the Constitution, and thereby,

according to them, allow the measure to fail. There is simply no comparison between a

bill that requires a simple majority and an amendment to the constitution.

It was also correctly noted that “[f]rom 2003 to 2015 at least six attempts were

made by individual legislators to amend section 273 to reflect the new reality of four

Congressional District[s]. None of them made it out of committee.” Justice J.

Chamberlain, p. 13, footnote 2 quoting Butler vs Watson, 2020-IA-01199-SCT. In fact, if

there even were such an intent not to act, the evidence shows that intent was at least in

part based on the legislature’s reliance on the opinions by the Attorney General and the

Secretary of State that there was no fix needed by the legislature rather than a desire to

allow the provision to sunset.

CONCLUSION

In truth, as discussed above, the Ballot Initiative requires an immense investment

of time, money, and grueling work by Mississippi citizens. This is in part by design to

ensure the voters and the initiators consider the gravity and import of the procedure; it is

16
also, in part due to the many very precise requirements placed upon the initiative sponsor,

without corresponding requirements for cooperation placed upon other officials whose

assistance is necessary, whether it be the local or state officials who do not care about the

initiative at hand or even actively oppose it.

We do not know whether Petitioner sees the death of this Ballot Initiative Process

as mere collateral damage of her zeal to stop the legalization of medical marijuana; nor

do we know if she and her allies in this lawsuit are truly frightened by the democratic

process and have used Initiative 65 to finally strike it down because the people have

realized how they can use it to hold the legislature accountable, as foreseen and

applauded by this Court. The process has been working as intended by the voters and the

legislators who passed it in 1992; the process has been satisfying the purpose recognized

by this court in 1922 and again in 1991. Democracy dies, not at all once, but cut by cut

and blow by blow. This court must not now again be responsible for a serious blow to

democracy and the death of this right granted to the people.

The people of the great state of Mississippi must not be deprived of a fundamental

constitutional right through a legally and factually erroneous reading of the matter, and an

unconstitutionally sound reading of the constitution. For the foregoing reasons, this

request for a rehearing should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, this the 28th Day of May 2021.

MEVI 78

By: S/Aphrodite Kavyas McCarthy_

17
 Aphrodite Kavyas McCarthy

MSB #100353

22332 Freddie Frank Road

Long Beach, MS 39560

Tel: 228-452-9943

dita.mccarthy@gmail.com

Dr. David B. Allen, M.D.

S/Dr. David Allen

Dr. David B. Allen, M.D.

13013 Highway 613

Moss Point, MS 39562

916-826-7489

Cali215doc@gmail.com

18
E-Filed Document May 28 2021 15:48:08 2020-IA-01199-SCT Pages: 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2020-IA-01199-SCT

IN RE INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 65: 

MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL

AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AND THE CITY OF MADISON;

THE CITY OF MADISON

PETITIONERS

V.

MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT

MOTION OF MEVI 78 AND DR. DAVID B. ALLEN,

PURSUANT TO Rule 24 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 27 of

the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, Mississippi Early Voting Initiative 78 and

Dr. David B. Allen respectfully move to intervene as Respondents in this action.

erroneously decided case and because the State of Mississippi has stated its intent not to

request a rehearing on behalf of the Movants or any other potential Respondents in the

State. Intervention by Movants is required so that it can protect its own interests in the

outcome of any rehearing, if granted, and offer additional relevant facts and law. Movant

has attached its Motion for a Rehearing to this pleading.  

ARGUMENT

The Movants, the Mississippi Early Voting Initiative 78, hereinafter “MEVI78” and

Dr. David B. Allen, sponsor of Initiative 77, or Movants, should be allowed to Intervene

in the instant case.

This Court has recognized that the appellate courts may grant intervention and in a

case such as this, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 24 is applicable. Although there is

no appellate rule that specifically addresses intervention, this Court has stated that, like

other rules not addressed in the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, other rules

may be applicable. See City of Jackson v. United Water Services, Inc., 47 So.3d 1160

(2010). In City of Jackson, when this Court upheld a trial court’s decision to deny

intervention to a would-be party, it stated that other Rules, including the Mississippi

Rules of Civil Procedure, can be applicable in an appealed case, including the one before

it. In that case, the winning bidder had sought to intervene in the appeal. The lower court

denied the intervention, ruling that because the Rules of Appellate Procedure do not

address Intervention, there can be no intervention. This Court vigorously disagreed,

finding that the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as other rules, can still

2
apply when matters are not addressed specifically by the appellate rules, stating “[t]his

Court agrees that the Rules as enumerated in the Comment [Mississippi Rules of Civil

Procedure, Mississippi Rules of Evidence, etc.] can be applicable in an appealed case.”

Id. P. 1163. Though this Court upheld the lower court’s denial of a Motion to Intervene, it

specifically stated in its ruling that “the right result reached for the wrong reason will not

be disturbed on appeal” thus specifically preserving the rights of Movants to intervene in

appellate cases where the facts and the law of the case merit it, as in the instant case. Ibid.

 Accordingly, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2) provides that this Court

may permit intervention on timely application by an applicant “when an applicant’s claim

or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.” M.R.C.P. Rule

24(b)(2)). The rule does not set forth any time limits.  Movants’ motion to intervene is

timely and involves the same set of facts and law as those addressed in this Court’s

decision in the instant case, as discussed in more detail below. 

