On April 14, the Mississippi Supreme Court heard arguments in a case filed by a voter, who argues that the entire statewide initiative process is invalid. It was passed in 1992 when Mississippi had five U.S. House districts. Unfortunately, the law said initiatives need signatures from all five districts. But Mississippi lost a U.S. House seat after the 2000 census, and the law has never been repaired. See this story.
They should just amend the law, not eliminate the process.
Could they throw out all the initiatives passed after 2000?
https://www.sos.ms.gov/Education-Publications/Documents/Downloads/Mississippi_Constitution.pdf
1890 MS Const — updated to 2014
Art 15 has init
***
(3) The people reserve unto themselves the power to propose and
enact constitutional amendments by initiative.
An initiative to amend the
Constitution may be proposed by a petition signed over a twelve-month
period by qualified electors equal in number to at least twelve percent
(12%) of the votes for all candidates for Governor in the last gubernatorial
election.
The signatures of the qualified electors from any congressional
district shall not exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of signatures
required to qualify an initiative petition for placement upon the ballot.
If an initiative petition contains signatures from a single congressional
district which exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of required
signatures, the excess number of signatures from that congressional district
shall not be considered by the Secretary of State in determining whether
the petition qualifies for placement on the ballot.
[spacing added]
Five congressional districts (as they existed pre 2000) are still defined in state statute. The congressional districts drawn post 2000 were drawn by a federal court. The state statute defining congressional districts has never been updated to reflect the court order. The question the court has to answer is whether looking to the five districts that still exist in state statute for the purpose of signature collection is constitutional.