Dear Editor,

I need answers, I would like to know who was responsible for approving my Chancery Clerk candidacy. Initially, the Panola County Circuit Clerk’s office took my one hundred dollar qualifying fee and afterwards disqualified me. I was negligently disqualified over an alleged technicality regarding my name placement on the qualifying statement of intent.

I have the right to know why this discrepancy was discovered after the qualifying deadline of March 1, 2019. This did not allow me latitude to correct the problem on my qualifying statement of intent during the 30 day period that i had been prequalified.

To the best of my knowledge, the usual standard of protocol not statute involves the Panola County Circuit Clerk’s office scrutinizing candidates qualifying statements of intent and petition forms for deficiencies. Historically, candidates qualifying statements of intent have been filled out by the Circuit Clerk’s office staff to ensure that the process was done correctly to avoid errors.

Tell me who thought it was so pressing that my statement of intent for the Chancery Clerk position had to be reviewed after the March 1st deadline had expired. This negligent action by the Panola County election officials made it impossible for me to correct this detrimental error which disqualified me. Who called for that last minute review of my qualifying forms that made it inevitable for me to qualify?

Then, the Panola County Election Commissioners reported it to the press, The Panolian, before I was notified that I had been disqualified.

Should not the review of my application have taken place prior to the deadline, or best on the date of submittal? This all leads to infer nepotism and impropriety are present and running rampant.

Since Mrs. Phelps did not offer the same courtesy to me as she offered to my opponent, I say it’s nepotism. Although, there are no statutes or rules forcing her to offer this assistance I was disqualified at the last minute before any wrongs could be corrected without being given the Mississippi code section pertaining to this decision. This is a clear cut and precise act of impropriety. This decision should be rescinded and reversed.

Respectfully inferred,

s/Melvin Tucker,

Courtland