IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2026-EC-00618-SCT
IN RE: PETITION TO DISQUALIFY KEVIN A.
ADAMS AS A CANDIDATE FOR LEFLORE
COUNTY COUNTY COURT JUDGE IN THE
GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 3, 2026: JAMES K. LITTLETON
v.
KEVIN A. ADAMS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/28/2026
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ALBERT B. SMITH, III
TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: KEVIN ANDREW ADAMS
JAMES KEVIN LITTLETON, III
KELVIN CEDELL PULLEY
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LEFLORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DENNIS L. HORN
SHIRLEY PAYNE
JAMES KEVIN LITTLETON, III
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KEVIN ANDREW ADAMS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - ELECTION CONTEST
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART -08/13/2026
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
EN BANC.
KING, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. Former Leflore County County Court Judge Kevin A. Adams seeks to run for the
office of county court judge for Leflore County, Mississippi, in the November 3, 2026,
general election. Current Leflore County County Court Judge James K. Littleton filed a
petition with the Leflore County Election Commission, seeking to have Adams disqualified and struck from the ballot for failing to meet the applicable residency requirements.
Following the election commission’s removal of Adams’s name from the ballot, the circuit
court held that the election commission lacked jurisdiction to disqualify a candidate for
county court judge and ordered the election commission to return Adams’s name to the
ballot. We affirm the circuit court’s judgment that the election commission lacked
jurisdiction to remove Adams’s name from the ballot.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. On February 2, 2026, Adams filed a qualifying statement of intent to run for the office
of county court judge for Leflore County. On February 10, 2026, Littleton filed a petition
with the election commission to disqualify Adams as a candidate. Littleton asserted that
Adams previously had resided in Leflore County but, in 2023, had sold his Leflore County
home and had moved his residency to Grenada County. Therefore, Littleton alleged that, as
Adams had neither resided in Leflore County for two years prior to the qualifying date nor
will he have resided in Leflore County for two years prior to the date of the November 3,
2026, election, Adams was not a qualified elector of Leflore County.
¶3. The election commission held a hearing on February 18, 2026, to consider the petition
for disqualification. During the hearing, Adams asserted that the election commission lacked
jurisdiction to hear an election qualification contest for a candidate for county court judge.
Afterward, Kelvin Pulley, attorney for Leflore County, submitted a public-records request
to the secretary of state’s office of elections division. An attorney for the elections division
2
responded, stating that “[q]ualifications for county court judges are reviewed by the county
election commission” and that Mississippi Code Section 23-15-963(1) (Rev. 2018) “sets
forth the procedure by which a person may challenge a candidate who has qualified pursuant
to [Mississippi Code Section] 23-15-359 [(Supp. 2025)].” The election commission
subsequently voted to disqualify Adams as a candidate for county court judge and ruled that
his name would not appear on the ballot for the November 3, 2026, general election.
¶4. On February 27, 2026, Adams filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court
of Leflore County. This Court appointed Special Judge Albert B. Smith to preside over
Adams’s petition. Judge Smith requested that parties brief the “standing of the Leflore
County Election Commission to take Kevin Adams off the ballot.”
¶5. Adams argued that the election commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition for
disqualification. Littleton filed the petition pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 23-15-963,
which provides the avenue to contest the qualifications of a candidate for office prior to a
general election. Adams contended that, because Mississippi Code Section 23-15-963(2)
(Rev. 2018) applies only to candidates for county election commissioner and because
Mississippi Code Section 23-15-963(3) (Rev. 2018) applies only to candidates for municipal
office, the sole remaining statutory provision under which the election commission could
claim jurisdiction is Section 23-15-963(1), involving candidates qualifying for office under
Section 23-15-359. Mississippi Code Section 23-15-359(8) states, however, that “[t]he
provisions of this section shall not apply to municipal elections or to the election of the
3
offices of justice of the Supreme Court, judge of the Court of Appeals, circuit judge,
chancellor, county court judge, justice court judge and family court judge.” Miss. Code Ann.
§ 23-15-359(8) (Supp. 2025) (emphasis added). Adams asserted that because Littleton filed
the petition under Section 23-15-963 and because the relevant section cannot be applied to
a candidate for county court judge, the election commission’s decision should be reversed
and rendered in favor of Adams. In the alternative, Adams argued that he met the statutory
requirements to qualify as a candidate for county court judge of Leflore County.
¶6. The circuit court found that the election commission lacked the authority to take
Adams off the ballot for the November 3, 2026, general election and ordered the election
commission to place Adams’s name back on the ballot. In the alternative, the circuit court
found that the election commission failed to utilize the correct requirements for residency
concerning a candidate for county court judge and, therefore, committed error by removing
Adams from the ballot.
