Excellent Analysis On The DeLaughter Opinion and Why It May Hold Up At The Supreme Court

WIll Bardwell offers his analysis HERE
Will Bardwell:

"[I]t bears mention that [the principles upon which the court relies] are widely recognized. Eight of the nine current justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court authored opinions upon which this Court relies," Judge DeLaughter wrote. "Also cited herein are two opinions of the Mississippi Court of Appeals, written by Judge Leslie Southwick, who now serves on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."

Judge DeLaughter also acknowledged the partisan "political implications" of the conflict before him. "[T]his Court is well aware that its interpretation of the subject statute will not be afforded any deference on appeal," the judge wrote. "To be sure ... this is not a decision that any sane circuit judge would wish to make."

Bardwell also dissects the opinion to reveal that instead of a simple win/lose this decision includes three seperate opinions. One agrees with Governor Haley Barbour. On the other two DeLaughter sides with Attorney General Jim Hood.

Judge DeLaughter split his decision, essentially handing one win to Gov. Haley Barbour and two to Attorney General Jim Hood. He agreed with Barbour's argument that the judicial branch could not issue a writ of mandamus against the chief executive -- "Even if Mississippi case authorities did not bar writs of mandamus and other injunctive relief against the Governor, this Court would nevertheless be disinclined to issue such a writ under the circumstances of this case," he wrote -- but refused to accept the governor's suggestion that the court lacked any authority to act. Citing a 1906 case in which the state Supreme Court noted that judicial interference in any election is proper only to prevent a constitutional or statutory violation, DeLaughter concluded that "[t]he declaratory relief subsequently addressed and awarded herein is sufficient, in the Court's opinion, in affording an adequate remedy for the subject wrong..."

But with regard to interpreting Miss. Code Ann. 23-15-855, Judge DeLaugher sided emphatically with the attorney general. "The term 'the general election day,' 'as the time for electing a senator,' may not logically be be construed to refer to any general election day other than the one that will be held in the same calendar year as the vacancy," Judge DeLaughter wrote. "If the Legislature had intended any other general election day, it could easily have written 'the next general election day' without affixing it to the calendar year of the vacancy..."

Check out the entire opinion at Will Bardwell's site.