Rankin v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7976,7976 |
| Citation | 233 So.2d 573 |
| Parties | Doris G. RANKIN v. EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Doris Gates Rankin, in pro. per.
Burton, Roberts & Ward, by John F. Ward, Jr., Baton Rouge, for appellees.
This case argued before LOTTINGER, REID * and BLANCHE, JJ.
Doris G. Rankin instituted suit against the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board and each individual member and its Superintendent, attacking the validity of the action of the School Board in calling a special bond and tax election as authorized by Article 14, Section 14, of the Louisiana Constitution, and LSA-R.S. 39:501 et seq., in which election only 'resident property taxpayers' of the Parish of East Baton Rouge were permitted to vote, and seeking to have the said election declared null and void on the grounds that it deprived plaintiff and other non-property-owner voters of their rights under the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The East Baton Rouge Parish School Board filed a peremptory exception of prescription on the grounds that the election in question was held on February 27, 1969, final notice of the same being published on March 3, 1969, plaintiff's petition was not filed until September 9, 1969, and, therefore, the 60-day prescriptive period provided for by Subsection (n) of Section 14 of Article 14 of the Louisiana Constitution and Section 518 of Title 39 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes, had expired.
The exception was heard on September 15, 1969, and for oral reasons assigned, the Court rendered judgment maintaining the exception of prescription and dismissing plaintiff's suit at her cost. Judgment was signed September 17, 1969. It is from that judgment that plaintiff has brought this appeal.
The defendants filed an answer to plaintiff's appeal in which it was alleged that the present action is one of four suits filed against the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board involving the same subject matter, and expressed in almost identical terms, one of which actions, namely, J. L. Andrieux v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board et al., 254 La. 819, 227 So.2d 370, the Supreme Court of Louisiana rendered final judgment in on October i3, 1969, and said opinion and decree should be made the judgment of this Court in the present matter. Copies of the pleadings and opinions of the District Court and the Supreme Court were attached to defendants' answer to the appeal herein.
The appellant states in her brief that the issue before the Court in this matter is 'can a state by either constitutional or legislative action make provisions which are contrary to the provisions of the United States Constitution so as to bar a citizen of the United States from the protection which it has been held by the courts to be provided by the United States Constitution.'
The Articles of the Constitution and the Revised Statutes complained of, and which set out the prescriptive period of sixty days, are as follows, to-wit:
Subsection (n) of Section 14 of Article 14 of the Louisiana Constitution provides as follows:
* * *'
and LSA-R.S. 39:518 provides as follows:
* * *'
These are the two laws which appellant complains are violative of the Federal Constitution. The petition alleges that the election in question was restricted to 'resident property taxpayers of the Parish of East Baton Rouge,' and that plaintiff and others of her class were deprived of the elective franchise solely because of their failure to own any real or personal property subject to taxation. Specifically the claim is made that the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of the State of Louisiana restricting such elections to 'resident property taxpayers' discriminates against plaintiff and others similarly situated, depriving them of their rights, privileges and immunities under the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and are, therefore, unconstitutional and void.
It is further shown that the election involved the authorization, issuance and sale of forty nine million dollars of property bonds with the right and authority to levy essential ad valorem taxes for the payment of these bonds in principal and interest, and further involved a specific proposal to impose a five mill property tax for a period of five years for school improvements and for the operation and maintenance of the schools, as is provided under Article 10, Section 10, of the State Constitution.
There is no question but what this suit was filed more than sixty days after the election returns were promulgated on February 27, 1969, and after the final notice was published on March 3, 1969, in the Morning Advocate, the official journal of the School Board.
It is also of interest to note that the plaintiff in this case was carried on the assessment rolls as the owner of personal property with an assessment value of $450.00 and was eligible to participate in said election. She had no real estate assessed to her. For reasons of her own she did not choose to vote in said election.
The trial Judge in his supplemental reasons for judgment found as follows, to-wit:
'Counsel for defendant cited the case of Joseph Q. Cipriano v. City of Houma, et al, (395 U.S. 701) 89 Sup.Ct. 1897 (23 L.Ed.2d 647) (1969). This case involved a special election to obtain voter approval for the issuance of utility revenue bonds, which bonds were to be paid only from operation of the utilities, not by property tax revenue. The Louisiana statute involved gave only 'property taxpayers' a right to vote. The United States Supreme Court failed to find justification for the classification and held that the effect, therefore, was to deny equal protection of the law and was, therefore, unconstitutional.
'In the case at bar, the bonds and special pay-as-you-go taxes are payable from ad valorem taxes. The franchise here is limited to those qualified voters who are 'specially interested' in the election which can result in imposition of a tax specially calculated to be paid by such voting classification. The rational basis for the qualification here is that imposition of the tax must be authorized by a vote of payers of the tax.
'In determining whether the exclusion here is necessary to promote a compelling state interest, this court must take note of the provisions of Louisiana law pertaining to the subject of ad valorem taxation, wherein it is provided that All properties situated within the state shall be subject to taxation. The definition includes both movable and immovable property, real and personal. Under L.R.S . 47:1956, each taxpayer is required to fill out a list of his property and make oath to its correctness and return such list to the Parish Assessor on or before the first day of April of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graugnard v. Capital Area Transit Sys.
...those in which the constitutionality or legality of the statutes or ordinances were attacked); Rankin v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 233 So.2d 573, 577 (La.App. 1st Cir.1970) (per curiam) (sixty-day prescriptive period for contesting legality of bond elections applied to suit challeng......