Shepherd v. Schedler
Citation | 209 So.3d 752 |
Decision Date | 27 January 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 2015–CA–1750.,2015–CA–1750. |
Parties | Derrick SHEPHERD v. Thomas SCHEDLER, in His Official Capacity as the Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana, & James "Buddy" Caldwell, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, & Paul D. Connick, Jr., in His Official Capacity as District Attorney for the 24th Judicial District, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Louisiana Department of Justice, James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, William P. Bryan, III, Jefferson Parish District Attorney's Office, Paul D. Connick, Jr., District Attorney, Terry Michael Boudreaux, Assistant District Attorney, Lani Boyd Durio, John Edgar Litchfield, for Appellant.
Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Harry Allan Rosenberg, The Law Office of Robert T. Garrity Jr., Robert Thomas Garrity, Jr., for Appellee.
This matter arises from a challenge to the validity of a 1998 amendment to La. Const. art. I, § 10 limiting felons from seeking public office. The case is before us on direct appeal from a district court judgment declaring La. Const. art. I, § 10 (B) null and void for failure to comply with the requirements of La. Const. art. XIII, § 1, which, in part, mandates the assent of two-thirds of the legislature and a majority of the popular vote to amend the Louisiana Constitution. The judgment was based on a stipulation that the language presented to the voters for approval and ratification as a constitutional amendment was not the language adopted by the legislature. Simply stated, what the citizens voted on was not what the legislature enacted.
After reviewing the record, the legislative instruments, and the constitutional provision at issue, we agree with the district court that the constitutionally mandated requirements for amending the constitution were not followed in this case. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that ours is a system of law, not men, and our fidelity must be to the mandatory requirements of the constitution without regard to the parties, or to the wisdom and policy of the amendment at issue. The issue before us relates solely to whether the constitutionally mandated restraints and procedures for amending our state's most fundamental law were followed. To ignore these restraints and procedures would be to open the constitution to alteration without the protections enshrined in the constitution. This we cannot do. We are thus duty-bound by the constitution to affirm the district court's judgment holding the amendment was not properly enacted.
Prior to 1998, the Louisiana Constitution did not contain a provision disqualifying a convicted felon from seeking a municipal or state office. In 1997, Senator Max Malone introduced Senate Bill No. 321 during the regular legislative session. Essentially, Senator Malone's original bill sought to add a paragraph to La. Const. art. I, § 10 which prohibits convicted felons who have exhausted all legal remedies and who have not been pardoned from qualifying as a candidate for or taking public elective office. As later amended in the Senate, the bill provides an exception for felons who have served their sentences if the date of qualifying for the elective office is more than fifteen years after the date of completion of the original sentence. The relevant sections of Senate Bill No. 321 provide:
Senate Bill No. 321 passed the Senate by more than a two-thirds vote (29 yeas, 3 nays), and the engrossed bill was ordered to the House of Representatives on May 27, 1997.
Once in the House, the bill underwent several amendments. Notably, in Committee, numbered paragraph (3) was deleted and replaced with the following:
(C) Exception. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (B) of this Section, a person who desires to qualify as a candidate for or hold an elective office, who has been convicted of a felony and who has served his sentence, but has not been pardoned for such felony, shall be permitted to qualify as a candidate for or hold such office if the date of his qualifying for such office is more than fifteen years after the date of the completion of his original sentence.
When the bill came up for final vote, Representative Kyle Green proposed further amendments to Paragraph C from the House Floor:
The floor amendments were adopted and the bill, with the Green amendments, passed by more than a two-thirds vote of the elected members of the House (71 yeas, 31 nays). The bill was ordered returned to the Senate. Once there, the House amendments to Senate Bill No. 321 were read and concurred in by a vote of 32 yeas, 4 nays. However, for reasons which remain unexplained, the enrolled version of Senate Bill No. 321, which became 1997 La. Acts 1492, did not include the Green amendments. Instead, Act 1492 reads in its entirety:
It is this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bucks v. DirecTECH Southwest
...that courts should avoid rendering advisory opinions as to hypothetical controversies. Shepherd v. Schedler , 2015-1750 (La. 1/27/16), 209 So.3d 752 ; Thornton v. Carthon , 47,948 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/15/13), 114 So.3d 554, writ denied , 2013-1785 (La. 11/1/13), 125 So.3d 435. Obviously, this......
-
Bucks v. Southwest
...that courts should avoid rendering advisory opinions as to hypothetical controversies. Shepherd v. Schedler, 2015-1750 (La. 1/27/16), 209 So. 3d 752; Thornton v. Carthon, 47,948 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/15/13), 114 So. 3d 554, writ denied, 2013-1785 (La. 11/1/13), 125 So. 3d 435. Obviously, this ......
-
State ex rel. Esteen v. State
...moot controversies or render advisory opinions with respect to such controversies." Shepherd v. Schedler , 15-1750, p. 13 (La. 1/27/16), 209 So.3d 752, 764.For the facts at hand, I find the legislature has given a straightforward solution. In Section B of La. R.S. 15:308, the legislature ha......
-
Carpenter v. Thomas
...hearing on the motion, and at no time did counsel object to any improper procedure. See Shepherd v. Schedler, 2015-1750 (La. 1/27/16), 209 So.3d 752, 777 (on rehearing); see also Uniform Rules - Courts of Appeal, Rule 1-3 ("Courts of Appeal will only review issues which were submitted to th......