ANALYSIS
¶7. “[I]n a candidate qualification challenge, the standard of review for questions of law
is de novo.” Bryant v. Westbrooks, 99 So. 3d 128, 131 (Miss. 2012) (internal quotation
marks omitted) (quoting Young v. Stevens, 968 So. 2d 1260, 1262 (Miss. 2007)). “Further,
we review findings of fact by a trial judge sitting without a jury for manifest error, i.e.,
whether the findings were the product of prejudice, bias, or fraud, or manifestly against the
weight of the credible evidence.” Garner v. State of Miss. Democratic Exec. Comm., 956
4
So. 2d 906, 909 (Miss. 2007) (citing Boyd v. Tishomingo Cnty. Democratic Exec. Comm.,
912 So. 2d 124, 128 (Miss. 2005)). “[T]he Court reviews matters of statutory interpretation
de novo.” Brown v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 416 So. 3d 61, 66 (Miss. 2025)
(citing Chandler v. McKee, 202 So. 3d 1269, 1271 (Miss. 2016)).
I. Whether the election commission had jurisdiction to determine whether a
candidate for county court judge met the qualifications to hold office.
¶8. This Court first must decide whether the election commission exceeded its
jurisdictional authority by determining whether Adams, a candidate for county court judge,
met the qualifications to hold office. “Subject matter jurisdiction relates to the power and
authority of a court to entertain and proceed with a case. Subject matter jurisdiction cannot
be waived, and, if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action.”
Bullock v. Roadway Express, Inc., 548 So. 2d 1306, 1308 (Miss. 1989).
¶9. “[A] statutory agency has only legislation granted authority, there is no inherent
authority.” Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 593 So. 2d 997, 999
(Miss. 1991). The Legislature, through Mississippi Code Section 23-15-211, created a State
Board of Election Commissioners. Miss Code Ann. § 23-15-211(1) (Supp. 2025). The duties
bestowed upon the State Board of Election Commissioners include “[r]uling on a candidate’s
qualifications to run for statewide, Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, congressional district,
circuit and chancery court district, and other state district offices[.]” Miss. Code Ann. §
23-15-211(1), (2)(a) (Supp. 2025).
¶10. Further, the Legislature, under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-213, created county
5
election commissioners. Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-213(1) (Supp. 2025). The authority for
county election commissioners to determine whether a candidate is qualified to hold the
office he or she seeks is derived from Mississippi Code Section 23-15-359(10), which states:
The appropriate election commission shall determine the following:
(i) Whether each candidate is a qualified elector of the state, state district,
county or county district they seek to serve; and
(ii) Whether each candidate meets all other qualifications to hold the office
he or she is seeking or presents absolute proof that he or she will,
subject to no contingencies, meet all qualifications on or before the date
of the general or special election at which he or she could be elected to
office . . . .
Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-359(10)(a)(i)-(ii) (Supp. 2025). Mississippi Code Section 23-15-300 also provides that “[t]he appropriate election commission shall review and determine
whether a candidate required to file qualifying information with it meets the applicable
residency requirement according to the procedures in Section 23-15-359.” Miss. Code Ann.
§ 23-15-300(2) (Supp. 2025).
¶11. As it relates to candidates for judicial office, however, Section 23-15-359 contains an
exclusionary provision. The exclusionary provision states that “[t]he provisions of this
section shall not apply to municipal elections or to the election of the offices of justice of the
Supreme Court, judge of the Court of Appeals, circuit judge, chancellor, county court judge,
justice court judge and family court judge.” Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-359(8) (Supp. 2025)
(emphasis added). Adams argues that this exclusionary provision expressly removes the
authority of county election commissions to determine whether candidates for county court
6
judge are qualified to hold office.
¶12. Moreover, “[Sections] 23-15-961 and 23-15-963 address election contests challenging
the qualifications of a candidate prior to the general election.” Gourlay v. Williams, 874 So.
2d 987, 989 (Miss. 2004). Littleton filed a petition with the election commission to disqualify
Adams as a candidate for county court judge under Mississippi Code Section 23-15-963.1
Section 23-15-963 is divided into three relevant subsections, and provides:
(1) Any person desiring to contest the qualifications of another person who
has qualified pursuant to the provisions of Section 23-15-359,
Mississippi Code of 1972, as a candidate for any office elected at a
general election, shall file a petition specifically setting forth the
grounds of the challenge not later than thirty-one (31) days after the
date of the first primary election set forth in Section 23-15-191 . . . .
Such petition shall be filed with the same body with whom the
candidate in question qualified pursuant to Section 23-15-359 . . . .
