OurTupelo

The post Marshall Ramsey: New Friends appeared first on Mississippi Today.

Weeks after it banned COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the state’s colleges and universities, the Institutions of Higher Learning Board of Trustees voted Monday to direct employees to receive the vaccine.

This comes in response to an executive order from the Biden administration issued two nearly two months ago, which mandates employees of federal contractors get the COVID-19 vaccine.

All employees at Mississippi public universities, except those that work in an “exempt remote workplace” or have a qualified religious or medical exemption, are now required to be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8.

That means employees must schedule their first shot by Oct. 27 if they are getting the Moderna vaccine or by Nov. 3 if they are receiving Pfizer.

Trustee Gee Ogletree said the board was “required to act quickly based on the new information provided to it,” though the executive order’s deadlines were made public on Sept. 24.

Ogletree made the long, eight-part motion, which passed 9-3 over the objections of trustees Teresa Hubbard, Jeanne Luckey and Gregory Rader. They wanted to postpone a vote so they had more time to consider the motion, which Hubbard said the board did not receive until 11:30 p.m. on Sunday. 

“I have never received an official copy of this motion from anybody,” Luckey said. 

“I personally don’t even know what this motion says,” Hubbard said. “It’s very difficult for me to determine what we’re trying to accomplish with this when we’ve had very little time to process it.” 

By directing the public universities to follow President Joe Biden’s executive order, the IHL board is going back on its prior decision to ban the institutions from mandating the COVID vaccine. It was initially unclear if the executive order, handed down on Sept. 9, would apply to colleges and universities. Ogletree said the board “chose to wait for further and more definitive clarification.” 

“The IHL board does not support a federally imposed COVID-19 mandate but has been and is supportive of medical and religious exemptions to the mandate,” he said. 

By the time the board got clarification from the federal government on Sept. 24, which set the Dec. 8 deadline, it had already already taken a new vote to ban the institutions from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine. 

The executive order applies because Mississippi’s public universities have about 120 federal contracts totalling $271 million in funding, Ogletree said at the meeting. All eight institutions have federal contractors or employees working in conjunction with federal contractors. 

If Biden’s executive order is stayed or reversed, the IHL board’s motion contains a provision reverting to the Sept. 17 guidance. 

After the executive order was announced, Gov. Tate Reeves has said he intended to be among a group of Republican governors who would sue the president to block a vaccine mandate. 

READ MORE: Gov. Tate Reeves, upset over Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, says he will sue

The post In a reversal, IHL requires employees be vaccinated by Dec. 8 to comply with federal order appeared first on Mississippi Today.

Big changes could be coming to state financial aid in Mississippi for prospective college students. The Post-Secondary Board has recommended a proposal, called the “Mississippi One Grant,” that would replace the state’s three existing grants with a single program that would award aid based on a formula of need and merit.  

How will you be affected? To help answer that, we used a data analysis by the Office of Student Financial Aid of the proposed grant to create the following calculator. 

Before filling this out, you’ll need to know two numbers: Your ACT score and your expected family contribution as determined by the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. If you don’t know your EFC, you can figure that out here. The family income brackets in our calculator are rough estimates and may not give you an accurate result. 

Lastly, bear in mind that students who currently receive financial aid will not be affected by this proposal.

These are estimates based on the board’s current proposal and could be subject to change depending on the Legislature this session. About 1,800 more students are expected to qualify for aid under the Mississippi One Grant compared to the new programs. But the average aid award is going to decrease — especially for the poorest students. 

The “Mississippi One Grant” will replace Mississippi’s three current financial aid programs:

• the Mississippi Tuition Assistance Grant (MTAG), which awards between $500 and $1,000 a year
• the Mississippi Eminent Scholars Grant (MESG), the state’s merit-based grant, and 
• the Higher Education Legislative Plan for Needy Students (HELP) program, the state’s only need-based grant that covers all four years of college. 

To learn more about the proposed grant and its implications for prospective college students, read our prior coverage below.

READ MORE: Black, low-income students will lose thousands in college aid under proposed program

READ MORE: ‘We are the future’: Students react to proposal that would slash thousands in financial aid

The post How much financial aid will you get under the Mississippi One Grant? appeared first on Mississippi Today.

