Watermeier v. LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DIST.

• Decision Date: 22 December 1969
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 69-2601.
• Citation: 308 F. Supp. 273
• Parties: John J. WATERMEIER v. The LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT and the Board of Commissioners Thereof.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

308 F. Supp. 273

John J. WATERMEIER v. The LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT and the Board of Commissioners Thereof.

Civ. A. No. 69-2601.

United States District Court E. D. Louisiana, New Orleans Division.

December 22, 1969.

Sidney M. Bach, Joseph Bernstein, Bernstein & Bach, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs.

Harry B. Kelleher, Glen G. Magnuson, Jr., Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer, Matthews & Schumacher, Harold B. Judell, Foley, Judell, Beck, Morel & Bewley, New Orleans, La., for defendants.

Before AINSWORTH, Circuit Judge, and HEEBE and CASSIBRY, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a suit by two Louisiana taxpayers seeking injunctive relief to restrain and enjoin the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District and the Board of Commissioners of the District from carrying out certain transactions¹ in connection with the planning, financing and construction of a proposed "Domed Stadium" to be built in New Orleans. The domed stadium project was authorized by a 1966 amendment to the Constitution of Louisiana. The validity of these transactions under the Louisiana Constitutional Amendment authorizing them has already been litigated by the Supreme Court of Louisiana which upheld them under state law. Arata v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, La., 225 So.2d 362 (1969). The plaintiffs in this case now claim that these same transactions, if carried into execution, will violate their federal constitutional rights to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment and the guarantee of a republican form of government under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution. For the reasons to be discussed below, we find no merit to these federal claims, and accordingly deny the petition for a preliminary and permanent injunction.²

The case arose as follows. In 1966 the Louisiana Legislature adopted Act 556, proposing an amendment to Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana by adding Section 47 thereto. The text of the proposed constitutional amendment was published by the Secretary of State of the State of Louisiana in one newspaper in each parish of the state, twice during the period, not less than thirty and not more than sixty days before the date of the general election on Tuesday, November 8, 1966. (See Article XXI, Section 1 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921.) This amendment, which appeared as Proposition Number 10 on the ballot used at the election on November 8, 1966, was overwhelmingly adopted by the people of Louisiana.³

In accordance with the terms of the amendment as approved by the people, it created the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District which was authorized to plan, finance, construct and operate a domed stadium in the Metropolitan New Orleans area. Among the actions taken by the District were the following:

(a) Imposition of a Hotel Occupancy Tax, which is now in force and effect, and which is providing operating funds for the District.⁴

(b) Authorization of issuance of 93.5 million dollars of bonds to finance the project. The bonds would be payable solely from the avails of the Hotel Occupancy Tax and the revenues derived from ownership of the stadium.⁵

(c) The District, by contract with the State of Louisiana, leased its land and facilities to the state.⁶

(d) The District, by contract with the State of Louisiana, agreed to manage and operate the facilities for the state.⁷

An action was brought in a Louisiana state court to determine the validity of the various acts and contractual commitments undertaken by the District. The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that all the transactions executed to effectuate the planning, financing, construction and operation of the domed stadium were specifically authorized by the Louisiana Constitutional Amendment. Arata, supra. The Arata case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, sub nom. Schwegmann v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, No. 748.

The instant case was filed on October 31, 1969, seeking injunctive relief as follows:

(a) that the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana be nullified to the extent that it holds the "full faith and credit" of the State of Louisiana is pledged to secure the issuance of bonds by the District.

(b) that the lease agreement between the District and Louisiana insofar as this lease attempts to be used to secure the credit of Louisiana be enjoined.

(c) that acquisition of lands by the District prior to the issuance of the bonds be deemed null and void and violative of the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.

(d) that the Court declare that paragraph (P) of Article XIV, Section 47, Louisiana Constitution of 1921 prohibits the District from using its revenues for the acquisition of lands prior to the issuance of bonds and that such an attempt to so use the District's revenues prior to issuance of the bonds also violates the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.

(e) that the Court enjoin all of the defendants from entering into any and all acts pursuant to Louisiana Constitution of 1921, Article XIV, Section 47, which in any way seek or attempt to commit and obligate the "faith and credit" of Louisiana in connection with the issuance of bonds for the development and construction of a domed stadium.

(f) that any attempted use of the "faith and credit" of the State of Louisiana to sell bonds to finance the acquisition of the site and the construction of the project as defined in the lease between Louisiana and the District be declared null and void.

(g) that the defendants be enjoined from entering into all transactions in excess of 35 million dollars in order to finance the stadium.

Defendants, on the other hand, contend that plaintiff has not presented a substantial federal question, that the validity of the actions complained of has been upheld in proceedings in the state courts, that the constitutional amendment was presented and voted on in compliance with the laws of the State of Louisiana and the United States of America and that all actions taken by the defendants to implement the amendment are legal and in compliance with the Constitutions of the State of Louisiana and the United States of America.

Federal jurisdiction was alleged to be based upon a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. We have considered all of the contentions underlying plaintiffs' request for relief and, for reasons discussed below, find none of them violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Guarantee Clause of Article IV, Section 4 of the Federal Constitution.

A single judge signed a temporary restraining order⁸ prohibiting the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District and the Board of Commissioners thereof, from spending any funds for the acquisition of lands for a domed stadium facility.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 13, 1969, adding John J. McKeithen, Governor of the State of Louisiana, W. W. McDougall, Commissioner of Administration for the State of Louisiana, Mrs. Mary Evelyn Parker, Treasurer of the State of Louisiana, and the Louisiana State Bond Commission as parties defendant. On December 5, 1969, Mrs. Martha G. Robinson, a voter-taxpayer, was allowed to intervene as a party plaintiff.

Plaintiffs and defendants jointly moved for the convening of a three-judge court to hear this case, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281⁹ and 2284 and such court was designated in due course. Although this case does not involve an attack upon the constitutionality of the state constitutional amendment itself, it does involve an attack upon the constitutionality of the application, execution and operation of a state constitutional amendment and the arrangements thereunder, previously described. Therefore, we find that this case is properly before a three-judge district court.

This case was tried on December 16, 1969. Plaintiffs produced five witnesses. The witnesses were various persons connected with the project, and the general thrust of their testimony was that the cost of the project would be well in excess of the 30-35 million dollar figure which certain newspaper articles, published prior to the passage of the amendment, had estimated the cost would be. The intervenor, Mrs. Martha Robinson, testified that she had voted for the amendment with the understanding that it prohibited the full faith and credit of the state from being put behind any bonds issued by the District. Defendants produced no witnesses.

The plaintiffs also submitted various exhibits; the defendants stipulated the authenticity of these exhibits but lodged a blanket objection to their relevancy. We reserved a ruling on the admissibility¹⁰ of the documents and testimony, and allowed all of them to be filed in the record. They consisted of a series of newspaper articles published prior to the passage of the amendment which stated that the full faith and credit of the state would not be placed behind the bonds. Some of the articles also estimated the cost of the project at about 35 million dollars. Plaintiffs further submitted the affidavits of 21 voter-taxpayers to the effect that prior to the election they had been subjected to an extensive publicity campaign which represented that the full faith and credit of the state would not be placed behind any bonds issued in connection with the stadium and that the cost would not exceed 35 million dollars; that they had voted for the amendment believing the above facts and therefore were misled and deprived of a meaningful vote; and that since the present lease agreement, and cost in excess of 35 million dollars, violates the understanding of the voters who voted for the amendment, they were deprived of due process of law under the Federal Constitution.

As pointed out before, the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in Arata, supra, considered all of the transactions...