“Substantial Compliance” and “Unified Representation” Confirmed for Election-Commissioner Qualifications: A Commentary on Brown v. Madison County Board of Supervisors (Miss. 2025)

Introduction

The Supreme Court of Mississippi’s decision in Callie Mae Brown, et al. v. Madison County Board of Supervisors, No. 2024-EC-01059-SCT (June 19, 2025), addresses two seemingly routine but practically significant issues in local election law:

How strictly must prospective county election commissioners comply with the technical requirements of Mississippi Code § 23-15-213 when filing qualifying papers?
May the same attorney ethically represent both a county Board of Supervisors and the county Election Commission in litigation over candidate qualifications when, by statute, the Board temporarily “acts as” the Election Commission?

The appellants—five Madison County voters—sought to overturn the Board’s approval of candidate Joanne Pearson. They alleged (i) her petition omitted the general-election date, (ii) her statement of intent omitted written party affiliation, and (iii) counsel Spence J. Flatgard’s dual representation created an unwaivable conflict. The Circuit Court affirmed the Board and refused to disqualify counsel; the Supreme Court now does the same, cementing two doctrinal clarifications:

New Principle #1 (“Substantial Compliance Rule”): Under § 23-15-213, the absence of the election date, or a written party declaration later cured or irrelevant to voter understanding, does not invalidate a petition so long as the petition “expresses in an intelligible manner” the candidate’s intent and does not mislead electors.

New Principle #2 (“Unified Representation Doctrine”): Where the Board of Supervisors statutorily assumes the duties of the Election Commission for candidate-qualification purposes, a single lawyer may represent both bodies without violating Rule 1.7, absent evidence of adversity or unauthorized appearance.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court (Randolph, C.J.) unanimously AFFIRMS the Circuit Court.
It finds the Board’s approval of Pearson was neither arbitrary nor capricious; Pearson’s filings substantially complied with § 23-15-213.
The omission of the election date did not mislead signatories; each page listed the candidate’s name, office, county, and correct district.
Pearson’s oral declaration of Republican affiliation, combined with its appearance on the November ballot, satisfied the statute’s aim; any defect affected only ballot labeling, not ballot access.
No conflict of interest existed: the Board and Election Commission shared identical legal interests during the qualification process, and evidence showed the Board formally approved attorney Flatgard’s representation.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

McIntosh v. Sanders, 831 So.2d 1111 (Miss. 2002)
– Established that during qualification disputes the Board of Supervisors “acts as” the Election Commission. The Court relied on this to hold the two bodies’ interests were congruent, undermining the alleged conflict.
City of Clinton v. Smith, 493 So.2d 331 (Miss. 1986)
– Set the “no-misleading” standard for petitions: signatures count only if the page contains language intelligible to signers. The Court borrowed that benchmark to evaluate Pearson’s missing election date.
Stennis v. Board of Supervisors of Clay County, 98 So.2d 636 (Miss. 1957)
– Emphasized that “minor irregularities” do not void petitions absent fraud or confusion. Used to justify the substantial-compliance approach.
Wilbourn v. Hobson, 608 So.2d 1187 (Miss. 1992)
– Reaffirmed that technical defects cannot disenfranchise voters when ballot integrity is intact. Provided policy support for leniency.
Attorney-General Opinions (2012 Martin; 2012 Clark; 2016 White)
– Though non-binding, these opinions advocated substantial compliance and “benefit of the doubt” to voters. The Board expressly relied on them, bolstering the Court’s view that its action was reasonable.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Standard of Review – De novo for statutory interpretation and candidate-qualification challenges; “manifest error” for attorney-disqualification rulings.

2. Statutory Construction of § 23-15-213
• The statute lists four core filing elements (petition, 50 signatures, district residency, Feb 1 deadline) and a requirement that the Board “shall determine” sufficiency.
• The Court parsed the text and held that the election date is not among the enumerated requisites; therefore, its omission cannot be fatal.
• “Shall declare party affiliation” is mandatory, but failure only jeopardizes how the name appears on the ballot, not qualification itself—especially where the Board cures the defect by accepting an oral declaration and placing the affiliation on the official ballot.

3. Substantial vs. Strict Compliance
• Drawing on Stennis and A-G opinions, the Court endorsed a substantial-compliance yardstick, provided no voter deception.
• It distinguished deadlines (strict) from form content (substantial), echoing the 2012 Martin opinion.

4. Arbitrary-and-Capricious Review
• Applying McAdams v. Perkins, 204 So.3d 1257 (Miss. 2016), the Court found ample evidence: registrar certification, timely filings, clear district labeling.
• No evidence suggested fraud, misunderstanding, or voter disenfranchisement.

5. Attorney Ethics and Unified Representation
• Rule 1.7 conflict requires materially adverse interests; none exist when one body temporarily stands in the shoes of the other.
• Statutes (§ 19-3-47 and § 23-15-219) authorize joint counsel with Board approval, proven by minutes and engagement letters.
• Absence of board minutes alleging unauthorized appearance was unsubstantiated, so no manifest error in refusing disqualification.

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

Candidate-Qualification Litigation – Petition challenges will now survive only if the defect (i) violates an explicit statutory element or (ii) demonstrably misleads signers. Practitioners should prepare to show actual confusion, not mere technical omissions.
Boards and Election Commissions – Counties may confidently retain a single lawyer for both bodies during qualification disputes, streamlining defense and reducing cost.
Legislative Clarity – The ruling may prompt the Legislature to amend § 23-15-213 either to codify the Court’s substantial-compliance approach or to re-impose stricter formality (e.g., mandatory election date).
Ethics Landscape – The “Unified Representation Doctrine” might inform other statutory contexts where one entity temporarily functions as another (e.g., school boards sitting as disciplinary tribunals).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Compliance: Meeting the essential purpose of a legal requirement, even if minor technical details are missing, provided no one is misled or harmed.
Arbitrary and Capricious: A government decision made without reasoned judgment or consideration of evidence—akin to acting on a whim.
Board “Acting As” Election Commission: Under § 23-15-213, when an incumbent or would-be commissioner’s papers are in question, the Board of Supervisors temporarily assumes the duties of the Election Commission to avoid conflicts of interest among sitting commissioners.
Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Occurs when a lawyer’s representation of one client is materially limited by duties to another. If no adverse interests exist, simultaneous representation may be permissible with consent.

Conclusion

The Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinion in Brown v. Madison County Board of Supervisors delivers a pragmatic blueprint for local-election administration. By embracing substantial compliance and clarifying that statutory role-shifting permits unified legal representation, the Court prioritizes voter enfranchisement and governmental efficiency over hyper-technical readings of election statutes. Future challengers must now reckon with a higher bar: they must demonstrate real confusion or statutory violation, not mere paperwork imperfections. The decision thus stands to curb frivolous disqualification suits, safeguard candidate access to the ballot, and streamline county litigation strategy—an outcome likely to resonate in courthouse and campaign office alike.