State Sen. Brice Wiggins, a Jackson County Republican, announced on Monday he is running for Congress in south Mississippi’s 4th Congressional District.

Wiggins, a former prosecutor who is currently serving in his third term representing Senate District 52, is the sixth Republican to announce a run for the seat held by incumbent Congressman Steven Palazzo.

Palazzo has been the subject of a House ethics investigation for allegedly misspending hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign funds. A congressional ethics report made public in March alleged that Palazzo misspent campaign and congressional funds, and said it found evidence he used his office to help his brother and used staff for personal errands and services.

The congressman, who has denied wrongdoing, has not yet filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to run for reelection in 2022.

READ MORE: Ethics report: ‘Substantial’ evidence of Rep. Palazzo wrongdoing

On his congressional campaign website, Wiggins has already taken aim at the incumbent, calling Palazzo part of the “D.C. swamp.”

“We should all be angry that our own member of Congress is under investigation for misappropriating funds as well as using his position to provide unethical and immoral favors to family and friends,” Wiggins said. 

If elected, Wiggins promises to “fight the D.C.-oriented socialist agenda” and advocate for a litany of conservative policy priorities, including cutting federal spending and taxation, securing the southern border and defending the Second Amendment, among others. 

“I have been honored to serve the great people of Jackson County and the interests of South Mississippi for the past 10 years as a state senator,” Wiggins said in a press release. “During that time, as a Senate leader working with state-wide and other legislative leaders, Republicans gained a super-majority in the legislature and South Mississippi has seen its influence grow. As a Congressman, I’ll have an even larger platform to make a difference for all south Mississippians.” 

READ MORE: Jackson Co. sheriff running for Congress seat held by Rep. Palazzo

The post State Sen. Brice Wiggins announces he will run for Congress in 4th District appeared first on Mississippi Today.

Mississippi Today political reporters Bobby Harrison and Geoff Pender discuss with House Judiciary B Chair Rep. Nick Bain, R-Corinth, the state provision imposing a lifetime voting ban on some people convicted of felonies and whether it could be changed without going through the burdensome process of amending the Mississippi Constitution.

Listen to more episodes of The Other Side here.

Read the full transcript below.

Adam Ganucheau: Welcome to The Other Side, Mississippi Today’s political podcast. The Other Side lets you hear directly from the most connected players and observers across the spectrum of politics. From breaking news to political strategy to interviews with candidates and elected officials, we’ll bring you facts, perspectives and context that helps you cut through the noise and understand all sides of the story.

Bobby Harrison: I’m Bobby Harrison, political reporter for Mississippi Today. I’m here with my colleague, Geoff Pender, also political reporter. Geoff, how you doing, man? 

Geoff Pender: Hey Bobby. 

Bobby Harrison: Well, we’re going to talk about something other than medical marijuana, so I hope we can hang to do that. We’re going to talk with Representative Nick Bain from up from Corinth.

He’s the House judiciary B chair. Representative Bain, how you doing? 

Rep. Nick Bain: Hey, Bobby, Geoff, how are y’all? Thanks for having me.

Bobby Harrison: Thanks for doing it. Look, the primary thing we want to talk about— we may touch on a lot of subjects, but the primary thing we want to talk about is you have a hearing coming up soon on what is it? Is it the 28th?

Rep. Nick Bain: Yeah, next Thursday, October 28, 10 o’clock we’re going to have a hearing on suffrage, disenfranchisement of individuals that have committed a crime. We’re going to talk about it and see what, if anything, we can do as a legislator to legislative body to really take this out of the hands of the Legislature.

Bobby Harrison: Yeah. For background, the state constitution, there’s a certain number of crimes. I can’t remember how many— you may know precisely how many— that where if you commit those crimes and then convicted of committing those crimes, you lose your right to vote forever unless it is restored by two-thirds vote of both chambers of the Legislature and signed into law by the governor or the governor issues a pardon. Right now, that issue is in court. It has been challenged on its constitutionality in court, but what’s your thoughts on the whole 

Rep. Nick Bain: issue?

Yeah, my thoughts boil down to the fact that I don’t think this is a legitimate function of the Legislature. I don’t think it’s something that we should be doing. But does that mean that people who are felons should have their rights restored? I don’t know.

I think that’s certainly an issue to be debated, but I don’t think it belongs in the Legislature. I think it’s an issue for the judicial branch of government, if you will. We allow judges to restore gun rights. We allow them to expunge records of people, and I think it’s more consistent. And it should be more readily available through the judicial system than the legislative body, and that’s the biggest concern that I have about it is I just don’t think the Legislature should be in this business.

Geoff Pender: Chairman Bain, if you could for those who maybe, you know, don’t watch the Legislature and probably certainly haven’t seen a disenfranchisement or suffrage bill, explain cause I think maybe a lot of people don’t understand. I mean, this is typically is pretty rarely done, but when it’s done, it’s a cumbersome process in the Legislature, is it not? 

Rep. Nick Bain: Yeah, it really is. It’s very convoluted. Bobby alluded to it earlier about the crimes that are disenfranchised, and I think that’s a problem. A lot of people think, “I get a felony. Well, I can’t vote anymore.” But that’s not the case. There’s only about 23 that the attorney general has identified as disenfranchising felonies. Those range from arson, armed robbery to a bad check to some type of theft, a timber larceny, something like that.

What’s not on that list is stuff like child pornography or fondling or some of that stuff. So first off, the one problem is people don’t know. I think that’s a big issue. People don’t know if they could vote or not. I’ve had people, constituents of mine, that have asked me to do a suffrage bill for them, and then we go through the process. The way that happened— and I’ll explain it —somebody contacts me for a suffrage bill. I then fill out the information with the Department of DPS, Department of Public Safety, and they can do a background check on everything to see if first off, if they are disenfranchised. This one constituent I’m talking to, he had a felony 20 years ago and come to find out he never really lost his right to vote, so he didn’t even know. For 20 years he didn’t vote because he thought he couldn’t, so that’s a problem. But then they contact us, and we fill out this information. Then we file a bill, and that bill is then sent to the respective chamber.

In my case, in the House typically we take those up in the last week of session, as you guys know. I think last year in the House we passed 18 or 19 of these, and then it went over to the Senate and they passed two or three. I can’t really remember. 

Bobby Harrison: So what you’re saying is two or three got to the governor’s office to actually get through the process.

Rep. Nick Bain: That’s right. And that’s a, you know, that’s a very minute number. It’s very cumbersome as Geoff said. You have to know a legislator first to do that, and not everybody lives in a rural area like I do where we’re pretty accessible. Not saying that the other members aren’t, but just saying with my more rural area, people tend to know their legislators more. But again, people got to know a legislator to be able to file that bill for them.

And then it’s got to go through the whole process of getting it done. In my 10 years, I’ve filed a dozen or suffrage bills, and I can only remember really one making it through. So it is cumbersome. It is time-consuming on the legislative process. I know we take them up in the last throws of the session, and really it shouldn’t be a place for the Legislature to be in this.

So like I said, expungements are a way that goes to a judge. Somebody will hire a lawyer. That lawyer will take it to a judge, and I think that same process should be done with these. But that is the problem. This is, as y’all alluded to, is constitutional. So it’s not just changing a statute or filing a bill to change the statute. It’s a constitutional issue that requires a whole lot, a greater burden to go. 

Geoff Pender: Sure. Chairman Bain, back to the list of disqualifying felonies or whatever, at least the original list in the constitution it dates back to Jim Crow, and a lot of people pointed out that it was engineered to disenfranchise disproportionately Black people.

Rep. Nick Bain: I don’t think that that’s up for debate. I think that that’s true of my understanding. I think we’re the only state in the union that does it this way. I did an interview last week with The Guardian, Sam Levine at The Guardian, and he’s following this issue too. And he told me, you know, this is the only way that it’s done in the union, which is outdated. The crimes themselves are crimes that are typically those of some type of theft outside of your murder and the violent offenses which we get. But some of these crimes, like there’s one, that’s disenfranchised. I mean, it’s bigamy. I’ve been practicing law for 15 years. I don’t know that I’ve ever represented anybody on the charge of bigamy. So it is outdated and obsolete. 

Bobby Harrison: Yeah, I’ve said this before, but you know, under our system, you could be a major drug dealer serving time in Parchman and vote and write a bad check and lose your right to vote forever. 

Rep. Nick Bain: That’s exactly right. And that inconsistency gives me a lot of heartburn on this. It’s just not fair. And I think it’s unAmerican, the way that we go about this. 

Geoff Pender: Chairman, you mentioned the judiciary being in charge and I guess something like expungement, but I mean is this something you could just set up a framework of, you know, just make a list and, you know, once you’ve done your time if you’ve done these crimes, then you have the right to vote automatically restored or does there need to be some other process?

Rep. Nick Bain: Yeah. And that’s sort of what the hearing is going to be about next week is what can we do with this being a constitutional provision? What can we do? But yeah, Geoff, that’s sort of what I have in mind is. You know, something happened either what your crime is, be it a bad check or false pretenses or something, a minor non-violent offense that maybe you have your rights restored by operation of law.

And then as you go up the ladder all the way up to some type of grand larceny or burglary or something like that, you have to petition the court and have to show good fitness and character, and that you’ve been rehabbed or whatever the case may be. Or you could just do it similar, very similar to our expungement statute, which is that you petition the court, show them that you’ve had good character for the past five years since you’ve been off probation or your sentence has been complete and you take that to the judge and you make your case in front of the judge. But in any event, I think it’s a more accessible for people if they’re able to go to a court to do that. I think it’s more efficient. And again, it’s more of a proper place that the court system has followed an individual for the most part from the beginning of the process until the end. There’s no reason to shift over to a legislative branch to continue this.

Bobby Harrison: Yeah. To me the $64,000 question, if you will, and you alluded to it, I mean, what can you do by general law without having to go through a constitutional amendment? I mean, several years, I don’t know if you remember, but you were in the Legislature. I looked this up. Several years ago, the House did pass a bill and sent over to the Senate that restored rights for most felonies. I think not murder and rape, but for other felonies and they just said they were doing the bill, doing for everybody what you do for each individual. I think is the way it would be. Are you familiar with that bill? 

Rep. Nick Bain: Yeah, you can do it. The Legislature could restore rights to individuals convicted of a crime, like felony shoplifting, through a two-thirds vote if I’m not mistaken without the need of constitutional amendment. Nothing prevents the Legislature from restoring rights to large groups of people. The issue I think is I think that can only be done retroactive. That’s a question that will be answered at the hearing.

I don’t know that that could be done for those future convicted. Does that make sense? 

Bobby Harrison: Yeah. Yeah. So it would be, you could do sorta some type of carte blanche law that restored rights to tens of thousands of people, but you can’t go out in the future and say, “People who commit crimes in the future will have their rights automatically restored,” or whatever system you came up with.

Rep. Nick Bain: Right. That’s the question that I don’t have the answer to right now. 

Bobby Harrison: Yeah, the House passed that bill in I think it was 2008. It probably would not have withstood judicial scrutiny, but you know, y’all have passed bills before that might not, you know, might not withstand scrutiny too. Who knows what the scrutiny is going to be these days, but who all is going to be testifying at the hearing?

Rep. Nick Bain: Yeah, I’ve got a list of right here. I’m going to have Dennis Hopkins, who was someone this would affect, someone who has had their rights disenfranchised; Ryan Burns, who’s a former district attorney now in the private sector who does a lot of expungement law and a lot of restoring gun rights, stuff like that; Roy Harness, and this is another one that has had his rights disenfranchised; Paloma Lu. She is the deputy director of impact legislation with Rob McDuff’s group. She’s going to come and talk to us and help us determine where we are and what we can do. And then forgive me on this last guy’s name, Neal Aubryany. He is with the Center for Secure and Modern Elections.

Again, he’s going to give us ideas. I’ve talked to them at length a couple of times, and they have provided us with some materials on what other states have done, other conservative states like Florida, Louisiana, with some other states, what they’ve done. He’s going to talk about that and where we can go with this constitutional provision, you know, sort of stuff that we talked about, allowing suffrage back to large groups or even ideas like requiring the secretary of state to provide a database for people who have been convicted. A felon needs to just to go on there to look to see if they’re disenfranchised. So that’s the people right now. There may be one or two more, but right now that’s who I have. 

Bobby Harrison: And you mentioned Rob McDuff’s office, and I forget the name of the person who’s going to testify but they have a lawsuit pending, them and some other folks, pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that would challenge the whole constitutionality of the suffrage process in Mississippi. So that’s going on at the same time. 

Rep. Nick Bain: Right. And they’re going to talk to the extent that they’re able about some of that.

Geoff Pender: Sure. Chairman Bain, you being in the Legislature I think we these days have to ask you. And at this point, this is still in limbo, but what are you hearing on a potential special session and the whole medical marijuana issue right now? 

Rep. Nick Bain: Yeah, you know, I don’t hear anything. Honestly, the speaker was up here this week, and we talked about it and he’s of the same mindset. You know, it’s in the governor’s purview.

The governor told us to get an agreement. My understanding there is basically an agreement between the House and the Senate, and there may be some minute stuff that’s out there, but for the most part there’s an agreement and the Legislature stands ready to come back and handle the issue. We’re just waiting on the call.

I’m of the personal opinion at this point, you know we’re at the end of October. We’re running out of time, so to speak. So I don’t know. I’m not hearing anything more than what I guess you guys are, but I will say to your listeners and to y’all that the Legislature, especially the House stands ready to go back and do the work if the governor calls us. 

Bobby Harrison: Just to get you on the record, you would support some type of medical marijuana legislation. 

Rep. Nick Bain: Yeah, I would. And you know, my district supported it. Overwhelmingly people in Mississippi support it. So yeah, I think it’s time for us to go down this road and make this product available.

Geoff Pender: Are you pleased with what you’ve seen in the agreement draft?

Rep. Nick Bain: You know, there’s no perfect deal, but for the most part, I think it’s on par with most of what the rest of the country is. It certainly does have some stuff that I don’t favor. You know, there are some issues about the churches that I’d like to see tweaked a little bit. There’s some issues about maybe the levels, but again, I can live with some of the levels and stuff like that.

I would like to have a little bit more information about what remedies are out there for some of your business owners and landlords and stuff. But for the most part, the overall product I think is pretty good. 

Bobby Harrison: Is there anything else you want to cover today with us? Anything standing out to you that you want to talk about?

Rep. Nick Bain: Not off the top of my head. You know, we’re looking forward to sessions around the corner.

Bobby Harrison: Y’all got a lot off stuff on the agenda. 

Rep. Nick Bain: We do, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens. You know, it’s the third year of the term. Y’all know what that means. We always try not to be as controversial, but I don’t know if that’s going to be the case this year.

Bobby Harrison: Well, Representative Nick Bain from Corinth, is it District Two? That’s right, isn’t it?

Rep. Nick Bain: District Two, uh huh. 

Bobby Harrison: You used to go into Tishomingo County a little bit, didn’t you? 

Rep. Nick Bain: No, I’ve only been in Alcorn my whole time. I’ve lost a little bit of East Alcorn population, which we’ll see that’s a big issue, you know, coming up with redistricting, so we’ll see what happens. 

Bobby Harrison: Yeah. There’s a lot of stuff going on up there that a lot of people in Mississippi don’t know about. But Corinth is one of my favorite places in the whole wide world just to visit. 

Rep. Nick Bain: Come visit us and bring the checkbooks. Spend a lot of money.

Geoff Pender: And eat a slug burger.

Rep. Nick Bain: That’s right. Eat a slug burger and some tamales and, you know, drink a Coke. That’s it. 

Geoff Pender: Okay. Well, Chairman Bain, thank you again for joining us today. Really appreciate you talking with us. 

Bobby Harrison: Thank you. 

Rep. Nick Bain: All right, guys. Thank you.

Adam Ganucheau: As we cover the biggest political stories in this state, you don’t want to miss an episode of The Other Side. We’ll bring you more reporting from every corner of the state, sharing the voices of Mississippians and how they’re impacted by the news. So, what do we need from you, the listener? We need your feedback and support.

If you listen to the podcast on a player like iTunes or Stitcher, please subscribe to the show and leave us a review. We also have an email in which you can share your feedback. That address is Podcast@MississippiToday.org. Y’all can also reach out to me or any of my colleagues through social media or email. And as always thank you for your feedback and support.

Subscribe to our weekly podcast on your favorite podcast app or stream episodes online at MississippiToday.org/the-other-side. For the Mississippi Today team, I’m Adam Ganucheau. The Other Side is produced by Mississippi Today and engineered by Blue Sky Studios. We hope you’ll join us for our next episode.

The post Podcast: Mississippi House hearing scheduled for felony disenfranchisement appeared first on Mississippi Today.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the U.S. House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, said in a national Sunday morning interview his committee was open to subpoenaing former President Donald Trump “if the evidence” leads them there.

“Let me say that nobody’s off limits,” Thompson said when asked on CBS’ “Face the Nation” if his committee would subpoena the former president. “We will be, on an ongoing basis, issuing subpoenas to various individuals around the country. If we have enough evidence — and obviously we are pursuing evidence — but if the evidence leads to former President Trump or anyone else, the committee is not resonant in pushing back on it. We will go forward with it. 

“So, you know, it’s an investigation,” Thompson continued. “We’re not trying to get ahead of the investigation. We’ll follow the facts and circumstances as they present themselves.”

Thompson was appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi on July 1 to lead the committee, which is compromised of seven Democrats and two Republicans.

The House committee has subpoenaed several people close to former President Donald Trump, including his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and communications director Dan Scavino. The committee also subpoenaed organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally, which was the catalyst of the Capitol riot.

Steve Bannon, an adviser to Trump, was held in criminal contempt by the House last week after he defied a subpoena to appear before the committee and turn over documents. All but nine Republican House members voted against the contempt charge. Mississippi’s three other congressmen — Reps. Trent Kelly, Michael Guest and Steven Palazzo, all Republicans — voted against holding Bannon in contempt.

Prosecutors at the U.S. Department of Justice will now decide whether to pursue criminal charges against Bannon.

READ MORE: With insurrection investigation underway, the nation’s eyes turn toward Bennie Thompson

In the interview on Sunday, Thompson also talked in length for the first time publicly about the committee’s focus on Facebook and other social media companies. He said the committee is “working with” Facebook to obtain requested information and that it is examining the financing that went into the Capitol riot.

The House committee sent Facebook and 14 other social media companies letters in August asking them to provide records related to the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. Thompson on Sunday said that “it’s clear” rioters used Facebook and other social media sites as an “organizing tool.”

“At this point, Facebook is working with us to provide the necessary information we requested,” Thompson said in the Sunday morning interview. “… If it’s consistent with some of the things that we’re hearing coming from other areas, then obviously it’s a problem. But at this point, we are not ready to make a decision one way or the other on Facebook’s role.”

Among the Facebook documents the House committee requested: 

• All Facebook internal communications, studies, reports and data analyses related to the riots.
• Documentation about the spread of misinformation and efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and foreign influence in the election.
• Documentation of “domestic violent extremists, including racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, militia violent extremists, sovereign citizen violent extremists, QAnon, or other extremists associated with efforts to overturn the 2020 election.”

Thompson also said his committee is investigating the financing of the Capitol riot.

“It’s just interesting to note that a lot of people came to Washington by bus, by plane, by chartered vehicles. They stayed in hotels, motels, all of that. Somebody had to pay for it,” Thompson said on Sunday morning. “And we want to look at whether or not they’re paying for that participation was legal and whether or not it contributed to what occurred on Jan. 6.”

Jan. 6 investigation: Full opening statement from Congressman Bennie Thompson

The post Will Rep. Bennie Thompson’s Jan. 6 committee subpoena Trump? “Nobody’s off limits.” appeared first on Mississippi Today.

The post Marshall Ramsey: Supply Chain appeared first on Mississippi Today.

In this episode of Mississippi Stories, Mississippi Today Editor-At-Large Marshall Ramsey visits with Jane Granberry who was crowned the 72nd Mississippi Miss Hospitality in July 2021 (and was previously crowned Mississippi Outstanding Teen in 2019.)

Jane is studying integrated marketing communications and history at the University of Mississippi and plans to work in health communication. She is a member of the Rebellettes Dance Team, Ole Miss Ambassadors, and Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. Jane is also in the honors college and Lambda Sigma Honors Society.

