The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) won its second Open Meetings Act case in two years in Lauderdale County Chancery court on Friday. The case was filed on behalf of Tommy Williams, a Lauderdale County resident, who challenged the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors for violating open meetings laws. The Lauderdale Supervisors dropped their appeal on Friday, meaning the ruling that they held illegal, closed-door meetings to make decisions about borrowing money through bonds is final.
“This is an important win that should send a message around Mississippi: don’t violate the ethics and open government laws, or responsible citizens and the Mississippi Justice Institute will stand up for their rights and challenge you,” said MJI Director Shadrack White.
Meridian attorney Stephen Wilson and White represented Williams in the case, Thomas E. Williams v. Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors. Williams blew the whistle when Lauderdale Supervisors purposefully met in small groups to avoid creating a quorum. By not creating a quorum at any one meeting, Supervisors believed they could avoid the requirements in the Open Meetings Act that said those meetings had to be open to the public.
“Mississippians deserve transparent government. Citizens have the right to see, in flesh and blood, how their leaders make decisions,” said White. “This case reaffirms that principle.”
“MJI was successful in this case thanks to Tommy’s courage and thanks to a strong precedent set in a previous MJI case on the Open Meetings Act,” added White. Last year, MJI won an Open Meetings Act case involving the City of Columbus at the Mississippi Supreme Court. The case set a critical precedent that politicians cannot hold small meetings for the purpose of sidestepping open meetings laws.
“Meridian attorney Stephen Wilson is a brilliant lawyer and also deserves a great deal of credit for driving this case to completion,” said White.
The Open Meetings Act states that all official public meetings of a government body where a quorum is present should be open to the public, with only a few exceptions. Now courts have bolstered the law with two rulings that say politicians may not pre-arrange smaller meetings with the intent to avoid the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.
The Lauderdale Chancery Court’s ruling upholds an initial ruling by the Mississippi Ethics Commission in this case. “The Ethics Commission should be commended as well here,” said White. “They did excellent work uncovering the facts of this case and upholding transparent government.”
In its two year history, MJI has built a track record of success, particularly in transparency and ethics laws cases. MJI has also sued Jackson over its onerous regulations on new taxi businesses, has successfully defended the rights of Mississippi charter school parents in a landmark constitutional case, and has filed a complaint challenging Natchez’s violation of transparency laws.
Mississippi Center for Public Policy President & CEO Jon Pritchett announced today that Brett Kittredge has been named the new Director of Marketing & Communications for MCPP.
In this new position, Kittredge will oversee all media relations and marketing and communications needs for the office.
“We’re building not only a powerful policy and justice organization here, but also a media content shop where the leveraging of digital and traditional media is essential,” Jon said. “Brett has demonstrated that he has the strategic understanding and the tactical skills to allow us to communicate and market our ideas across the state and nation. We’re delighted to add another smart, dedicated conservative to our team.”
Kittredge previously served as Director of Communications for Empower Mississippi. Prior to that, he served in similar roles for the Mississippi Republican Party and the Office of the State Auditor.
“I am excited for this opportunity,” Brett said. “MCPP has a proud history of advancing the ideals of liberty and freedom in Mississippi, and I am ready to build on that legacy and take our communications platforms to the next level and spread our message of real conservative ideas with policy makers, the media, and the public.”
Kittredge received his Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Mississippi and his Master’s Degree from Abilene Christian University.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in an important First Amendment case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. Mississippi Justice Institute Director Shadrack White partnered with other organizations from around the country to file an amicus brief in the case in favor of the plaintiff.
“This is an important victory for freedom of speech today,” said White. “Conservatives and libertarians should be ecstatic over the recent rulings coming out of our Supreme Court. It was a privilege to be able to file an argument in this case supporting the winning side.”
The Mansky case challenged a Minnesota law that barred apparel that had ideological messages on it in polling places. MJI and other organizations argued that the Minnesota law violated the First Amendment.
“Minnesota tried to argue that this case was about protecting voters in the voting booth, but Minnesota’s law was being enforced in a way that favored some ideologies over others. For example, Minnesota admitted that they would ban shirts from a polling place that had the words ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ or the text of the Second Amendment or ‘All Lives Matter,’ but they would allow shirts with a rainbow flag or shirts that said ‘Parkland Strong.’
“That sort of inconsistent enforcement is exactly why we have the First Amendment: to protect the right of a person to speak even if the government happens to disagree with you or when someone says they’re offended by it,” said White. “You should not be punished for wearing a conservative or libertarian message. Americans should be thankful that this Court takes freedom of speech seriously.”
Click here to read the amicus brief from MJI and its sister organizations.
The Tupelo city council is considering regulating food trucks in the city but not for reasons you may suspect.
It is not because the food trucks are unclean. It is not because they are unsafe. There hasn’t been any report of a massive wave of citizens becoming ill after enjoying a meal from a local food truck.
And the food trucks aren’t operating illegally. They still go through the same health and safety regulations of a traditional restaurant.
According to a recent article in The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, city leaders are looking to regulate food trucks as part of an effort to protect brick-and-mortar restaurants within the city limits.
Picking winners and losers
The food trucks are simply competition, and apparently the city of Tupelo is interested in favoring one type of industry over another.
We all agree that there are general standards than any business that is serving food must meet. That is already being done in Tupelo. No cities, however, should be in the business of saying you must be located a certain distance from an established restaurant. Or you can only have food trucks for certain special events or weekends.
City leaders should encourage food trucks. They should be proud that food trucks want to be in their city. A look around any growing or dynamic city across the country will show an emerging food truck sector. That should be celebrated, not overregulated.
This is about more than food trucks
We should be encouraging people to become entrepreneurs. To follow their passion. This extends beyond just food trucks and touches every area of our economy.
Too often government leaders just think about what already exists or what is already providing a tax revenue. And then we feel threatened if competition rises up. As anyone who has ever been part of the private sector will tell you, competition is a good thing. Businesses grow (or fail). And consumers win.
The reason taxis have fought Uber or Lyft is not because you or I can’t drive people to where they want to go. Picking someone up at the airport and driving them to a hotel is not some proprietary work that an untrained professional cannot do. Rather, it is monopoly one sector of an industry had. They lost that monopoly because, like all monopolies, innovation, risk taking, and customer service was absent from the taxi industry.
Rather than get better or more competitive, monopolies reach out to the government to protect them. We saw this when the ridesharing economy was born and expanded. We have seen it with the homesharing economy. We see it with food trucks. And I am certain we will see it in other areas of our economy in the future.
Unfortunately, as we have witnessed in almost every case, the government mindset has been to overregulate and protect what it is already there. To choose winners and losers.
That should not be the job of government. That should be the job of the individual citizens. Because if they don’t like what food trucks in Tupelo are providing, the market will decide who the winners and losers are. We don’t go to government websites to choose which restaurant or hotel we will visit. We go to peer review sites or apps.
Encouraging entrepreneurship and letting the market decide is the answer that Tupelo’s city council should be choosing. It works in cities all across America. And it will work in Tupelo if government leaders will just let the citizens decide for themselves.
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court issued perhaps its most important opinion of this term in a case called Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling struck a blow for tolerance in America.
That last sentence will come as a surprise to my liberal friends.
A little background if you haven’t heard of the case: In Masterpiece, the plaintiff was Jack Phillips, an expert cake baker and devout Christian. For years Jack ran his store, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and made elaborate, beautiful cakes for weddings and other special occasions. His cakes are works of art. If you don’t believe me, visit his website, masterpiececakes.com, to see for yourself.
In 2012, two gay customers entered Jack’s store and asked Jack to design and bake a cake for their same-sex wedding. Jack said he would gladly bake a cake for the two of them for any other reason, but his religious convictions prevented him from baking a cake for a gay wedding. The couple then filed a discrimination complaint against Jack, claiming he violated a Colorado law which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jack showed that he had happily served gay customers before, and that he did not refuse to serve people based on their sexual orientation, but instead simply refused to participate in a ceremony that conflicted with his faith.
The State of Colorado found Jack in violation of the statute. During the hearing on the matter, Colorado officials compared Jack’s arguments to arguments for slavery and the Holocaust. The government ruled Jack had to reverse his store’s policy, and store employees had to undergo reeducation about the harm they had allegedly caused.
Jack decided he would not be steamrolled, though. He took the matter to court, arguing that Colorado had taken away his First Amendment rights. He endured years of public criticism for standing up for himself and his store. His case eventually wound its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in Jack’s favor, 7 to 2.
The Court said Colorado acted in a hostile way during Jack’s hearing. They said Colorado was inconsistent, too. Colorado allowed gay cake bakers, for instance, to deny service to customers who wanted a message on a cake that was hostile to same-sex marriage. But when it came to Jack, Colorado insisted that he make cakes for gay weddings.
The Court made the right call when it ruled in Jack’s favor. The Court prevented a world where a black wedding photographer could be forced to take photos at the wedding of a white supremacist, or a Jewish cake baker could be forced to work for an anti-Semite. Artists shouldn’t be forced to speak messages that conflict with their views.
The case has a long list of other consequences, too, and some of them are local. Mississippi passed a bill not long ago called HB 1523, which protects the religious liberty rights of Mississippians who oppose same-sex marriage. HB 1523 already led to one lawsuit, which was thrown out, and I predict it will generate more litigation. While the Court in Masterpiece did not speak directly to a statute like ours, its statement that “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views” could help the state defend HB 1523.
The far more important consequence, though, is the signal this ruling sends to society. To be sure, Masterpiece involves an emotional issue for many. America is still a nation divided on the question of gay marriage. I have many close friends and even family who disagree with my views on the matter. Those disagreements have taken on an ugly form in the last few years. People of faith who have a particular understanding of marriage are called bigots and publicly shamed.
This volatile disagreement is just as much a product of a cultural divide as it is an ideological one. People feel that entertainers, media personalities, giant corporations (Bud Light even tells me to believe in gay marriage now), and others located in a few, elite zip codes enforce a code of beliefs, and if you violate the code on this issue, you may as well be a defender of Jim Crow. In short, people feel bulldozed over what they believe.
It can be hard to be a person of faith in such an environment. We must show others that a person can believe in traditional marriage and also believe all human beings have dignity and worth. But if you cannot convince them of that, you have to be willing to fight for your views.
For those of us willing to fight, we found help from an unexpected source this week: nine lawyers in robes in Washington, DC.
This column appeared in the Clarion Ledger on June 12, 2018.
After watching "The Masters" recently, I realized how much professional golf is like the free market.
Think about it. Golfers compete in one of the only major sports that does not use a socialistic design to ensure outcomes. There are no salaries, just winnings. You cannot guarantee outcomes in golf, only opportunities. The pay in pro golf is in direct proportion to a player's willingness to practice, prepare, and compete. Win or make cuts and you earn; miss cuts and you find a new profession or become a teaching pro. A golfer can decide not to play in a particular tournament or to play in every one, but the decision and consequence belongs to the golfer. No team plane takes golfers to tournaments; no team hotel rooms and meals are arranged and paid for; no team trainer wakes the golfer up and tells him where to be and when.
Golf is the ultimate in personal responsibility. And you can probably already tell golfers are my favorite athletes.
Many people believe pro golfers were born with a silver spoon and have not really "worked" to earn their economic status. They just walk around and hit a ball, they say. And they had to be rich to learn the sport in the first place.
The critics are wrong, though. It’s kind of the way many on the Left believe most high-earners and achievers somehow found their success on the backs of others rather than through schooling, dedication, sacrifice, discipline, talent, and time.
If you want proof the Left is wrong on golf, look at Arnie and Tiger. They’re arguably two of the best players in the history of the game. They’re certainly two of the biggest earners. Both were raised in working class families, not posh neighborhoods. They took advantage of their opportunities. They proved that, in this country, you have the opportunity to do and be just about anything if you are willing to put in the work and take the risk.
You know what else? Pro golfers, The Masters, the PGA, and other professional golf organizations are the biggest contributors to charity in all of professional sports. It isn't even close. More evidence that private enterprise and private citizens can do valuable and measurable things without government assistance.
If only we could govern the nation in such a limited way.
Golf is a beautiful example of an efficient, free-market system. The players respect the game, they respect the players who came before them, and they respect the amateurs and fans who keep the sport healthy. They wear their shirts tucked in, their hats on straight, and they shake hands with their competitors at the conclusion of the match—win, lose, or draw. America's children (and more than a few adults) could learn a lot from the game of golf.
Jon L. Pritchett (@tobaccoroadguy) is president and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, the state’s non-partisan, free-market think tank. Prior to joining MCPP, Jon was senior vice president of the John Locke Foundation. He also worked as an investment banker, executive, and entrepreneur over a 28-year career in private business. His opinions have been published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, the Foundation for Economic Education, and many local newspapers.
Mississippi is adding the words “In God We Trust” to its license plate, and that has sparked some interesting debate. Much of that debate focused on an idea we have come to accept as gospel: that we have an American tradition of separating religion and politics. We do not. We have been misinformed and misled by generations of public policy, education, and media leaders on the so-called “separation of church and state.” The concept has been so pervasive that we generally accept the idea that it is inappropriate to bring any faith-based ideas to the public square. The idea that we should separate religion — of any faith or denomination — from politics is not only false, it is virtually impossible.
The arguments in favor of this separation arise from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in which he used the phrase. However, that letter, and the metaphor, have been granted meaning that Jefferson never intended. With proper historical context and examination, it is clear that Jefferson, a major proponent of religious liberty, never envisioned anything like today’s interpretation. If anything, Jefferson’s metaphorical wall was meant to keep the state from violating the individual liberty of religious conscience. Washington and Lee University’s Sam Calhoun, Professor of Law and Associate Dean, put it this way: “[Jefferson’s] wall was meant to insulate religious belief and practices from legislative interference, not to separate religion from politics.”
