When the state Election Commission comprised of Gov. Phil Bryant, Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann, and Attorney General Jim Hood approved the final version of the ballot for Initiative 42 and 42A last week I noted that those backing this convoluted constitutional amendment could conceivably file a new lawsuit to challenge the ballot wording. I said it would be par for the course.
Well, guess what? They did... Right on cue.
The masterminds behind 42 love trial lawyers and if 42 passes, trial lawyers will love them, too.
Heck, with suits like this some already do.
And just who are these folks? Well, they live in awfully close orbit to Jim Hood. Jonathan Compretta and Michael Rejebian are certainly in Hood’s inner sanctum... and on his payroll.
You see, the potential for millions in attorneys' fees to be made from school district and liberal lawsuits around the state seeking to play Robin Hood with your tax dollars has trial lawyers and education bosses salivating. It’s a taxpayer-funded slot machine that will continue its pay out on the backs of Mississippians for years to come.
Jim Hood even admitted as such when he spoke to the Stennis Institute Lunch over his support for Initiative 42 in Jackson saying, “There will be litigation over it . . . ain’t gonna be one judge . . . you can bet there will be a lot of litigation over it if it passes.” (Here’s the full quote from the Stennis Lunch.)
That's why many Mississippians who value tort reform and decry ambulance chasers have keyed in on the phrase, "This initiative would also authorize the chancery courts of this State to enforce this section with appropriate injunctive relief," from Initiative 42; it sets a very real and harmful precedent of appropriation by way of litigation if this passes in November.
This is another reason why business and industry leaders across Mississippi and their state associations are lining up against 42.
She will criticize Bryant and Hosemann for having to lawyer up and use state resources to defend this lawsuit, a lawsuit pro42ers are filing.
She and others will say the ballot wording isn't accurate or doesn't conform to the spirit of what they are proposing, that their "phase in" proposal isn't listed, that the fiscal analysis shown is tainted and influenced by lawmakers.
Think, McFly. Think.
Here are the facts one more time if you've somehow missed them on the actual wording of the proposed constitutional language change:
- 42 removes the "Legislature" and replaces it with "State."
- 42 removes "general law" and adds a Chancery Court.
- 42 never mentions funding or MAEP.
- 42 never mentions a "phase in."
- 42 leaves for judicial interpretation "adequate and efficient."
Despite the emotion and the hype, this is what it says... and proponents of 42 cannot dispute these facts; they can only distort and seek to explain them away as they deceive the public and play politics with our children and our schools....
...Oh, and sue.
Posted September 15, 2015 - 9:23 pm
YallPolitics.Com now uses Facebook for comments. Log into Facebook to comment here.