§ 23-15-877 - Prohibitions against newspaper editorials and stories with respect to integrity of candidate; newspaper's obligation to print reply; liability for damages

Universal Citation: MS Code § 23-15-877 (2013)

If during any election campaign in Mississippi any newspaper either domiciled in the state, or outside of the state circulating inside the State of Mississippi, shall print any editorial or news story reflecting upon the honesty or integrity or moral character of any candidate in such campaign or on the honesty and integrity or moral character of any candidate who was elected or defeated in such campaign, such newspaper shall, on the written or telegraphic request of such candidate or his agents, print in such newspaper not later than the second issue of such newspaper following the receipt of such request, a statement by the candidate or his duly accredited representative giving the candidate's reply. Such statement shall be printed in the exact language which the candidate or his representative presents and shall be printed as near as is practical on the same page, in the same position, and in the same size type and headlines as the original editorial or news story reflecting on the candidate had been printed.

This section shall be construed to include those news stories wherein the newspaper quotes from a candidate or individual statements attacking the honesty or integrity or moral character of a candidate or ex-candidate.

If such newspaper fails or refuses to publish such answer when requested, the owner of such newspaper shall be liable to a suit for damages by the candidate claiming to be injured by such publication. In event of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the measure of damages shall be the injury suffered or a penalty of Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), whichever is the larger amount. In all cases, the truth of the charge may be offered as defense to the suit. But nothing herein contained shall be construed to abolish any existing legal rights of action in such cases.

Disclaimer: These codes may not be the most recent version. Mississippi may have more current or accurate information. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or the information linked to on the state site. Please check official sources.

this statute is unconstitutional under tornillo v miami herald.. it is another moribund statute to go along with the ones unconstitutional undet talley and mcintyre.

Article 27 - REGULATION OF ELECTIONS
§ 23-15-897 - Requirement of candidate's subscription of printed campaign material; observance of federal provisions with respect to radio and television time; payment for printed matter and for broadcast time at usual rates

Universal Citation: MS Code § 23-15-897 (2013)

No person shall write, print, post or distribute or cause to be distributed, a notice, placard, bill, poster, dodger, pamphlet, advertisement or any other form of publication (except notices, posters, and the like, which simply announce speaking date and invite attendance thereon) which is designed to influence voters for or against any candidate at any election, unless and until the same shall have been submitted to, and approved and subscribed by the candidate or by his campaign manager or assistant manager, which subscription shall in all cases be printed as so subscribed, and not otherwise. As, for instance, it shall be unlawful to write, print, post, distribute or cause to be written, printed, posted or distributed any such matter when the authority therefor is designated simply as "paid political advertisement," or "contributed by a friend," or "contributed by the friends and supporters," and the like. Nor shall any radio or television station allow any time or place on any of its programs for any address for or against any candidate at any election, except in accordance with the provisions of the federal statutes and the rules and regulations of the Federal Communications Commission as applied to the use of radio and television facilities by a candidate or candidates for office. But the aforesaid written or printed matter and the time for radio and television addresses shall be paid for at the usual and ordinary rates, and only by a person authorized to make expenditures in behalf of the candidate, as is provided in this chapter in regard to other expenditures.

For a violation or violations of this section, the offender may be proceeded against as provided in Section 23-15-875.

Delbert Hoseman's own annotation of the mississippi election code lists:
 ALR. Validity and construction of state statute prohibiting anonymous political advertising. 4 A.L.R.4th 741.
I don't know this cite so I'll have to go look it up. I could do that on my day off day after tomorrow.
In the snow after I cash my paycheck. and get the car towed.


This appears to prevent independent expenditures,and also regulate rates. Can't be constitutional.

Article 27 - REGULATION OF ELECTIONS
§ 23-15-875 - Prohibitions against charges with respect to integrity of candidate; proceedings against violators

Universal Citation: MS Code § 23-15-875 (2013)

No person, including a candidate, shall publicly or privately make, in a campaign then in progress, any charge or charges reflecting upon the honesty, integrity or moral character of any candidate, so far as his private life is concerned, unless the charge be in fact true and actually capable of proof; and any person who makes any such charge shall have the burden of proof to show the truth thereof when called to account therefor under any affidavit or indictment against him for a violation of this section. Any language deliberately uttered or published which, when fairly and reasonably construed and as commonly understood, would clearly and unmistakably imply any such charge, shall be deemed and held to be the equivalent of a direct charge. And in no event shall any such charge, whether true or untrue, be made on the day of any election, or within the last five (5) days immediately preceding the date of any election.

Any person who shall willfully and knowingly violate this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon the affidavit of any two (2) credible citizens of this state, before any judicial officer having jurisdiction of misdemeanors, said officer shall thereupon forthwith issue his warrant for the arrest of said alleged offender, and when arrested the officer shall forthwith examine into the matter, and if the proof of guilt be evident or the presumption great, the officer shall place the accused person under bond in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00), with two (2) or more good sureties, conditioned that the person bound will appear at the next term of the court where the offense is cognizable, and in addition that the person bound will not further violate this section; and additional affidavits may be filed and additional bonds may be required for each and every subsequent offense. When and if under a prosecution under this section, the alleged offender is finally acquitted, the persons who made the original affidavit shall pay all costs of the proceedings.

another moribund statute. mills v alabama? yes

Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966)

beginning notes toward status update in taylor v taylor

This is a case which was filed in 2001, 15 years ago. It was a companion case in state court to Majors v Abell in federal court. It was filed seeking injunctive relief  at a time when the federal district court was stalling in acting on a motion for injunctive relief in Majors. This case, as well as Majors, are follow-up cases to Stewart v Taylor, which held a similar Indiana disclaimer statute, 3-9-3-2. unconstitutional under McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission.