A. Movants’ Motion is Timely. The judgment in this case is not yet final as per

Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 41 which states that the mandate of the Supreme

Court shall not issue prior to 21 days after the entry of judgment. This judgment was

rendered on May 14, 2021. Therefore, at this stage, intervention is permissible. Indeed, in

Hayes v. Leflore Board of Supervisors, this Court recognized a prior case where

petitioners were allowed to intervene 140 days after entry of judgment for the purposes of

having a default judgment vacated. Hayes v. Leflore County Bd. Of Supervisors, 935

So.2d 1015 (Miss. 2006) citing Guaranty National Ins. Co. v. Pittman, 501 So.2d 377

(Miss. 1987). This Court must grant intervention for purposes of requesting a rehearing

3
and to raise new and pertinent law and facts to protect the fundamental rights and

interests of the would-be intervenors.

B. The Movants have a Substantial Legal Interest in the Subject Matter of This Case.

Movant MEVI78 filed Ballot Initiative 78 on April 1, 2021. On  May 26th,  MEVI78

Sponsor, Representative Hester Jackson-McCray spoke with Mr. Kyle Kirkpatrick, who

is the lead election attorney for the Office of the Mississippi Secretary of State, who

stated that he is waiting for proof of publication from the press association which he

expected to receive at the end of the week (May 28, 2021), and then he will send

Jackson-McCray a certified letter to begin collecting signatures. This decision

invalidating Initiative 65 also threatens to invalidate MEVI78’s own ballot initiative,

Ballot Initiative number 78.

Movant Dr. Allen’s initiative, Initiative number 77, was officially filed on January 21,

2021. Initiative 77’s sponsor, the undersigned Dr. David Allen, has corresponded with the

Office of the Mississippi Secretary of State on several occasions and is waiting for proof

of publication from the press association which that office expected to receive soon. Once

said proof is received, Dr. Allen will receive a certified letter to begin collecting

signatures as well.

This decision invalidating Initiative 65 also threatens to invalidate MEVI78’s own

ballot initiative, Ballot Initiative number 78 and Dr. David B. Allen’s initiative number

77.

C. Intervention in this Case is Necessary to Protect the Rights and the Interests of the

Movants. MEVI 78 and Dr. Allen have worked on their ballot initiatives for several

4
months, investing time and money in order to be able to bring these initiatives to the

voters for their consideration and approval. Though not parties to the instant case, the

Court stated in its May 14, 2021 opinion striking down Ballot initiative 65 that Section

273, the people’s entire citizen sponsored ballot initiative, has been rendered null and

void due to a technicality. MEVI78 and Dr. Allen believe this case was wrongly decided

and seek to submit additional facts and law to the record for this Court’s due

consideration.

D. There is insufficient Evidence to show that the current Parties are Interested in

Pursuing or Protecting the Rights and the Interests of the Voters of the State of

Mississippi. Indeed, it appears the parties are opposed to the rights of the voters and it

falls to the Movants to implore this Court to uphold the Mississippi Constitution. The

Court’s decision in this case has voided a fundamental right granted to Mississippi

electors who have voted from 1992 to the present as well as to all those electors who will

vote into the foreseeable future. Specifically, the decision has unconstitutionally

disenfranchised those who voted to approve Section 273 in 1992; it has unconstitutionally

disenfranchised the legislators who drafted and approved Section 273 in 1990-1991; it

has unconstitutionally disenfranchised those electors who successfully passed every

ballot initiate approved since 2001 which are arguably now in jeopardy; it has

unconstitutionally disenfranchised the electors who approved Ballot Initiative 65 in 2020.

The Secretary of State failed to raise all valid defenses, both legal and factual, that could

have led to a different decision being rendered had those arguments been received by this

Court. Intervention is especially and urgently warranted because since the decision, the

State of Mississippi has failed to show any interest in protecting the rights of its citizens

5
and defending our rights as granted by Section 273. Indeed, the State has today stated it

will not request a rehearing. In its decision, this Court recommended that the legislature

“fix” what it calls an administrative error in Section 273 of the Mississippi Constitution.

The Court also speculated that this allegedly fatal flaw was possibly an intentional act by

the legislature at the time. There is no evidence of an intent to speculatively cause parts

of Constitution Section 273 to self-destruct, either on the part of the author of the bill,

who was not asked by any party to express his intent, on the part of the legislature, or on

the part of the electors who approved the measure and who have equal rights and

standing in this matter as per Section 273. This would indeed be an absurdly speculative

self-destructive plan because there was no certainty that any change in our allotment of

Congressional Districts, would ever occur, nor was there any knowledge that the

leadership of a latter legislature whose would refuse to allow the so-called and so-deemed

necessary “fix” to take place, thus intentionally violating the rights of the other necessary

author and grantor of this right, the 1992 electors. Therefore, because the State is

declining to vigorously pursue and defend the rights of all of its people, those past,

present, and future, in addition to those of MEVI78 and all other pending ballot

initiatives, this intervention is urgently necessary.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Movants MEVI78 and Dr. David B. Allen request that the

Court grant their Motion to Intervene.

Respectfully submitted, this the 28th Day of May 2021.

6
 MEVI 78

By: S/Aphrodite Kavyas McCarthy_

Aphrodite Kavyas McCarthy

DR. DAVID B. ALLEN, M.D.

  By: S/Dr. David Allen

Dr. David B. Allen, M.D.