Live from Downtown: Court Vetoes Lumumba

Chancellor Slaps Down Lumumba, tyranny in Jackson

The war between Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba and the City Council resumes today in Hinds County Chancery Court.  Special Guest Star Chancellor Larry Roberts will decide whether the Mayor can veto negative actions of the Council.   Watch the proceedings below as yours truly live-blogged the hearing. 

Attorneys Felicia Perkins and Jessica Ayers represent the Mayor while attorneys John Scanlon and Deshaun Martin stand in for the City Council. 

Both sides filed motions for summary judgment and the Mayor filed a motion to dismiss.  Judge Roberts is hearing the motions first.  

Scanlon says the issue is whether the Mayor can veto a negative vote.  There were four instances where a motion was made.  The motions did not get a majority of votes although one had a tie vote.  The Mayor vetoed each rejection.

Judge Roberts asked if "official actions" includes rejections. Scanlon said rejections are an action but not subject to veto.  He argued the official action requires the Council to present the action to the Mayor.  The rejection was not presented to the Mayor.  The attorney said there were no opinions or A.G.  opinions that dealt with vetoes of negative votes.  

 

The power to veto is found in Section 21-8-17 of the Mississippi Code (Ordinances adopted by the Council.).  The code states:

(2) Ordinances adopted by the council shall be submitted to the mayor and he shall, within ten (10) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after receiving any ordinance, either approve the ordinance by affixing his signature thereto or return it to the council by delivering it to the clerk of the council together with a statement setting forth his objections thereto or to any item or part thereof. No ordinance or any item or part thereof shall take effect without the mayor's approval, unless the mayor fails to return an ordinance to the council prior to the next council meeting, but no later than fifteen (15) days (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) after it has been presented to him or unless the council upon reconsideration thereof not later than the tenth day (not including Saturdays, Sundays or holidays) following its return by the mayor, shall, by a vote of two-thirds ( 2/3) of the members present and voting resolve to override the mayor's veto.

Scanlon said adopting the Mayor's argument would create minority rule.  Failure of an affirmative vote means there is no adoption, without adoption, there is nothing to veto.  Allowing the Mayor to veto such votes removes the power to govern from the City Council. 

Upon questioning, Scanlon said the Council no longer sought a permanent injunction.  

Scanlon sat down as Ayers took her turn at bat.  She argued all official actions includes all votes of the City Council.  She said the only statute that limits the Mayor's veto is the redistricting statute (21-8-7(c)(i).  She said the City Council still was a check on the Mayor's power as it could still override his veto. 

Judge Roberts asked if the Mayor could use a veto to require a 2/3 vote to pass motions.  Ayers said yes.  She argued the execution a contract is the Mayor's function.  Judge Roberts asked how he could execute a contract that was not approved.  The Chancellor said the contract was not approved.  "The law of the majority of the council is converted to a 2/3 argument," said Judge Roberts.  He asked if it impinged upon the separation of powers.  Ayers said the law allowed the Mayor and Council to work together like this (Robert just tipped off where he is going.).  She said requiring a majority of five votes was a better representation of the voters than a four-vote majority.  The attorney at times sputtered as she replied to the Chancellor's query.  

 

Judge Roberts pointed out the Mayor was converting an invalid contract rejected by the City Council to a valid contract through the use of his veto.  He referred to the "nasty word of adoption" as he asked if the Council adopted anything.  She said the rejection was an adoption of the contract rejection as the Special Guest Star in this drama chuckled.  

The Chancellor noted Section 2-66 of the Jackson municipal code said " No action of the city council shall be considered adopted unless it receives the affirmative vote of that portion of the council dictated by state law under the circumstances."   

Ayers thumbed through her binder as she looked for a response.  This is probably the crucial part of the hearing.  She said the City Council was trying to encroach upon the Mayor's duties such as negotiating contracts and present them to the City Council.  The Council is trying to usurp that authority.  The attorney began repeating arguments she made earlier.  

Scanlon stood up in rebuttal.  He repeated the ordinance's requirement of an affirmative vote for an adoption of a motion.  Ayers was given a chance to respond but asked for a break.  Judge Roberts declared the court to be in recess for ten minutes.   

Judge Roberts returned from the break ready to rule.  He reiterated the central issue is whether the Mayor can veto a negative action of the City Council.  Section 21-8-17 says ordinances adopted by Council shall be presented to Mayor.  He said another code section said "ordinance" included any actions of the Council. Does a refusal to act become an official action? He repeated Jackson Ordinance 2-66.  He said the A.G. issued opinions for over thirty years.  He quoted one opinion: "Inaction by Board of Aldermen is not subject to the Mayor's veto." He quoted similar passages from other vetoes as he recognized such opinions are persuasive and not binding upon the Court. 

"The failed ratification of the emergency contract to me constitutes failed action..... When a matter is not passed by the City Council, it is a negative action that the Mayor does not have the power to veto."   

The City Council withdrew its request for an injunction.  

Chancellor Robert asked Scanlon and Martin to draft a proposed order.