Mississippi has had all kinds of special elections, but rarely has a national election such as Senate come up as a special election. The last time this happened was in 1947 when John Stennis won his long held Senate seat for the first time. So what is the rub on Hosemann here?
Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann based his recent argument for placing the special U.S. Senate race at the bottom of the ballot on precedent, but his office's research overlooked the last such race, which was at the top of the 1947 general election ballot.
Hosemann, the state's chief elections official, said this week he was unaware that the 1947 election in which John Stennis was elected to the U.S. Senate was a special election at the top of the ballot.What did Delbert Hosemann submit to the court in a sworn affidavit?
Hosemann had submitted a sworn affidavit to the court defending his position that the Wicker-Musgrove race should be at the bottom of the ballot. In the affidavit, he said, "Mississippi has not had a special election for a United States senator since 1941... Therefore, no precedent for the last 60 years exists."When confronted with the evidence, what did Delbert have to say about his research that led him to his conclusion?
This has not come to my attention before," Hosemann said. "I did not vote in that election."
At the time, Hosemann said his office "has devoted many hours researching the ballot order" and said past practices dictated that the election be near the bottom.
So let me get this straight. Delbert Hosemann is our Secretary of State. As Secretary of State he is responsible for Mississippi ballots. It was the Secretary of State's office that in 1947 place the special election at the top of the ballot. Yet Delbert's idea of research was, "I did not vote in that election." Are you kidding me?
It sure is funny that his office found the 1941 ballot which had the special election for Senate placed at the bottom, but managed to skip over the one in 1947 with the special election at the top. Delbert must have voted int he 1941 election, but moved for a few years and then came back, right? The point is, his department did research the history and knew about both ballots. There is no way possible they did not. This was an egregious, reprehensible act of deception for political gain. This is what Haley Barbour and his minions do. This is how they operate.
Isn't it great to have a lobbyist for our Governor and an incompetent boob for our Secretary of State?
actually the 1941 special senate race took place in september,not on the day of a general election(because there was no general election that year).although i have never seen the 1941 ballot i suspect that the senate race was the only election on that ballot.thus the secretary of state's affidavit,suggesting that this senate race was at the bottom of the ballot is grossly misleading
ReplyDeleteand,unlike our present governor,governor johnson actually followed the statute to call the election within 90 days following the death of senator harrison
ReplyDeleteWrong, read the article. It was placed above the governors race. I have a copy of it in pdf format.
ReplyDeletemr walters wrong i am not.i was referring to the 1941 special election and there was no governors race that year. the article and your post are about the 47 ballot
ReplyDeleteI meant 1947, my mistake. And for your knowledge the 1941 special election was at the bottom of the ballot.
ReplyDeletemr walters,you do a fantastic job and i check your blog daily.but listen to me .the 1941 special election for us senate was held on september 23 1941 and wall doxey was elected.i have not seen this ballot,but i am having a hard time figuring which other elections would have been held that day.state elections were in 1939 and regular federal elections in 1940. now,there might have been municipal races held that year but those races would have been run in may and july and at any rate would have not been placed on a state office ballot.tell me how i am wrong since you write with such dismissive certainty
ReplyDeleteI follow you now. I misunderstood what you were saying. That would be interesting to know. That would mean there is no precedent in the 1941 ballot either.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I thought you were one of these wingnuts on here making stuff up. Thanks for the good information.
so, let me restate my comments:hosemann swore under oath that the 41 special senate race was at the bottom of the ballot.if there was only one election on the ballot how can there be a top or a bottom?delbert's affidavit omitted reference to the 47 special senate election, which did in fact have the senate race at the top and heactually said(swore) instead that the last election to fill a senate vacancy was in 1941. i count 2 fibs.his affidavit was the basis for barbour/hosemann's attorneys argument that the musgrove/wicker race should be at the bottom.the supreme court ruled 8 to 1 that he was wrong.hosemann should resign,or be impeached.
ReplyDeleteHe is either an incompetent boob or a scoundrel. Either way is pretty bad.
ReplyDeleteThis might be a little harsh.
ReplyDeleteLooks like he relied on some bad research. It happens. Impeachable offense? No. Should he have sworn to it, no.
If getting beat 8-1 in the Supreme Court is a reason to resign, then a lot of good lawyers wouldn't be practicing.
Why beat this dead horse? The entire exercise was a waste of taxpayers money. I'm holding Governor Barbour accountable for this.
Gee, and here I thought lying under oath was an impeachable offense.
ReplyDeletePerjury requires an oath and a false statement. It also requires knowingly and willfully giving a false statement. My post said he probably relied on bad research. That is not knowingly and willfully. Do you have evidence otherwise that ignored good law or purposely mislead the Court? And I don't mean your opinion, give me something concrete. I don't have any evidence either way. But this is a dead horse.
ReplyDeleteHiram: you are not a lawyer, as best I can tell. Have you had any experience with perjury, personal, legal, studied it, etc...?
ReplyDeleteI've run into it several times. can be very difficult to prove.