From Chris McDaniel: Our Day in Court


Recently, I filed an appeal with the Mississippi Supreme Court to a recent ruling that our challenge was not filed in time, a ruling we clearly disagree with.

Yesterday our challenge received the news that the State Supreme Court will hear our appeal, and the court has scheduled our hearing for October 2nd.

We strongly disagree with the initual ruling to dismiss, and Mississippi State Code backs us up: there is no 20 day deadline that applies to federal and statewide elections in Mississippi.

From the beginning, our top priority has been to make sure that our challenge was heard—either before the State Executive Committee or in a court of law.

We remain committed to that goal for one very important reason: integrity matters. The integrity of the Republican Party matters.

The integrity of our election process is the most important element in the public policy arena. If our elections are not honest, what does that say about the rest of the public policy arena?

If we are to put our policy house in order, we must first put our electoral house in order.

So we fight on.

We are please we will have the opportunity to argue this very important issue before the Mississippi State Supreme Court, and as my attorneys prepare their argument, it is vital we have your support.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on October 2, and my team needs the time, the funds, and manpower to get ready for that day.

Will you chip in $15, $25, or $75 to help us get ready for this very important day?

It is vital that our challenge finally be heard in court, and this is the last hurdle to making that a reality.

Once we clear this last hurdle, the challenge will finally be heard “on the merits,” as they say.

Here’s why we’re confident: the decision to dismiss based on timing was based on a law that was repealed in the 1970s.

As State law currently reads, the provision about challenging statewide elections stands separate from the statute regarding county elections, and therefore provides no deadline for filing a challenge.

My attorney Mitch Tyner followed the law which contains no deadline for filing a challenge to a statewide primary.

The so-called “twenty day deadline” was added by the courts just this week from a different and inapplicable statute.

It is unreasonable to require attorneys to take into account deadlines that are not in the statute or even in the annotations which inform the statutes.

What is more, The Mississippi Supreme Court recently ruled on authority to file a challenge in the case of Speaker Gunn v. Barbour.

In that challenge, Speaker Gunn filed his multi county election challenge 34 days after the election, and the Supreme Court found no reason to borrow the time limit in the county election statute of 20 days.

The Supreme Court would apply a clear double standard if it were to uphold Judge McGehee’s recent decision and prevent our case from being heard on the merits.

Furthermore the Court will be faced with the specter of acting as an activist court.

Since the statute is silent on the issue of any deadline for multi-county elections, any ruling that supports a twenty day deadline without judicial approval is, by definition, judicial activism. 

Even the Secretary of State — the elected official directly responsible for administering Mississippi’s elections — has said “there is no deadline under state law for a candidate to file a statewide primary election challenge.”

It is for these reasons we are confident our case will ultimately be heard on the merits.

Will you help us continue our fight? A donation of $10, $50, or $100 will go a long way to helping us make our case before the State Supreme Court.

Integrity in elections will always matter, and we will always fight for it. Your continued support is vital to this endeavor, and we are grateful to you for that support.

In liberty,





    Chrissy Mac came to town,
    Riding in his tour bus.
    Come and hear him, shake his hand,
    And thank the Barbours kindly.

    Keep a’fighin, don’t give up
    Keep appealing Chrissy.
    Don’t ever quit, no matter what,
    And keep Mitch Tyner handy.

    Mitch and Chrissy have a plan,
    It’s called Faith and Justice.
    But when to file they do not know,
    They cannot even tell us.

    Keep a’fightin, don’t give up
    Keep appealing Chrissy.
    Don’t ever quit, no matter what,
    And keep Mitch Tyner handy

    Mel is pouting in the dumps,
    She’s feeling all abandoned.
    Cuz Chrissy doesn’t need her now,
    Since Sarah’s on his wagon.

    Keep a’fightin, don’t give up
    Keep appealing Chrissy.
    Don’t ever quit, no matter what,
    And keep Mitch Tyner handy.


  2. U learn the first yr of law school that what the statute says does not matter. What matters, and what controls, is how the ms supreme court interprets that statute. Obviously mcdaniels legal team(that he continually seeks money to pay) did not research the supreme courts rulings on primary election contests and certainly did not read the kellum case (cochrans lawyers read it and celebrated)which clearly says the 20 day time limit applies. Also, its misleading to say the previous law was repealed. The code of 1942 was replaced by the code of 1972, but the language of these statutes was basically unchanged. Just what judge mcgehee said. Sp ct may reverse itself(they do it all the time), but rt now, the law is clear. The ???? I have is, if there is ANY doubt if the 20 day limit applies, why not file within that period and do not give the court a reason to dismiss ur case. Somebody screwed up.