Recently I discovered that it had been moved to Hamilton county and given a new case number, without notice to counsel, which is how it happened to be lost for 15 years. This was probably done to avoid judicial conflicts with the county clerk, a party, although the lack of notice is without explanation.  I had suspected it had been closed without notice.
* note to self : stewart v marion county, inappropriately closed voter ID case, file status update. *

In Talley v California, in 1960, the Supreme Court held that disclaimer rules, such as 3-9-3-2 and 3-9-3-2.5, are unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment. McIntyre clarified that there is no elections exception to the rule in Talley, and that the standard is strict scrutiny. (cite formula).

In Stewart v Taylor, the court ruled. "Stewart contends that McIntyre is controlling. Stewart is correct."
The ink was hardly dry on the settlement agreement in Stewart v Taylor before the Election Division, acting in bad faith, began drafting I.C. 3-9-3-2.5. While not word for word identical with 3-9-3-2, it is similar in substance, in that it again makes it criminal to make signs such as the one at issue in Stewart v Taylor, which read "Robbin Stewart for Township Board Vote Tuesday".
I formed the Tavel and Stewart Public Interest Law Firm in association with R J Tavel in order to bring a follow up law suit, which we did, in the form of Majors v Abell, filed in 1998.
(cite the 4 rulings in that case and the clerk's denial of the cert petition.)
ACLU v Heller
ACLF
Watchtower
Meanwhile, there have been developments in federal election law as well.
McConnell,
WRTL I II
Davis
Free Enterprise
I'm forgetting one
Citizens United
Ogden v Marendt
Mulholland v Marion County Election Board
Wisconsin Right to Life v Barland, Hatchett v. Barlett
In Mulholland, the Board paid Mullholland $80,000 to settle a case after spending at least $150,000 to hire counsel to defend it, after violating Mulholland's rights in exactlythe way they had violated Paul Ogden's. The Ogden  and Mulholland cases had both involved rights under McIntyre. So they are closely analogous with these two cases. Ogden is to Stewart as Mulholland is to Taylor. There are differences of course, but the parallel is worth pointing out.

Case Summary

TAYLOR, JOHN, ET.AL. -V- TAYLOR, SARAH

Case Number	49S00-0112-SJ-00645
Court	Supreme Court
Type	SJ - Special Judges
Status	Converted Case , 12/07/2001  (active)
Reference	Original County Cause Number 49D010011CT1659

Parties to the Case

Show all party details

	Appellant	Taylor, John
	Appellee	Taylor, Sarah

Chronological Case Summary

12/07/2001	Converted Event REQUEST FOR SPECIAL JUDGE (1) **TRANSMITTED TO STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION** KB
01/31/2002	Converted Event ISSUED THE ENCLOSED ORDER:
01/31/2002	Converted Event ORDER: IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT THE HON. JUDITH PROFFITT IS APPOINTED AS SPECIAL JUDGE TO HEAR THIS MATTER IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT. THIS ORDER VESTS JURISDICTION IN JUDGE PROFFITT. PURSUANT TO T.R. 79(K), AN OATH OF OFFICE IS NOT REQUIRED. RANDALL T. SHEPARD, CHIEF JUSTICE KM
02/05/2002	Converted Event ****** ABOVE ENTRY MAILED ******
202/20/2002	Clerk's Office  Physical Address: 1 Hamilton County Square Suite 106 Noblesville, IN 46060 Phone: 317-776-9629 Link: Clerk's Office Page Staff Name Title Email Phone Baitz, Tammy Clerk 317-776-9629 Converted Event *** ABOVE ORDER SENT TO S.K. REID RETURNED IN MAIL MARKED "ADDRESSEE UNKNOWN", REMAILED *** TAYLOR, JOHN, ET.AL. -V- TAYLOR, SARAH TAYLOR, JOHN, ET.AL. -V- TAYLOR, SARAH ---- 49S00-0112-SJ-00645 Court Supreme Court Case Type SJ - Special Judges Filed 12/07/2001 Status 12/07/2001, Converted Case Parties Taylor Attorneys Reid, Proffitt Court Supreme Court Case Type SJ - Special Judges Filed 12/07/2001 Status 12/07/2001, Converted Case Parties Taylor Attorneys Reid, Proffitt Clerk's Office  Physical Address: 1 Hamilton County Square Suite 106 Noblesville, IN 46060 Phone: 317-776-9629 Link: Clerk's Office Page Staff Name Title Email so call to find out current status of case, once i can get to a quiet room. to do: find out if murray clark is still indiana gop chair. send him a resume re employment as an election official at any county clerk's office, or state legislative assistant. to do: draft case status update. but find out it it's still open. ask how much it would cost to get a copy of the file, how many pages?any docket entries since 2002? at least get the complaint. Taylor v Taylor Case Status Update: This case is a followup case to Stewart v Taylor, cite, which found I C 3-9-3-2 unconstitutional per McIntyre v Ohio. The legislature then passed I C 3-9-3-2.5, re-enacting the same unconstitutional statute, in slightly different terms. A federal case, Majors v Abell, was filed in 1998, but the district court took no action for 5 years and then improperly dismissed the case. This case was filed in 2001 in order to try to obtain a TRO or preliminary injunction to limit the further damage to the integrity of the election process, caused by the unconstitutional statute's chilling of election speech.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f211.pdf