BIPEC (Business and Industry Political Education Committee) considers Randolph a “fair and balanced” judge on a scale of “balanced – swing – plaintiff.” A 2008 Mississippi College Law Review study of cases identifies Randolph on a side of the Court that (in my words, not the study) is usually considered the conservative side.
Randolph has been a voice of judicial restraint on the Court.
Writing for the majority to uphold Barbour’s choice of the special election date to fill the unexpired term of Senator Trent Lott against the arguments of Attorney General Jim Hood, Randolph determined the legislative mandate was ambiguous and silent so the Court must determine the Governor’s construction of the statute is permissible. He did not use the judiciary to trump the executive.
In Price v Clark, a decision by the Court that weakened the pre-suit notification tort reform created by the legislature, Randolph wrote in his dissent, “The appropriate constitutional body, the Legislature, determined their adoption was in the best interests of the citizens of this State…The effect of today’s decision is judicial nullification of those pre-suit notice requirements…[this] ruling grants litigants license to spurn legislative directives” and will “reward those who intentionally fail to follow statutorily-prescribed conduct and likely will lead to further erosion of the legislation.” He argued against using the judiciary to trump what he believed a Constitutional act by the legislature.
But Randolph can be a judicial firebrand as well. When the Court majority refused to overturn Barbour’s end-of-term pardons, Randolph wrote a scathing dissent calling the decision, “a stunning victory for some lawless convicted felons, and an immeasurable loss for the law-abiding citizens of our State.”
Madison County Journal