Woodville Republican article

Former Wilkinson County Second District Supervisor Edward Kirk Smith keeps winning the battles but cannot seem to win the war in his bid for re-election to office.

The Mississippi Supreme Court handed down a ruling late last week which clearly states Smith should be allowed to take the seat on the board of supervisors without any further action.
Wilkinson County Chancery Clerk Thomas C. Tolliver, Jr., who normally gives the oath of office for county officials, when asked if he planned to administer the oath to Smith as a result of the recent high court ruling, I must follow the legal advice of the county¹s attorney. You must ask him about this.

When approached about his legal opinion concerning the ruling Wilkinson County Board Attorney Ron Senko on Tuesday of this week said he could not make a statement. Due to the continuing changes in this case, I have no comment at this time.

In this most recent legal action concerning the election contest of the August 26, 2003, Democratic primary election, the Mississippi Supreme Court has handed down a second opinion which declares that Smith defeated his opponent Richard Hollins in that election, this time by a one-vote margin of 515-514.

The latest legal decision was handed down by the state¹s highest court on Thursday, June 23, in response to Motions for Rehearing filed by both candidates, one requested in late 2004 and the other in early 2005.

The court¹s latest ruling grants Smith¹s motion for rehearing but denies Hollins motion for re-hearing.

In the 17-page document the Supreme Court revisited a lower court¹s count of certain regular and absentee ballots and gives specific reasons for either agreeing or disagreeing with Chancery Judge Denise S. Owens¹ earlier ruling in which she reversed the Wilkinson County Democratic Executive Committee¹s decision to name Smith as the party¹s candidate for office.

Agreeing with the Democratic Executive Committee¹s and Judge Owens final tally of votes with Smith receiving 510 votes to Hollins¹ 499, the Supreme Court then examined all of the ballots at the center of the election contest and gave a total of five (5) votes to Smith and fifteen (15) to Hollins. The result of the high court¹s count gave Smith the 515 to 514 victory.

Quoting the court ruling from June 23, Equity demands that Smith should be allowed to take the seat on the board of supervisors without any further action.
A total of seven of the state¹s Supreme Court Justices concurred that Smith was the winner, one justice dissented and another did not participate.

The five justices in the majority ruled that Smith won and that state law requires that a new election be held. It is unclear by the ruling as to when the election shall be held and if Smith¹s name alone or the names of both parties in the election contest will appear on this ballot.

These five supreme court judges in their opinion concerning the law requiring a special election, stated, We believe that in this case the application of the statute will work an injustice (in this particular case). Smith and Hollins were the only two persons to run in the Democratic primary for the seat on the Board of Supervisors. No Republican or Independent candidate qualified to run, and Hollins therefore ran unopposed in the general election. We have determined that only Smith¹s name should have been on the general election ballot, just as Hollins name was....We urge the Legislature to cure the gross inequity that candidates under these circumstances must face, and we reluctantly hold that a special election must be held.

Two justices who dissented in part disagreed with the opinion with reference to a special election. These two judges were of the opinion that Smith should not have to face a new election.
A recap of events leading up to the latest court decision is as follows.

The first primary election on August 5, 2003, between the incumbent Smith and political newcomer Hollins was declared a tie, and a second primary was ordered. Smith was declared the winner of the August 26, 2003, second primary election, and this fact was later confirmed by the Democratic Executive Committee. Hollins contested the committee¹s decision and asked for a hearing on the matter. Special Tribunal Judge Denise Sweet Owens was appointed by the state supreme court and sent to the county where she presided over an election contest hearing. After hearing the testimony and examining the evidence presented, she reversed the Democratic Executive Committee and named Hollins the winner of the election. Only Hollins¹ name appeared on the November, 2003, General Election ballot. Hollins was sworn in as Second District Supervisor in January, 2004, and has held that office since that time. In December, 2004, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that named Smith as the winner due to clerical errors made by Judge Owens. The court in this ruling gave Smith the win by a 519-516 margin and ordered a new election and that Hollins should remain in office until a special election decided the matter. Both candidates, not happy with this ruling, appealed this decision and each asked the court for a re-hearing. This resulted in the decision handed down this past week in which Smith was again declared the winner of the August 23, 2003, second primary election.

You can reduce the number of telephone sales and solicitation calls you receive by registering your telephone number(s) with the Mississippi Public Service Commission’s "No Call" List.

Contact the Mississippi Public Service Commission at 1-866-622-5567 (1-86NO CALL MS)

For automatic registration, log on to the website at www.psc.state.ms.us

or may make a written request to the address below: