Deculus v. Welborn

964 So. 2d 930 (La. 2007) · Supreme Court of Louisiana · October 1, 2007 · No. 2007-C-1888

Summary

The Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted the legislative term-limitation provision in La. Const. art. III, § 4(E) and considered its relationship to La. R.S. 18:601(B). The court held that the date the secretary of state promulgated election returns, rather than the date the elected legislator took the oath of office, controlled the term-limit analysis, and affirmed that Senator Cleo Fields was barred from seeking reelection.

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Writing for the Court
Kimball, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana
Decision date
October 1, 2007
Docket number
2007-C-1888
Procedural posture
The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted Cleo Fields's writ application to review an election-candidacy challenge and affirmed the court of appeal's judgment barring Fields from seeking reelection to Louisiana Senate District 14.
Standard of review
De novo review of the interpretation of the Louisiana Constitution and statutes governing candidate eligibility and term limits.
Precedential value
Published Louisiana Supreme Court opinion; binding precedent.
Parties
Cleo Fields v. David Deculus, Clara Deculus, Della Neely, Nancy Salemi, Doug Welborn, Clerk of Court for East Baton Rouge Parish
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

election contestselection lawstatutory interpretationlegislative historyappellate procedure

Practice areas

election lawconstitutional lawappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the date of election or the date of taking the oath and beginning service controls application of the legislative term limitation in La. Const. art. III, § 4(E).
  2. Whether La. R.S. 18:601(B), which defines when service begins for a legislator elected to fill an unexpired term, conflicts with La. Const. art. III, § 4(E).
  3. Whether Cleo Fields was constitutionally barred from seeking reelection to Senate District 14 in the October 20, 2007 election.

Holdings

  1. Under La. Const. art. III, § 4(E), the date on which a legislator is officially elected to serve, rather than the date on which the legislator takes the oath or begins service, controls whether the legislator is subject to the constitutional term limitation.
  2. La. R.S. 18:601(B) does not conflict with La. Const. art. III, § 4(E), but it is not determinative of constitutional term-limit eligibility because the constitutional provision makes the date of election controlling.
  3. Cleo Fields was precluded from seeking reelection to Louisiana Senate District 14 because he was officially elected to serve the unexpired portion of the 1996-2000 term before the halfway point of that term and was subsequently elected to two additional consecutive terms.

Key quotations

The clear language of the constitutional provision, buttressed by an analysis of the legislative history, establishes that the people enacted an amendment to the Constitution which provides that the date of the election is determinative in an analysis of the applicability of term limits. (934)
Thus, La. R.S. 18:601(B) is not determinative in deciding whether a limitation is imposed on a candidate because of constitutional term limits, but rather determines when a legislator's service begins. (935)

Factual background

The Senate District 14 term at issue began on January 8, 1996. Fields was elected on December 13, 1997, to fill the unexpired remainder of that term, and the secretary of state promulgated the election results on December 18, 1997; Fields took an oath before the Senate on March 23, 1998. He was later elected to two additional consecutive four-year terms and filed notice of candidacy for the October 20, 2007 election. The plaintiffs challenged his candidacy, asserting that the Louisiana Constitution barred him from seeking a succeeding term.

Procedural history

Qualified electors filed a petition in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court objecting to Fields's candidacy under the constitutional legislative term limitation. The district court found subject-matter jurisdiction, overruled the exception of no cause of action, denied Fields's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the candidacy challenge. The court of appeal affirmed the jurisdictional ruling and held that the constitutional term limitation barred Fields from candidacy. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…