(2) Any person desiring to contest the qualifications of another person who
has qualified pursuant to the provisions of Section 23-15-213 . . . as a
candidate for county election commissioner elected at a general
election, shall file a petition specifically setting forth the grounds of the
challenge no later than sixty (60) days prior to the general election.
Such petition shall be filed with the county board of supervisors, being
the same body with whom the candidate in question qualified pursuant
to Section 23-15-213 . . . .
(3) Any person desiring to contest the qualifications of another person who
has qualified pursuant to the provisions of Section 23-15-361 . . . as a
candidate for municipal office elected on the date designated by law for
regular municipal elections, shall file a petition specifically setting forth
1
As of 1994, “[a] judicial office is a nonpartisan office . . . .” Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-976 (Rev. 2018). Thus, the procedures for contesting the qualifications of a candidate for nomination in a political party primary election do not apply. Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-961(1) (Supp. 2025).
7
the grounds of the challenge no later than thirty-one (31) days after the
date of the first primary election set forth in Section 23-15-309 . . . .
Such petition shall be filed with the municipal commissioners of
election, being the same body with whom the candidate in question
qualified pursuant to Section 23-15-361 . . . .
Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-963(1)-(3) (Rev. 2018).
¶13. Adams notes that because Section 23-15-963(2) applies only to candidates for county
election commissioner and because Section 23-15-963(3) applies only to candidates for
municipal office, the remaining statutory provision under which the election commission
could claim jurisdiction to disqualify a candidate for county court judge is Section 23-15-963(1). Section 23-15-963(1) pertains to candidates qualifying for any office elected at a
general election under Section 23-15-359. Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-359(1) (Supp. 2025).
Yet, again, Section 23-15-359(8) states that “[t]he provisions of this section shall not apply
to . . . the election of the offices of . . . county court judge . . . .” § 23-15-359(8). And this
Court has recognized that “[b]y its own terms, [Section 23-15-359] does not apply to the
election of a [county court judge].” Westbrooks, 99 So. 3d at 133 n.6. So Adams did not
qualify for office under Section 23-15-359.
¶14. Justice Chandler, in his dissent in Westbrooks, addressed Section 23-15-963 and its
application to judicial candidates. Westbrooks, 99 So. 3d at 136 (Chandler, J., dissenting).
He argued that Section 23-15-963 did not provide Latrice Westbrooks a right to appeal the
decision of the State Board of Election Commissioners because candidates for the office of
8
court of appeals judge did not qualify pursuant to Section 23-15-359.2 Id. Justice Chandler
opined that “[b]ecause no statutory procedure afforded Westbrooks an appeal, Westbrooks
should have filed a petition for an injunction in the chancery court.” Id. at 137. The majority
declined to address the issue of jurisdiction, however, and determined that, [a]ssuming
arguendo that jurisdiction for judicial review was properly in the chancery court,” the Court
would not reverse solely because “the wrong court decided the issue.” Id. at 134 (majority
opinion).
¶15. This Court also has addressed a similar issue in McIntosh v. Sanders, 831 So. 2d
1111 (Miss. 2002). There, this Court determined that a post-election qualification contest was
an appropriate action when candidates for election commissioner had no statutory avenue to
challenge the qualification of another candidate prior to the general election. Id. at 1112-13.
Before placing the candidates’ names for the position of election commissioner on the ballot,
the Kemper County Board of Supervisors “made no verification of any candidate’s residency
or other qualifications[.]” Id. at 1112. Post-election, Barbara Sanders, a losing candidate,
filed a petition in contest of the election, arguing that the winning candidate, Schumpert
McIntosh, was a resident of Lauderdale County and, therefore, was unqualified to hold the
position. Id. A jury voted to disqualify McIntosh, and he appealed. Id. Sanders argued that
“unlike most candidates, those for election commissioner cannot challenge the qualification
2
The State Board of Election Commissioners has jurisdiction to rule on the qualifications of a candidate for the judicial office of Mississippi Court of Appeals. § 23-15-211(2)(a).
9
of another candidate prior to the general election, due to the lack of any statutory process
outlining such a pre-election appeal.” Id. at 1113. At that time, candidates for election
commissioner, who do not participate in primary elections, qualified pursuant to Section 23-15-213. Id. at 1114. This Court stated that Section “23-15-963, which governs challenges to
qualifications of candidates for other offices, only applies for those candidates who qualify
under [Section] 23-15-359.” Id. Because McIntosh did not qualify under Section 23-15-359,
the candidates agreed that Section 23-15-963 was inapplicable. Id. Therefore, this Court held
that the correct avenue to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for election
commissioner at that time was through a post-election challenge under Mississippi Code
Section 23-15-951. Id. at 1116.
