OCEAN SPRINGS, MS — At exactly 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, the City of Ocean Springs quietly issued a press release announcing it would no longer require municipal candidates to submit to background checks — just two days after GC Wire first reported that the practice was not permitted under Mississippi law.
But before the city retreated from its overreach, City Clerk Patty Gaston had a public meltdown, raging against this site and anyone who dared to question her authority.
“Call the State if you think we are handling things incorrectly, but from now on don’t ask me any more questions as I will not respond to you any further,” Gaston fumed on Facebook, lashing out at GC Wire’s reporting.
When confronted with the clear discrepancies between the city’s demands and state law, Gaston doubled down, privately emailing candidates to insist the reporting was false: “The rhetoric pushed out on Facebook and thru Mr. Rose is a sad day for the City as it is meant to mislead.”
GC Wire’s reporting was not misleading — it was accurate. So accurate, in fact, that the city’s own press release now confirms that Gaston and the City Clerk’s office had no authority to demand background checks in the first place.
City Admits It Had No Authority — Without Admitting Fault
In its press release, the city attempted to justify its actions by claiming this had been a “common practice” for years but admitted that it was not the City Clerk’s responsibility to vet candidates.
“The Municipal Executive Committee (‘MEC’), as defined in Section 23-15-309, is ultimately responsible for determining if a candidate has been convicted of a disqualifying crime. Not the City Clerk,” the release stated.
The city also acknowledged that failure to sign the release did not disqualify a candidate from seeking office — a stark contrast to the ultimatum in the original email sent to candidates.
Despite these admissions, the statement stopped short of acknowledging that the City Clerk’s office overstepped its authority when it told candidates that signing the form was required.
City Clerk’s Office Backs Out Entirely
Rather than continue assisting with the candidate vetting process in any capacity, the press release declared that the City Clerk’s office would no longer be involved at all.
“Though the City of Ocean Springs followed a common practice that has been in place for decades, the Ocean Springs City Clerk’s Department will no longer assist the MEC with this part of the qualifying process,” the statement read.
This decision raises new questions about past elections — if this practice had been in place for decades, how many candidates previously signed away their privacy rights under the false impression that it was required? And what happened to the personal information collected over the years?
What Rights Were Violated?
The ultimatum in the City of Ocean Springs’ email to candidates violated several legal protections at both the state and federal levels. Here’s a breakdown of the rights that were potentially infringed:
1. Privacy Rights (Privacy Act of 1974)
The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) protects individuals from government agencies collecting, using, or sharing their personal information without consent.
The ultimatum forced candidates to waive their privacy rights, which is not legally required under Mississippi election law.
The city falsely implied that candidates had to waive their privacy protections to qualify for office, which constitutes coercion.
2. Equal Ballot Access (Mississippi Election Law – § 23-15-309)
Mississippi law explicitly assigns candidate qualification duties to the Municipal Executive Committee (MEC) for primary elections—not the City Clerk or Police Department.
The city added an unauthorized requirement (a background check) to the ballot qualification process. This created an illegal barrier to ballot access, effectively discouraging or disqualifying candidates who refused to comply with a demand that was not backed by law.
3. Due Process Rights (14th Amendment – U.S. Constitution)
The 14th Amendment guarantees due process, meaning the government cannot deprive individuals of rights without legal justification.
The city clerk’s office attempted to alter the legal requirements for candidacy without any official policy, law, or ordinance backing the mandate. Candidates had no formal process to challenge the mandate before being pressured to comply.
4. Free and Fair Elections (First Amendment – U.S. Constitution)
The First Amendment protects political participation, including the right to run for office without government interference.
The city’s demand for personal data—especially from candidates running against current officials—created a chilling effect. Candidates who might criticize City Hall were being forced to give their personal histories to the very officials they were running against.
This could be considered an attempt to intimidate or discourage opposition candidates.
5. Protection Against Government Overreach (Mississippi Constitution)
The Mississippi Constitution establishes that local governments cannot impose additional election requirements beyond those outlined in state law. The city clerk’s office exceeded its authority, essentially making up a new requirement without legal backing.
A Rare Retreat from City Hall
Over the last year, the City of Ocean Springs has rarely, if ever, admitted fault, despite numerous clear instances of falsehoods, misleading public statements, and improper notifications. Instead of taking responsibility, city officials have repeatedly chosen to attack the media and members of the public who dare to call out their misconduct. Their standard playbook: deny, deflect, and discredit.
But this time, there were higher powers at work.
Mississippi law is clear. The Secretary of State’s Office left no room for misinterpretation. And when it became evident that Ocean Springs’ demand for background checks was not just improper but outright illegal, city officials found themselves backed into a corner.
Unlike previous controversies, they had no way to spin this one. The law was against them. The state’s top election authority was against them. The facts were against them. And now, under undeniable legal pressure, they have been forced to correct course—not because they wanted to, but because they had no other choice.
As the election season unfolds, Ocean Springs voters should remember not just the unlawful demand for background checks, but the way city officials responded to getting caught. The public deserves transparency, accountability, and leaders who own up to mistakes — not ones who only change course when their backs are against the wall.
