Jackson Free Press

The American Cancer Society is urging local residents to sign up so that cancer’s greatest mysteries can be unlocked.

This open letter came late on runoff night. We are reposting it verbatim. Send other "open letter" submissions (up to 1,000 words with verifiable facts and respectful tone) to [email protected].

Dear Mr. Lumumba,

We are a white couple in our early 30s that live in Ward Seven who did not vote for you. That said, congratulations on winning the Democratic primary for the Jackson mayoral election tonight. While many people in town are celebrating with you, there are many people who have many fears about the next four years.

• What is going to happen with the infrastructure issues of Jackson in all wards? (Will the large sinkhole on Old Canton Road ever get fixed?)

• Will you be fair towards advancing all wards of Jackson and uniting the city?

• Will the public schools in our area be the best (or even a good) educational option for our children?

• Will economic growth be encouraged in all wards?

• Will there be a continued (or even an increase) in wealth and opportunities leaving the city out of fear and uncertainty?

• Will crime increase in the city?

Should you be elected mayor, we—and many other Ward 1 and Ward 7 residents—would like to work with you to help achieve solution to these long-standing issues facing Jacksonians.

We have chosen to raise our family in Jackson and consciously make every effort to support local businesses and restaurants. We have been extremely saddened to hear of businesses moving out of Jackson city limits and into surrounding cities. Our hope is that others will make a similar commitment to support Jackson. However, on paper, we realize that it does not make sense for us to live in Jackson.

• Our property taxes and car tags are significantly higher than other cities in the metro area.

• With businesses moving out of Jackson, it is often difficult to not give sales tax money to other cities in the metro area. (Once Sam's Club leaves its current location, should we go to the new Madison store or the one in Pearl? We want to keep our sales tax money here, but these are the real decisions we face.)

• The crime rate and perception of Jackson intimidates many of our friends/family who don’t feel comfortable coming to our house at night.

• We don’t feel like we can send our kids to their assigned elementary school as it is a “failing” school with a level 2 rating without a multi-racial environment.

• Our roads and pipes are crumbling.

But we love it here. We love our neighbors. We love the local restaurants. We love the festivals/events. We love our church. We love the future that we believe Jackson can have.

We chose to live here to be part of a movement … moving Jackson forward. We don’t want to leave the city. So, how can we partner together, with you to help Jackson—all of Jackson?

Together, I hope we can make …

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is touting a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that he says affirms the rights of state attorneys general to file lawsuits in state court.

Here's the full release from Hood's office:

Jackson, MS – In a case brought by Attorney General Jim Hood, the U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the right of attorneys general across the country to enforce their state’s laws in state court. The Supreme Court ruled in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp. that a state attorney general asserting state law claims for damages incurred by its citizens can have that case resolved by its state court, and is not required to be removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

All nine Justices agreed to reverse the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the State’s antitrust and consumer protection enforcement suit could not proceed in Mississippi state court. The Fifth Circuit had encroached on state courts’ rights to hear important public matters by significantly broadening the interpretation of what can constitute a federal “mass action.” Under CAFA, that requires the presence of 100 or more individual “plaintiffs.” The Fifth Circuit had ruled that, despite the State Attorney General being the only plaintiff in the case, the court would treat all Mississippi residents as “plaintiffs” so that CAFA’s 100 person requirement could be considered satisfied, depriving the state courts of the right to interpret their own laws.

Having recognized the important state sovereignty issues at stake, all U.S. Courts of Appeals that had addressed the issue – except the Fifth Circuit – had flatly rejected this analysis. The Supreme Court has now corrected the Fifth Circuit’s error, and Mississippi’s case will properly be returned to Mississippi Chancery Court.

Attorney General Jim Hood stated, " The United States Supreme Court was crystal clear that federal courts have no jurisdiction under the so-called Class Action Fairness Act over actions brought by state Attorneys General for consumer and anti-trust violations. For far too long, large corporations have abused the federal judiciary by trying to drag every action filed by an Attorney General in state court into federal courts. The working people of Mississippi and other states won one this time."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that an action by an attorney general on behalf of the state’s citizens does not fit within CAFA’s language. The Court held that, because the State of Mississippi, through its attorney general, is the only plaintiff, this suit does not constitute a mass action.

The State sued makers of liquid crystal displays (LCD) in Mississippi state court in January 2011, alleging that these manufacturers had formed an international cartel to restrict competition and boost prices in the LCD market. Several of the defendants in the State’s case pled guilty to charges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and paid criminal fines to the U.S. Government. The Mississippi Attorney General sued to recover for the economic harm to the State and …