¶16. Yet in another case, a candidate for the Mississippi House of Representatives died
after filing his qualifications for office; therefore, the state committee declared the sole
remaining candidate as the party’s nominee. Cummings v. Benderman, 681 So. 2d 97, 99
(Miss. 1996). After the remaining candidate’s withdrawal from the election, however, the
state committee itself selected a nominee for the seat. Id. This Court recognized that there
had been “no statute authorizing the actions taken by the State Committee nor is there a
statutory method provided to resolve the situation in which the State Committee found itself.”
Id. It stated:
The manner in which the State Committee selected Cummings is not
authorized in any section of the State’s election laws, and there is no provision
which gives direction to the State Committee on how to proceed given the set
of facts presented in the case sub judice. The election procedure or lack thereof
10
in this situation presents a problem which the Legislature, in its wisdom, may
want to address.
Id. at 102. Even so, the Court reasoned that public interest must be balanced with that of the
successful candidate and noted that a special election would be “a great expense for the
county and its taxpayers.” Id. at 103 (quoting Rizzo v. Bizzell, 530 So. 2d 121, 128 (Miss.
1988)). It ultimately held that the committee had acted in good faith and declared the
candidate as the rightful occupant of the seat. Id.
¶17. Adams argues that, because the sole authority granted by the Legislature to county
election commissions to determine whether a candidate meets the qualifications to hold the
office he seeks is derived from Section 23-15-359, and because Section 23-15-359 does not
apply to candidates for county court judge, the election commission lacks jurisdiction to
disqualify a candidate for county court judge. We agree. We find this Court’s reasoning in
McIntosh persuasive. Like in McIntosh, a lack of statutory process authorizes a county
election commission to determine whether a candidate for county court judge possesses the
requisite qualifications to hold office prior to the general election. County election
commissioners, like “county executive committee members[,] are clothed only with specific
statutory authority and function only as arbiters of election law as it applies to an election
contest.” Harpole v. Kemper Cnty. Democratic Exec. Comm., 908 So. 2d 129, 142 (Miss.
2005). The exclusionary provision under Section 23-15-359(8) is unambiguous and expressly
omits the election of the offices of county court judge from the provisions of Section 23-15-359. § 23-15-359(8).
11
¶18. Therefore, because a candidate for county court judge does not qualify under Section
23-15-359, the procedure to contest the qualifications of a candidate pursuant to Section 23-15-963(1) is not applicable. No remaining statutory provision gives a county election
commission authority to hear a qualification contest for a judicial candidate for county court.
Accordingly, a county election commission lacks jurisdiction to determine a qualification
contest for a candidate for county court judge.
¶19. The exclusionary provision under Section 23-15-359, as it relates to the authorization
of a county election commission’s authority to determine a county court judicial candidate’s
qualification for office, is an apparent oversight subject to legislative correction as opposed
to judicial. “It is not the policy of this state to have elections and other political matters of
government reserved to legislative discretion to be interfered with by the judges and officers
of the judicial department of the government . . . .” In re Wilbourn, 590 So. 2d 1381, 1384
(Miss. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gibbs v. McIntosh, 78 Miss. 648,
649, 29 So. 465, 465-66 (1901)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court
that election commission lacked jurisdiction to hear Littleton’s petition for disqualification.
II. Whether the Commission properly disqualified Adams as a candidate for county
court judge.
¶20. Because the election commission lacked statutory authority to rule on the
qualifications of a candidate for county court judge, we decline to address the issue of
residency.
12
CONCLUSION
¶21. Because a county election commission lacks statutory authority to determine whether
a candidate for county court judge possesses the requisite qualifications to hold office, we
affirm the circuit court’s judgment that the election commission lacked jurisdiction to
consider Littleton’s petition, and we affirm the circuit court’s judgment directing the election
commission to return Adams’s name to the ballot. We vacate as moot the remaining portions
of the circuit court’s judgment.
¶22. Given the necessity for an expedited and final disposition of the instant appeal, under
this Court’s authority to suspend the rules pursuant to Mississippi Rule of Appellate
Procedure 2(c), the Court finds that no motion for rehearing will be allowed and that this
opinion shall be deemed final in all respects. The mandate in this matter shall issue
immediately.
¶23. The clerk of this Court is directed to send copies of this opinion to the Leflore County
Election Commission and to the secretary of state.
¶24. AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART.
RANDOLPH, C.J., COLEMAN, P.J., ISHEE, GRIFFIS, SULLIVAN AND
BRANNING, JJ., CONCUR. WILSON, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
13