When not busy on campus (her day planner is filled from 5:30 a.m. to 10 p.m.,) Jane will spend the next year promoting Mississippi’s tourism and economic development industries across the state and country. In this interview, Jane shows her high-energy, love of the state in this interview and gives several good reasons to be optimistic about Mississippi’s future.

The post Mississippi Stories: Jane Granberry appeared first on Mississippi Today.

Gov. Tate Reeves is holding up efforts to enact a Mississippi medical marijuana law.

The first-term Republican governor’s refusal to call a special session is preventing legislators from taking up and presumably passing a bill approving medical marijuana.

While Reeves is, at this point, the sole person blocking efforts of legislators to at least take up the issue of medical marijuana, there is plenty of blame to be shared by both House and Senate leaders as to why the state does not already have a medical cannabis program.

Medical marijuana is an issue that legislators have been dragging their collective feet on for years.

First and foremost, during the 2021 session, the Senate, led by Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, passed a bill that would have made medical marijuana legal by now if the House had passed it and if it was signed into law by the governor.

The House opted to let the bill die.

The backdrop is that many supporters of medical marijuana did not want the Legislature to pass a bill that they feared would supplant Initiative 65 that was approved overwhelmingly by voters in November 2020 to legalize medical marijuana.

The bill approved by the Senate would have gone into effect only if the Mississippi Supreme Court threw out the citizen-sponsored Initiative 65. As everyone now knows, the Supreme Court in a lawsuit that was pending when the Senate passed its bill did strike down Initiative 65, citing problems with the language establishing the initiative process.

Since that controversial Supreme Court ruling in May, legislators have been trying to reach agreement on a medical marijuana proposal that could be taken up in a special session.

There was a second moment in the 2021 regular session that could have already decided the fate of medical marijuana. Had the Senate agreed to what some members of the House wanted earlier this year — an extended regular session — the Legislature could have come back into session on its on to enact medical marijuana.

The state Constitution gives the Legislature the authority to extend the regular session essentially through the entire year if two-thirds of the membership of both the House and Senate agree. While the House wanted to do this in 2021, the Senate leaders had no interest.

The session extension resolution could be crafted in a way that legislators would only return to the Capitol if Hosemann and House Speaker Philip Gunn agreed on a reason for them to return.

But lawmakers are responsible for the delay dating back many years before 2021. Truth be known, as neighboring states began to legalize medical marijuana years ago, the Mississippi Legislature should have seen the writing on the wall — the broad public support for medical marijuana — and acted before it ever got to a citizen-sponsored initiative.

And when the initiative was filed, legislative leaders should have known there was a good chance it would be successful. That is especially true since it had the backing of state Rep. Joel Bomgar, R-Madison, who has the tech savvy needed to wage a successful campaign to gather the number of signatures of registered voters needed to place an issue on the ballot.

Legislators could have passed a medical marijuana bill early on after the initiative was filed. The Legislature’s legalization of medical marijuana most likely would have taken the steam out of the initiative.

To further parse blame, there would have been less of a chance a lawsuit would have been filed challenging the initiative had the proposal not incorporated many of Bomgar’s libertarian principles, including the restraints on taxing the product and the wide discretion in its use.

In fairness to Reeves, one of the few powers the Mississippi Constitution gives the governor is the authority to call a special session. He is using that leverage to say precisely what he wants the bill to entail.

That is his right. But as a veteran of the legislative process, the governor also should know that even if legislative leaders agree to his demands, it would be difficult for them to guarantee that an amendment offered and passed by the full membership during debate would not be contrary to Reeves’ wishes.

The legislative leadership, presumably, could limit debate and prevent amendments from being offered. But how would it look to pass a bill legalizing medical marijuana without debate?

Another option would be for Reeves to do the hard work of gaining commitments from enough lawmakers to ensure amendments changing his proposal did not pass.

But if Reeves does not want to do that work — as other governors have done in the past — he can simply keep them from convening. He has that power, at least until January when the 2022 regular session begins.

Then, legislators can pass whatever medical marijuana bill they want, and it will be up to Reeves to sign it or veto it. The question then will be does he want to veto medical marijuana that has been approved overwhelmingly by the Mississippi electorate.

The post Gov. Reeves is holding up medical marijuana now, but the blame starts with lawmakers appeared first on Mississippi Today.