In the 1947 case Everson vs. Board of Education, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, “The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” The late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with Justice Black. Rehnquist believed the Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the establishment of a national church and the state giving preference to one religious group over another. It was not intended to exclude faith-based ideas from political discourse. In America, these ideas can be informed by any faith and any denomination, or by no faith at all. What we must reject is the Faustian idea that any public policy ideas that come from a faith-based perspective are invalid.
If we think about the public policy arguments that have made the biggest difference in improving our society and promoting individual liberty, freedom, and opportunity, we find religion and faith-based reasoning. Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and many others who opposed slavery made faith-based appeals on that issue. It is absurd to think that we should restrict our views of what is right and wrong to the private sphere only. In fact, we should question the motives of anyone who wants to dismiss another’s public policy ideas simply because those ideas are informed by a faith.
Yes, I’m a conservative. Well, actually, I’m a “conservatarian,” but more on that at a later date. Yes, I’m a Christian. No, I don’t want the government to endorse my ideas simply because some of them may be informed by faith. My argument is not that government should support a religion. In fact, it is the opposite. We need a more limited government. We need a government that is less intrusive in all matters. We should stop petitioning the government to solve most of our problems — including ones better solved by private institutions and free markets. The more we ask of government, the less freedom we have.
What I seek is government more in line with what Jefferson intended when he wrote about the wall of separation. He was intending to protect us from the state’s involvement in religion. He was not trying to prevent us from expressing religious views in public policy. In America, and in Mississippi, we must be open to diverse points of view, even to views with which we disagree. In that great tradition, we therefore must not dismiss views influenced by religion under the false notion that we are committed to a separation of church and state. We are not, at least not the way you think.
Jon L. Pritchett is president and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, the state’s non-partisan, free-market think tank.
Jon Pritchett talks with Jim Thorn of WYAB on May 2, 2018
Listen to the Segment
Many free-market think tanks believe it is counter-productive for think tanks to engage in the culture wars. They think our time should be focused exclusively on policy research, legislative outreach, and legal action. And while those activities are important for limiting government and encouraging individual flourishing, we should also be engaged in the war taking place in our culture.
The reason culture wars are important is, while policy, political, and legal actions tend to be lagging indicators of what is happening in our society, culture is a leading indicator. Culture signals what people believe and what they value. Want to know where our world is headed? Don't look to the halls of Congress or the Mississippi Legislature. Politicians follow the lead of the masses. Instead, look to the most popular TV shows, movies, and sports stars. They are shaping how people think about what is morally right and fair.
Presently, the progressives (opponents of free markets and limited government) dominate discussion in the culture wars. If conservatives and libertarians fail to engage on culture, we will lose when it comes to policymaking and litigation down the road. The fight begins in the culture.
Fighting progressives in the culture wars is akin to weeding your garden. If you want to grow a beautiful flower, you need to feed it sun, water, and nutrients, but you also need to remove weeds. If left unattended, invasive weeds can grow stronger. If not pulled early, they can take root in the soil and begin to compete with your flower. Over time, weeds can steal the water, sunlight, and nutrients. They can become bigger, taller, and stronger than your precious flower. While we focus on nurturing the fragile flower of liberty, we also must fight the weeds of collectivism, liberalism, and progressivism.
I'm encouraged by the culture debate that took place in NFL stadiums about national anthems last year. While progressives have infected the arts, higher education, Hollywood, and news, we still have a chance to keep sports inoculated from the disease. Until recently, sports have maintained their status as a great unifier of people from different backgrounds. No matter our race, color, sex, age, country of origin, or political interests, we share a love for our teams. As NFL owners, players, ESPN, and ESPN's parent company, Disney, learned the hard way, sports consumers want their sports delivered free of social commentary and political opinion. If a consumer wants political analysis, there are plenty of other channels.
The NFL controversy was just a small skirmish in the larger culture war. There will continue to be social justice warriors who are constantly in search of a victim to protect. There will still be virtue signalers who want to show how compassionate they are but ignore the broader consequences of their actions. Folks will continue to do things like sit for a national anthem, for instance, even if it erodes a unifying, patriotic gesture that should be used to bring us together. But the NFL skirmish showed those with traditional values could win. There is a time and a place for rigorous debate about social policies. That time is not during the national anthem of our nation's sporting events. If nothing else, perhaps we preserved the joy of watching live sports delivered to our devices without political interruption. It remains to be seen how long the defense will hold, though. We must keep fighting.