Guidry v. Roberts
| Citation | 335 So.2d 438 |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 58044,58044 |
| Parties | Richard P. GUIDRY, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. Charles William ROBERTS et al., |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
David W. Robinson, Trial Atty., Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-respondent.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Kendall L. Vick, Kenneth C. DeJean, Asst. Attys. Gen., Donald Ensenat, Dept. of Justice, New Orleans, for defendants-applicants.
The plaintiff sues for declarative and injunctive relief holding unconstitutional the Louisiana Election Campaign Finance Disclosure Act, La.R.S. 18:1481--93 (Act 718 of 1975). Made defendant are certain legislatively designated officials who receive and process financial reports required by the enactment.
The trial court dismissed his suit but, upon his appeal, the intermediate court held the act unconstitutional. 331 So.2d 44 (La.App. 1 Cir., April 12, 1976). We granted certiorari, 332 So.2d 284 , under our practice of granting review if the court of appeal renders a judgment declaring a statute unconstitutional (which, if rendered by a trial court, is reviewable by a direct appeal to this court). See Bradford v. Department of Hospitals, 255 La. 888, 233 So.2d 553 (1970).
The court of appeal held that the reporting officials and supervisory committees designated by the statute were exercising powers entrusted to the executive branch, but they were appointed by the legislature not the governor. Accordingly, these committees and officials were held invalid as entrusted with duties in violation of the separation of powers provision of our state constitution, La.Const. of 1974, Art. 2, Section 2, and as appointed by the legislature contrary to a constitutional provision entrusting the governor with the appointment of the officials in the executive branch, Article 4, Sections 1(A) and 5(H)(1). Some of the powers entrusted to the supervisory committees were also held to violate the constitutional authority of the district attorneys of the state. Article 5, Section 26(B).
Finding that the act could not function without valid supervisory committees and reporting officials, the court of appeal declared the entire act unconstitutional as non-severable.
The principal issues posed to us are:
1. Does the plaintiff, who principally alleges himself to be a contributor to political campaigns, have standing to attack the composition of the supervisory committees or the designation of the reporting officials, who principally receive and monitor reports from candidates? (The contributors are not required to report contributions, as will be seen, nor limited in the amount of legal contributions they may make, although the candidate must identify contributions over certain amounts.)
2. If so, is the legislative selection of the reporting officials and supervisory committees invalid as a legislative invasion of an executive power, and are the functions vested in them an improper allocation of executive functions to legislatively-selected officials?
3. If all or any part of the legislative designation of personnel or of the legislative allocation of function is unconstitutional, are the invalidated portions of the act severable from the other portions, such as those requiring reports of political contributions; so as to permit upholding these other portions, if they are constitutional?
4. If so, are these other portions an unconstitutional invasion of individual rights and liberties of expression, privacy, assembly, free election, property, etc., protected by our state constitution?
In general, the attacked statute requires the reporting of information regarding contributions and expenditures involved in campaigns for elective state and local public office, decries certain activities as illegal campaign practices, condemns violation of the act to be a misdemeanor, and establishes the machinery and procedure for administration and enforcement of the provisions of the act.
Essentially, this act is divided substantively into two parts: one pertaining to reporting and public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures; and the other setting forth certain campaign practices which are declared illegal and prohibited. The court of appeal did not reach the issue of the validity of these substantive regulations, because of its holding that they were nonseparable from the administrative and enforcement provisions which it invalidated.
Disclosure Provisions:
Candidates, La.R.S. 18:1482(1), and political committees formed to support or oppose any candidate or political party at an election, La.R.S. 18:1482(2), must file with designated reporting officials certain reports which principally include the total amount of all contributions and expenditures, but which also list the name and address of those contributors who give in excess of certain amounts. 1486. The reporting amounts are $1,000 for any statewide office, $500 for any district office, and $250 for all other offices. 1482(11). Anyone else who makes an expenditure or receives a contribution in excess of five hundred dollars, other than to or from a candidate or political committee, shall also file a similar report. 1486 G.