  3. William Smith says:

    A few of the challenged votes:

    Of particular interest in the McDaniel complaint documents obtained was the listing of some 223 absentee ballots cast in seven Oxford precincts which the McDaniel representative said should have been thrown out for irregularities.

    The reasons cited by the McDaniel rep why each absentee ballot (listed with the voter’s name) are so ridiculous that reading them can only make you laugh out loud.

    There is for instance Margaret D. Khayat, wife of the former Ole Miss chancellor, who committed the serious irregularity of not giving her reason for voting absentee. And Duncan M. Gray, IV, grandson of the retired esteemed Episcopal Bishop Gray. The younger Gray, assistant principal of Oxford High School, had not signed his sealed ballot all the way across the flap.

    Then, the handwriting on the ballot cast by retired former assistant U.S. Attorney John Hailman didn’t seem to match up with the handwriting on the application on the ballot application. And then the absentee ballot of Mississippi Appeals Court Judge James D. Maxwell II, was not marked as accepted or rejected.

  4. William Smith says:

    Crossover votes:

    The McDaniel complaint makes much of his contention that Cochran had won with Democratic crossover voters who were openly recruited by the Cochran camp. The McDaniel complaint, without any documentation, charges that some two-thirds of crossover Cochran Democrats in heavily-Democratic Hinds County had said they had no intention of supporting Cochran in the November general election.

    Such crossover votes, the complaint charges, violate state law. There McDaniel is hauling out a dog that won’t hunt. Unless they could produce a voter’s loyalty oath to support the party’s nominee in the general election (which they don’t) they have no case.

    Here’s a critical turning point in Mississippi political history: refusal of the state’s regular Democratic Party delegation to the 1964 National Democratic Convention to sign a loyalty oath sparked the state’s historic break with national party and opened the path to eventual transition to the long-hated Republican Party.

    Anyone knowledgeable about fundamental Mississippi political precepts knows that a loyalty oath in a party primary is palpably unenforceable.

  5. William Smith says:

    What I do not understand is how you ever thought that a personal injury attorney was competent to handle an election law case. What happened is that a competent attorney made a reasonable argument before a fairminded judge who found that you did not file your challenge in a timely matter.

  6. William Smith says:

    Is he or isn’t he?

  7. William Smith says:

    The areas of practice for the Tyner Law Firm:

  8. I Do not live in Mississippi but I fervently hope Chris McDaniels wins. I think it is disgusting and unethical to solicit Democratic voters to swing a Republican primary. Out with the old corrupt politicians. Please God give us term limits!!!!!

  9. Buford B Neely says:

    Yes I usually support Democrats. Yes I voted for Thad in the primary runoff. No I did not vote in the first primary. I have followed Thad and believe he has been a positive for my state. Why would I wish a return to a Barnett, Johnson, Bilbo mindset that hurt Mississippi. McDaniels represents all the things that continue to hold Mississippi back. This country is built on compromise. Disagree if you will, but to oppose just for opposition sake is counterproductive .

    • Well wait on our next column and you will see why we profoundly disagree but your opinion is welcome here!

      • Hey MCD:
        You see. Buford’s reply confirms my point perfectly that I have been making here and on other postings. Perception is just as important as facts in politics. When The Anointed One and his fellow travelers go around the State promising a return to Traditional Mississippi Values, the perception to Democrats and many Republicans alike, is that Chris and his values represent “a return to a Barnett, Johnson, Bilbo mindset that hurt Mississippi.” This scares folks like Buford so much that even though he may be a Democrat, he is willing to cross-over and vote Republican in order to insure that Mississippi keeps sending an effective representative to Washington to represent the best interests of the people of our State–and not the interests of some narrow out-of-state political action committee which has its own separate agenda. Thank you, Buford, for the courage of sharing with us your thoughts. And thank you MCD for demonstrating the courage of your convictions by publishing Buford’s thoughts, even though they are contrary to the official “Pro-McDaniel” position of the website.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: