When and after any contest has been filed with the county executive committee, or complaint with the State Executive Committee, and the executive committee having jurisdiction fails to promptly meet or, having met, fails or unreasonably delays to fully act upon the contest or complaint or fails to give with reasonable promptness the full relief required by the facts and the law, the contestant shall have the right forthwith to file in the circuit court of the county in which the irregularities are charged to have occurred, or, if more than one (1) county is involved, then in one (1) of the counties, a sworn copy of his protest or complaint, together with a sworn petition, setting forth with particularity how the executive committee has wrongfully failed to act or to fully and promptly investigate or has wrongfully denied the relief prayed by the contest, with a prayer for a judicial review thereof. A petition for judicial review must be filed within ten (10) days after any contest or complaint has been filed with an executive committee. The petition for a judicial review shall not be filed unless it bears the certificate of two (2) practicing attorneys stating that they have each fully made an independent investigation into the matters of fact and of law upon which the protest and petition are based, and that after the investigation they believe that the protest and petition should be sustained and that the relief prayed in the protest and petitions should be granted; the two (2) attorneys may not be practicing in the same law firm. The petitioner shall give a cost bond in the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00), with two (2) or more sufficient sureties conditioned to pay all costs in case his petition be dismissed, and an additional bond may be required, by the judge, if necessary, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. The filing of the petition for judicial review in the manner set forth in this section shall automatically supersede and suspend the operation and effect of the order, ruling or judgment of the executive committee appealed from. In no event shall a prayer for relief be filed in any court other than the appropriate circuit court as authorized in this section.
Derived from 1972 Code § 23-3-45 [Codes, 1942, § 3182; Laws, 1935, ch. 19; Laws, 1968, ch. 567, § 1; repealed by Laws, 1986, ch. 495, § 333]; Laws, 1986, ch. 495, § 283; Laws, 2012, ch. 476, § 1, eff. 9/17/2012 (the date the United States Attorney General interposed no objection under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case:
Waters v. Gnemi, 907 So. 2d 307 (Miss. 2005).
Waters v. Gnemi, 907 So. 2d 307 (Miss. 2005).
· cites it 13× “2004), we addressed one of the purposes of Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-927 (Rev.2001), which provides for the filing of a petition for judicial review in circuit court: The statute was crafted in that fashion to preserve the voices of the voters of Mississippi.”
Barbour v. Gunn, 890 So. 2d 843 (Miss. 2004).
· cites it 5× “Barbour further asserts that the necessary requirements were not met for Gunn to proceed under Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-927 (Rev.2001), which states in part: When and after any contest has been filed with the county executive committee, or complaint with the State Executive…”
Chris McDaniel v. Thad Cochran, 158 So. 3d 992 (Miss. 2014).
· cites it 4× “” Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-927 . In a previous case, the Court addressed the statute and found that it did not impose a fixed time limit and that “forthwith” was to be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
Joe D. Chandler v. Floyd McKee, 202 So. 3d 1269 (Miss. 2016).
· cites it 7× “h the irregularities are charged to have occurred, or, if more than one (1) county is involved, then in one (1) of the counties, a sworn copy of his protest or complaint, together with a sworn petition, setting forth -with particularity how the executive committee has wrongfully…”
Cook v. Brown, 909 So. 2d 1075 (Miss. 2005).
· cites it 3× “See Miss Code Ann. § 23-15-927. ¶ 4. On October 17, 2003, this Court appointed Chancellor Jacqueline Estes Mask to serve as special judge to hear the election contest in the Circuit Court of Quitman County.”
Sumner v. City of Como Democratic Comm., 972 So. 2d 616 (Miss. 2008).
· cites it 3× “The circuit court subsequently issued an order denying Sumner's motion, again finding the cost-bond provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 23-15-927 to be jurisdictional and holding that the $300 cash received by the circuit clerk did not satisfy that "mandatory"…”
Esco v. Scott, 735 So. 2d 1002 (Miss. 1999).
· cites it 3× “We find that the Special Judge ruled correctly in finding that an attorney who is "of counsel" to the firm in which the petitioner's attorney is a partner is not eligible to make the certification of a practicing attorney that an independent assessment of the claim has been…”
Upton v. McKenzie, 761 So. 2d 167 (Miss. 2000).
· cites it 3× “The petition was not certified by two practicing attorneys as required by Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-927 (1990), but was signed by counsel.”
Jackson v. Bell, 123 So. 3d 436 (Miss. 2013).
· cites it 3× “But such petition for a judicial review shall not he filed unless it bear the certificate of two (2) practicing attorneys that they and each of them have fully made an independent investigation into the matters of fact and of law upon which the protest and petition are based and…”
Pearson v. Parsons, 541 So. 2d 447 (Miss. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The statutory authority under which a petition for judicial review of an election contest is initiated is Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-927 (Supp. 1988) which provides in part: But such petition for a judicial review shall not be filed unless it bear [sic] the certificate of two (2)…”
Harpole v. KCDEC, 908 So. 2d 129 (Miss. 2005).
· cites it 4× “In fact Harpole meticulously complied with Miss.Code Ann. § 23-15-927. This statute requires that to a sworn petition for judicial review, there must be attached (1) "a sworn copy of [the] said protest or complaint" [filed with the county executive committee], (2) "the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.