The reporting officials are: the secretary of the Senate, with respect to senatorial candidates; the clerk of the House of Representatives, with respect to candidates for the house; and the legislative auditor, with respect to all other candidates. 1482(12). These reporting officials are required to make all such reports received available for public inspection immediately upon receipt of them. 1486 H.
Prohibited Campaign Practices:
Section 1488 prohibits certain campaign practices. These include:
No person shall give any financial or material support to or in support of a candidate or political committee in the name of another. No person shall solicit or accept from, and no candidate or committee shall pay to, another any thing of value for the purpose of endorsement, support or opposition to a candidate.
No corporate contributions may be made except by check and when authorized by the board of directors.
No candidate or committee, or anyone acting on their behalf, shall pay for the privilege of the candidate or his representative appearing at a charitable or civic meeting or any festival or fair.
No candidate, political committee, or person required to make a report shall make any expenditure from an anonymous contribution. (Anonymous contributions, if received, are required to be paid over to non-political charitable, civic, etc. activities.)
Additionally, under Section 1489 '(n)o candidate political committee, or other person shall give or accept a contribution in return for a promise' of 'a position of public employment or any appointive governmental office.' (The violation of Section 1489 is declared to be a misdemeanor punishable by fine not in excess of $500.)
Criminal Sanctions:
In addition to the criminal misdemeanor-fine sanction provided by Section 1489, Section 1491 provides a similar sanction for other violations of the statute, as follows:
'* * * any candidate; any campaign treasurer or deputy treasurer of any candidate; any chairman, vice chairman, campaign treasurer or deputy treasurer of any political committee; or any person, who is subject to the provisions of this Part, who knowingly and willfully:
(1) accepts or makes a contribution prohibited by this Part;
(2) fails to file the reports required by this Part;
(3) fails to report any contribution or expenditure required to be reported by this Part;
(4) files a false report under the provisions of this Part;
(5) makes an expenditure prohibited by this Part or in any manner prohibited by this Part;
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not in excess of five hundred dollars, and if found guilty of knowing and willful failure to report funds received and deposited or otherwise accepted in writing or expended as provided herein may further be fined an amount not in excess of one and one-half times the amount not properly reported.'
Machinery for Processing of Campaign-Finance Reports after Receipt and for Enforcement of Statute:
As earlier noted, the campaign finance reports of all candidates for elective office are required to be filed either with the secretary of the Senate (senatorial candidates), the clerk of the House (candidates for the house), or the legislative auditor (all other candidates), by whom they are to be made available for public inspection.
Section 1492 ('Enforcement') provides for the further processing of these reports after they are filed. The court of appeal held that the powers conferred by this section constituted an attempt to vest functions of the executive branch in legislatively-selected officers. Because of this, and because it also held that even the designation of the reporting officials to receive the reports constituted legislative usurpation of administrative powers properly exercised by the executive branch, our intermediate brethren held the act unconstitutional.
We will discuss Section 1492 in more detail in III below. For the time being, it is sufficient to note that the enactment creates three supervisory committees composed of legislatively-selected officers.
In general, these committees serve not only the function of receiving and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perry
...declaration of individual rights ... represent[s] more specific ... [and] broader protection of the individual," Guidry v. Roberts, 335 So.2d 438, 448 (1976) (Tate, J.); and is "far broader and more definitely articulated than corresponding rights in the Federal Constitution." Id. 452, citi......
-
C.B., In re
... ... State v. Perry, 610 So.2d 746, 755 (La.1992); Guidry v. Roberts, 335 So.2d 438, 448 (La.1976). Therefore, Article I, § 2 of our state constitution, which guarantees to our citizens due process of law ... ...
-
State v. Skinner
... ... The severance clause contained in Act 342 of 1950, by which the law was enacted, creates a presumption in favor of severability. Guidry v. Roberts, 335 So.2d 438 (La.1976); State ex rel. Kemp v. City of Baton Rouge, 215 La. 315, 40 So.2d 477 (1949). The defective section is not so ... ...
- O'Daniel v. Indus. Serv. Solutions, 18-30136