Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1 (2026)

Procedures by which qualified electors may initiate proposed amendments to the constitution

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Laws, 1993, ch. 514, § 1, eff. 8/3/1993 (the date the United States Attorney General interposed no objections under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965).


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1999–2015 · leading case: Legislature of the State of Mississippi v. Adrian Shipman, 170 So. 3d 1211 (Miss. 2015).
Legislature of the State of Mississippi v. Adrian Shipman, 170 So. 3d 1211 (Miss. 2015). · cites it 22× “” Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1 (1) (Rev. 2007).”
Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1260 (Miss. 2011). · cites it 12× “However, Plaintiffs have not raised any objections to the form of Measure 26 as set forth in Mississippi Code Sections 23-17-1 to 23-17-61. To be clear, it is the province of this Court to interpret the meaning of the Mississippi Constitution, and no opinion issued by this Court…”
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). · cites it 17× “[3] In 1992, the Legislature enacted Miss.Code Ann. §§ 23-17-1 et seq. (Supp.1999), which established a multi-level, multi-step petition process permitting the voters of Mississippi to amend the Constitution by voter initiative.”
Gordon Just., Jr. v. Delbert Hosemann, et, 771 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 3 Miss.Code Ann. § 23-17-1(1). Registration Threshold: Under Chapter 17, “[a] political committee that either receives contributions or makes expenditures in excess of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.”
Smith v. Clark, 189 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D. Miss. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 23-15-369, and to propose constitutional amendments by initiative, see Miss.Code Ann. § 23-17-1, et seq., this is not at issue in the case before us.”
Stoner v. Mahoney, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). · cites it 15× “We hold today that §§ 23-17-1 et seq. do not divest the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County of its jurisdiction as set forth in section 156 of the Constitution.”
Elizabeth Stoner v. Robert Mahoney (Miss. 1999). · cites it 15× “15, § 273(4), codified in Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1 (3)-(4). ¶12. We must determine whether these constitutional provisions have been satisfied here.”
Deborah Hughes v. Delbert Hosemann (Miss. 2010). · cites it 6× “Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1 (2) (Rev. 2007).”
Leland Speed v. Delbert Hosemann (Miss. 2011). “In effect, she argues for unbridled ballot box chaos.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1(1) — 4 cases
Legislature of the State of Mississippi v. Adrian Shipman, 170 So. 3d 1211 (Miss. 2015). “” Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1 (1) (Rev. 2007).”
Gordon Just., Jr. v. Delbert Hosemann, et, 771 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2014). “” 3 Miss.Code Ann. § 23-17-1(1). Registration Threshold: Under Chapter 17, “[a] political committee that either receives contributions or makes expenditures in excess of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.”
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “[3] In 1992, the Legislature enacted Miss.Code Ann. §§ 23-17-1 et seq. (Supp.1999), which established a multi-level, multi-step petition process permitting the voters of Mississippi to amend the Constitution by voter initiative.”
Stoner v. Mahoney, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “We hold today that §§ 23-17-1 et seq. do not divest the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County of its jurisdiction as set forth in section 156 of the Constitution.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1(2) — 3 cases
Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1260 (Miss. 2011). “However, Plaintiffs have not raised any objections to the form of Measure 26 as set forth in Mississippi Code Sections 23-17-1 to 23-17-61. To be clear, it is the province of this Court to interpret the meaning of the Mississippi Constitution, and no opinion issued by this Court…”
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “[3] In 1992, the Legislature enacted Miss.Code Ann. §§ 23-17-1 et seq. (Supp.1999), which established a multi-level, multi-step petition process permitting the voters of Mississippi to amend the Constitution by voter initiative.”
Stoner v. Mahoney, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “We hold today that §§ 23-17-1 et seq. do not divest the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County of its jurisdiction as set forth in section 156 of the Constitution.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1(3) — 3 cases
Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1260 (Miss. 2011). “However, Plaintiffs have not raised any objections to the form of Measure 26 as set forth in Mississippi Code Sections 23-17-1 to 23-17-61. To be clear, it is the province of this Court to interpret the meaning of the Mississippi Constitution, and no opinion issued by this Court…”
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “[3] In 1992, the Legislature enacted Miss.Code Ann. §§ 23-17-1 et seq. (Supp.1999), which established a multi-level, multi-step petition process permitting the voters of Mississippi to amend the Constitution by voter initiative.”
Stoner v. Mahoney, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “We hold today that §§ 23-17-1 et seq. do not divest the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County of its jurisdiction as set forth in section 156 of the Constitution.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1(3)(4) — 3 cases
In Re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “[3] In 1992, the Legislature enacted Miss.Code Ann. §§ 23-17-1 et seq. (Supp.1999), which established a multi-level, multi-step petition process permitting the voters of Mississippi to amend the Constitution by voter initiative.”
Stoner v. Mahoney, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000). “We hold today that §§ 23-17-1 et seq. do not divest the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County of its jurisdiction as set forth in section 156 of the Constitution.”
Elizabeth Stoner v. Robert Mahoney (Miss. 1999). “15, § 273(4), codified in Miss. Code Ann. § 23-17-1 (3)-(4). ¶12. We must determine whether these constitutional provisions have been satisfied here.”
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.