Can Mississippi voters use electronic signatures on a written protest against a municipal bond, or do they have to sign by hand?

Plain-English summary

The Mayor of Columbus asked a clean yes/no question: can electronic signatures be used to protest municipal bonds under § 21-33-307, the statute that lets qualified voters force a bond election if enough of them sign a written protest?

The AG said no.

Three statutory pieces line up:

• § 21-33-307 allows protest by qualified electors. It requires the protest in writing: "If ten percent (10%) of the qualified electors of the municipality, or fifteen hundred (1500), whichever is the lesser, shall file a written protest against the issuance of such bonds . . . then an election on the question of the bonds shall be called and held."
• § 1-3-61 is the general signature rule: "[i]n all cases where the signature of any person is required by law, it shall always be the proper handwriting of such person, or, in case he be unable to write, his proper mark, unless a different form of legal signature is specified in another statute."
• § 1-3-75 speaks to petitions: "[a]ll petitions presented to any governing body of the State of Mississippi . . . or municipalities thereof, must be signed personally by each petitioner; otherwise, said signature shall not be counted as a valid signature of such petition."

A 2009 AG opinion (Wilson) considered whether the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act could authorize electronic signatures for similar petitions and concluded it could not, given the personal-signature requirement of § 1-3-75. The 2023 Gaskin opinion follows that. Bond protests are not eligible for electronic signatures.

What this means for you

City clerks receiving bond protest signatures

The opinion holds that "[e]lectronic signatures may not be used to protest municipal bonds." It reasons that § 21-33-307 calls for a "written protest" without specifying a different form of signature, so § 1-3-61's default applies: a required signature must be the signer's "proper handwriting" (or, if unable to write, a proper mark).

Voters seeking to force a bond election

The opinion describes the § 21-33-307 protest as available to 10% of qualified electors, or 1,500, whichever is less, who "file a written protest" by the date in the bond resolution. Because the opinion treats that protest as requiring handwritten, personal signatures, an electronic signature would not satisfy it.

City attorneys and bond counsel

The opinion grounds its answer in § 1-3-75, which provides that petitions to a municipal governing body "must be signed personally by each petitioner." It follows the 2009 Wilson opinion, which considered the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and concluded electronic signatures are incompatible with § 1-3-75. The opinion addresses bond protests under § 21-33-307; it does not reach other petition types.

Common questions

Q: What is § 21-33-307?
A: It is the procedural backstop for municipal bond issuance: voters can force a bond election by filing a written protest signed by 10% of qualified electors or 1,500 (whichever is less). If they meet the threshold, an election is held on the bond question.

Q: How is "written" different from "electronic"?
A: Under § 1-3-61, "written" can include "printing, engraving, and lithographing." But signatures, even on a written document, must be in the signer's "proper handwriting" or by mark if unable to write. An electronic signature is not handwriting and not a physical mark.

Q: Did UETA change this?
A: No. The opinion relies on the 2009 Wilson opinion, which considered the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act but concluded electronic signatures "are incompatible with Section 1-3-75 and the initiative process."

Q: Can someone sign on behalf of another voter?
A: The opinion quotes § 1-3-75's requirement that petitions "be signed personally by each petitioner," and § 1-3-61's allowance for a "proper mark" by a person unable to write. It does not otherwise address signing for another.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi's municipal bond protest mechanism is a participatory check on local debt issuance. § 21-33-307 sets up the procedure:

If ten percent (10%) of the qualified electors of the municipality, or fifteen hundred (1500), whichever is the lesser, shall file a written protest against the issuance of such bonds on or before the date specified in such resolution, then an election on the question of the bonds shall be called and held as is provided in Section 21-33-309.

The signature rule comes from two general provisions in Title 1, Chapter 3 (statutory construction):

• § 1-3-61 sets the default that "the signature of any person ... shall always be the proper handwriting of such person, or, in case he be unable to write, his proper mark, unless a different form of legal signature is specified in another statute."
• § 1-3-75 specifically addresses petitions: "All petitions presented to any governing body of the State of Mississippi . . . or municipalities thereof, must be signed personally by each petitioner; otherwise, said signature shall not be counted as a valid signature of such petition."

The 2009 Wilson opinion considered UETA in detail and concluded that despite UETA's general support for electronic transactions, § 1-3-75's personal-signature requirement for petitions is not displaced. The reasoning is consistent with UETA's own structure, which has carve-outs and which respects more specific state rules.

The 2023 Gaskin opinion is a straightforward application: bond protests are petitions to a municipal governing body; they require personal signatures; electronic signatures don't qualify.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Miss. Code Ann. § 1-3-61 (definition of "written"; signature must be in proper handwriting unless another statute specifies otherwise)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 1-3-75 (petitions to state and municipal governing bodies must be signed personally by each petitioner)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 21-33-307 (municipal bond procedure; written protest by 10% or 1,500 qualified electors)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 21-33-309 (election procedure if protest threshold met)

Prior AG opinion referenced:

• MS AG Op., Wilson (May 29, 2009): considering UETA but concluding electronic signatures are incompatible with § 1-3-75 and the initiative process.

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/K.Gaskin-November-3-2023-Signatures-for-Written-Protest-of-Municipal-Bond.pdf

Original opinion text

November 3, 2023

The Honorable Keith Gaskin
Mayor, City of Columbus
Post Office Box 1408
Columbus, Mississippi 39703

Re: Signatures for Written Protest of Municipal Bond

Dear Mayor Gaskin:

The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.

Question Presented

May e-signatures (electronic signatures) be used to protest municipal bonds?

Brief Response

Electronic signatures may not be used to protest municipal bonds.

Applicable Law and Discussion

Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-33-307 provides the procedure to issue municipal bonds. As part of this procedure, it allows qualified electors of a municipality to protest the issuance of such bonds in the instance they disagree:

If ten percent (10%) of the qualified electors of the municipality, or fifteen hundred (1500), whichever is the lesser, shall file a written protest against the issuance of such bonds on or before the date specified in such resolution, then an election on the question of the bonds shall be called and held as is provided in Section 21-33-309.

Miss. Code Ann. § 21-33-307 (emphasis added). You ask if electronic signatures may be used for such written protest.

Pursuant to Section 1-3-61:

The term "written," when used in any statute, may include, but is not limited to, printing, engraving, and lithographing. In all cases where the signature of any person is required by law, it shall always be the proper handwriting of such person, or, in case he be unable to write, his proper mark, unless a different form of legal signature is specified in another statute.

(emphasis added). As provided supra, Section 21-33-307 only references a "written protest" and does not specify a different form of legal signature. Further, this office has previously opined that electronic signatures are not compatible with Section 1-3-75, which states that "[a]ll petitions presented to any governing body of the State of Mississippi . . . or municipalities thereof, must be signed personally by each petitioner; otherwise, said signature shall not be counted as a valid signature of such petition." See MS AG Op., Wilson at *2–3 (May 29, 2009) (considering the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act but concluding that various reasons support that electronic signatures are incompatible with Section 1-3-75 and the initiative process). Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that electronic signatures may not be used to protest municipal bonds.

If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Maggie Kate Bobo
Maggie Kate Bobo
Special Assistant Attorney General