Can a Mississippi county use electronic signatures on board minutes, resolutions, contracts, and purchase orders?

Plain-English summary

Jackson County had moved to an electronic agenda and minutes management system. The chancery clerk asked the AG whether Mississippi law authorized the county to use electronic signatures on board of supervisors' minutes, resolutions, orders, associated contracts, correspondence, and purchase orders.

The AG said yes across the board. Mississippi's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), at § 75-12-1 et seq., is broad. Section 75-12-13 specifically says a record or signature cannot be denied legal effect or enforceability just because it is electronic, and that an electronic signature satisfies any law requiring a signature. The AG had already applied this to municipal minutes in a 2020 Smith opinion. The same logic carried over to county boards' minutes (signature required by § 19-3-27), board resolutions, orders, contracts, correspondence, and purchase orders.

A footnote in the opinion added that electronic notarization and acknowledgment also work under § 75-12-21, as long as the electronic signature is from a person authorized to perform those acts and is logically associated with the signed record.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2021. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

What the opinion said for each audience, at the time

For county chancery clerks digitizing records

In 2021, the opinion confirmed counties could go electronic on minutes and supporting documents. The board president's signature on minutes (required by § 19-3-27) could be electronic. Resolutions, orders, contracts, correspondence, and purchase orders qualified the same way. The opinion's reasoning carried over from the Smith municipal opinion, which had conditioned electronic minute-keeping on the minutes remaining publicly available for review and inspection.

For municipal clerks

The 2020 Smith opinion that this 2021 opinion built on had already addressed municipalities. The Smith opinion said cities could "forego the use of physical minute books and store all minutes electronically; provided, however, all requirements of Section 21-15-1 et seq., inclusive of the signing and seal requirements of Section 21-15-3, are satisfied and the minutes are publicly available for review and inspection."

For county boards moving to fully electronic agenda systems

The opinion answered Jackson County's question after it had moved to an electronic agenda and minutes management system: electronic signatures satisfy the signature and attestation requirements for board minutes, resolutions, orders, contracts, correspondence, and purchase orders. The opinion addressed the signature requirement; it did not catalogue other requirements (such as the Smith opinion's condition that minutes remain publicly available for review and inspection).

For people interacting with the county on documents

Under the opinion, a record or signature could not be denied legal effect solely because it was electronic. An electronically signed county contract, order, or resolution was given the same legal effect as a paper one with a handwritten signature, per § 75-12-13.

Common questions

Q: What is the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act?
A: A model state law adopted by most states (Mississippi codified it at § 75-12-1 et seq.) that establishes the legal equivalence of electronic signatures and records to paper-and-ink ones, when the parties have agreed to conduct business electronically. It is the foundation for modern e-commerce and electronic government.

Q: Does the county have to use specific electronic signature technology?
A: The opinion did not require or address any particular signature technology. It rested on § 75-12-13, which provides that a record or signature may not be denied legal effect solely because it is electronic and that an electronic signature satisfies a law requiring a signature. The county's questions noted that the county would adopt standards and that all parties would agree to conduct transactions by electronic means.

Q: Are electronic signatures notarizable?
A: Yes, per § 75-12-21. If a law requires a signature to be notarized, acknowledged, verified, or made under oath, the requirement is satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to perform those acts (the notary or other official) is attached to or logically associated with the signature or record, along with all other information required by other applicable law.

Q: Does this apply to all county documents?
A: The 2021 opinion specifically covered minutes, resolutions, orders, contracts, correspondence, and purchase orders. The general principle of UETA extends further (any record or signature where Mississippi law requires writing or a signature can be electronic), but specific statutes can override. Counties should check whether any document type they handle has a special statutory requirement that might displace UETA.

Q: Did this opinion change any prior AG position?
A: No, it built on the 2020 Smith opinion and applied the same reasoning to the county-board context. The opinion was a confirmation, not a change.

Q: What about the seal of the county?
A: The opinion did not specifically address seal requirements. Section 21-15-3 (referenced in the underlying Smith opinion) imposes seal requirements on municipal minutes; § 19-3-27 imposes signature but not seal requirements on county supervisor minutes. Counties using electronic seals should review their statutory base.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act is codified at § 75-12-1 et seq. Section 75-12-13 is the operational core the opinion relied on: a record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; if a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law; and if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law. The footnote to the opinion adds that § 75-12-21 extends the same treatment to notarization, acknowledgment, verification, and signatures made under oath.

Outside UETA, specific statutes can impose additional requirements. For county supervisor minutes, § 19-3-27 requires the board president (or vice president if the president is unavailable) to sign. For municipal minutes, § 21-15-3 requires both signature and seal. UETA satisfies the signature requirement without requiring those statutes to be amended.

The 2020 Smith opinion (cited here) was the first major AG opinion applying UETA to municipal records. The 2021 Eldridge opinion extended the reasoning to county records. Together they cleared the way for Mississippi local governments to adopt electronic agenda and minutes systems with confidence in the legal status of the resulting records.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Miss. Code Ann. § 75-12-1 et seq., Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
• Miss. Code Ann. § 75-12-13, electronic signatures and records have legal effect
• Miss. Code Ann. § 75-12-21, electronic notarization and acknowledgment
• Miss. Code Ann. § 19-3-27, signature requirement for board of supervisors minutes
• Miss. Code Ann. § 21-15-1 et seq., municipal minutes statutory framework
• Miss. Code Ann. § 21-15-3, signing and seal requirements for municipal minutes

Prior AG opinions cited:

• MS AG Op., Smith (July 31, 2020), municipalities may store minutes electronically using electronic signatures

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/J.Eldridge_January-5-2021-Application-of-the-Uniform-Electronic-Transactions-Act.pdf

Original opinion text

January 5, 2021

The Honorable Josh Eldridge
Jackson County Chancery Clerk
Post Office Box 998
Pascagoula, Mississippi 39568-0998

Re: Application of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act

Dear Mr. Eldridge:

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

Questions Presented

You state that Jackson County has recently gone to an electronic agenda and minutes management system and ask the following questions:

1. Does the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or any other law, authorize the County to utilize electronic signatures for the signature and attestation of the Board of Supervisors' minutes, resolutions or orders?
2. Does the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or any other law, authorize the County to utilize electronic signatures for the associated contracts, correspondence, etc., provided that the County adopt standards and all parties agree to conduct transactions by electronic means?
3. Does the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or any other law, authorize the County to utilize electronic signatures for purchase orders?

Brief Response

Electronic signatures satisfy requirements for signatures and attestations on boards of supervisors' minutes and signatures on boards of supervisors' resolutions, orders, contracts, correspondence and purchase orders.

Applicable Law and Discussion

The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act is codified at Mississippi Code Annotated Section 75-12-1 et seq. In a recent opinion addressing the electronic storage of municipal minutes, this office relied on Section 75-12-13, a statute within the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which provides:

a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law.
d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.

MS AG Op., Smith at *3-4 (July 31, 2020) (quoting Miss. Code Ann. § 75-12-13).

In Smith, we opined that "a municipality may forego the use of physical minute books and store all minutes electronically; provided, however, all requirements of Section 21-15-1 et seq., inclusive of the signing and seal requirements of Section 21-15-3, are satisfied and the minutes are publicly available for review and inspection." MS AG Op., Smith at *4 (July 31, 2020).

Section 19-3-27 requires official meeting minutes of a board of supervisors to be signed by the board president or, where "the president is absent or disabled so as to prevent his signing of the minutes," the vice president. Our reasoning in Smith regarding municipal minutes applies equally to the signature requirement in Section 19-3-27.

Since we have opined that, pursuant to Section 75-12-13, an electronic signature satisfies legal requirements for a signature on a board of supervisors' official minutes, the plain language of that statute authorizes electronic signatures for attestations[1] and signatures on resolutions, orders, contracts, correspondence and purchase orders.

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/ Phil Carter
Phil Carter
Special Assistant Attorney General

[1] Section 75-12-21 provides that where "a law requires a signature or record to be notarized, acknowledged, verified, or made under oath, the requirement is satisfied if the electronic signature of the person authorized to perform those acts, together with all other information required to be included by other applicable law, is attached to or logically associated with the signature or record."