Case ID: so2d_318/html/0639-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "REDMANN, Judge. GULOTTA, Judge SAMUEL, Judge MORIAL, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roudolf SORAPURU v. Warner SYLVIAN et al.
    No. 7294.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Aug. 29, 1975.
    Paul Aucoin, Vacherie, for plaintiff-appellant.
    G. Walton Caire, Edgard, for defendant-appellee.
    Before the Court En Banc.
   REDMANN, Judge.

One candidate for police juror, “district one, St. John the Baptist parish,” attacks the nominating papers of another candidate as invalid for failure to be signed by 300 electors as required for “parochial offices” by La.R.S. 18:394.1, subd. C. The trial court rejected the argument that a police juror is a parochial officer. We affirm.

La.Const. art. 6 § 5, authorizing adoption of a home rule charter by any “local governmental subdivision,” defined by § 44(1) as any parish or municipality, places one limit on such a charter in subsection (G) : “Parish Officials and School Boards Not Affected. No home rule charter or plan of government shall contain any provision affecting a school board or the offices of district attorney, sheriff, assessor, clerk of a district court, or coroner, which is inconsistent with this constitution or law.”

Similarly, La.Const. art. 6 § 7, authorizing elections to grant powers to parishes (and municipalities), repeats in its subsection (B): “Parish Officials and School Boards Not Affected. Nothing in this Section shall affect the powers and functions of a school board or the offices of district attorney, sheriff, assessor, clerk of a district court, or coroner.”

Thus the Louisiana Constitution does not include police jurors among “Parish Officials.”

The designation on defendant’s nominating papers of police juror from a district (rather than ward), we are informed by oral argument, is the result of a court’s reapportionment of the police jury. Historically, police jurors were elected by “police jury wards” since La.Acts 1813, March 25, and at least through La.R.S. 33:1221-1223 (1950) until 1968. Acts 1968, No. 445, repealed §§ 1222-1223 and amended § 1221 in such fashion that it is no longer express that jurors are to be elected by wards, although “police jury wards” are still retained, § 1224. (The title to that amendatory Act gave no hint of a purpose to provide election at large throughout a parish, the Act does not so provide expressly, and there is no suggestion that the Act by implication provides such a result.) Although the conclusion is supportable that the office of police juror was, from 1825 until 1968, a “ward office,” we need not decide whether it is a ward office today.

We do hold that it is not a parochial office. It is not argued to be a “district office,” requiring 400 signatures, R.S. 18:394.1, subd. C, despite the description of the parish subdivision by the court order as a “district,” since no Louisiana law describes as a “district” the area from which a police juror is elected. Moreover, to interpret R.S. 18:394.1, subd. C to require 400 signatures for an office voted on by a ninth or tenth (see R.S. 33:1221, subd. C) of a parish’s population, but only 300 signatures for an office voted on by the entire parish’s population, would be grotesquely inconsistent with the statute’s evident general scheme of requiring the highest number of signatures (1,000) for offices elected by the entire state, lower numbers for lesser portions of the state, and the lowest number (25) for “ward officers and for any other office not otherwise provided for herein.”

The sole statutory argument that appellant makes is that a police juror is not a “ward office.” He cites R.S. 18:393, providing for qualifying by declaration and good-faith deposit' — a procedure to which the nominating papers here involved are an alternative — and specifying the required deposits as:

. . district judge or Senate — two hundred dollars; House of Representatives, and district or parish offices not otherwise provided for herein — one hundred fifty dollars; police jury and-school hoard — seventy-five dollars; ward offices and any other office, other than district or parish offices, not specifically provided for herein — fifty dollars.”

Appellant argues that police juror is either a parochial office or a ward office, and that it cannot be a “ward office” because, he argues, the clause “not specifically provided for herein” modifies only “any other office,” rather than both “ward offices and other office.” Although we decline to decide whether or not police juror is a ward office, we note the obvious grammatical possibility that “ward offices” is modified by “not specifically provided for herein” in § 393.

We conclude that, for purposes of R.S. 18:394.1, subd. C a police juror is a “ward officer[s] [or] . . . other officefr] not otherwise provided for herein,” requiring only 25 electors’ signatures.

Affirmed.

GULOTTA, Judge

(concurring).

I concur with the result. It is my opinion that the office of police juror is a ward office. Although a police juror is elected from a district, historically, a police juror has been regarded as a ward office holder. Both counsel acknowledge in oral argument that the geographical limits of the district are the same as the geographical limits of the ward.

Further support for allowing defendant to qualify is found in LSA-R.S. 18:394.-1(c) which provides that 25 signatures are required for ward officers and “for any other office not otherwise provided for herein.” A police juror is not provided for in the above statute.

SAMUEL, Judge

(concurring).

I concur.

MORIAL, Judge

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent.

The majority of this Court, in my opinion, has grossly erred by interpreting the absence of “police jurors” in the enumeration of “Parish Officials” in La.Const. Art. 6, §§ 5(G) and 7 to mean a police juror is not a “parish official.” La.Const. Art. 6 provides in part:

§ 5. Home Rule Charter
Section 5. (A) Authority to Adopt; Commission. Subject to and not inconsistent with this constitution, any local governmental subdivision may draft, adopt, or amend a home rule charter in accordance with this Section. The governing authority of a local governmental subdivision may appoint a commission to prepare and propose a charter or an alternate charter, or it may call an election to elect such a commission.
******
(G) Parish Officials and School Boards Not Affected.
No home rule charter or plan of government shall contain any provision affecting a school board or the offices of district attorney, sheriff, assessor, clerk of a district court, or coroner, which is inconsistent with this constitution or law.

§ 7. Powers of Other Local Governmental Subdivisions

Section 7. (A) Powers and Functions. Subject to and not inconsistent with this constitution, the governing authority of a local governmental subdivision which has no home rule charter or plan of government may exercise any power and perform any function necessary, requisite, or proper for the management of its affairs, not denied by its charter or by general law, if a majority of the electors voting in an election held for that purpose vote in favor of the proposition that the governing authority may exercise such general powers. Otherwise, the local governmental subdivision shall have the powers authorized by this constitution or by law.
(B) Parish Officials and School Boards Not Affected.
Nothing in this Section shall affect the powers and functions of a school board or the offices of district attorney, sheriff, assessor, clerk of a district court, or coroner.

Parishes are creatures of the state and have been historically governed by police juries. National Liberty Ins. Co. of America v. Police Jury of Natchitoches Parish, 5 Cir., 96 F.2d 261. La.Const. Art. 6, § 5 provides for a procedural method by which a “local governmental subdivision,” i. e., a parish via its governing authority (police jury) can change its form of local government, e. g., abolish the police jury and substitute a home rule councilmanic, commission form, or city-parish plan of government. Article 6, § 5(G), and Article 6, § 7(B) merely prohibit existing authority of a local governmental subdivision or a new form of local governing authority from affecting the enumerated offices. To have the office of “police juror” included in the enumeration of “Parish Officials” would be absurd for the change from a police jury form of government to home rule necessarily implies a change affecting the “powers and functions” of the- office of “police juror.” The absence of “police juror” from the enumeration does not exclude the officer from the characterization of “Parish Official.” A “police juror” has been and is now a “parish official.” LSA-R.S. 33:1221; Centani v. Marrero, 13 Orl.App. 185, 193 (1915).

In my opinion the office of police juror is a “parochial office.” A member of a police jury, whether elected from within traditional ward boundaries, a “police jury ward,” or a district (See LSA-R.S. 33:1221 and 1224), is not a ward officer. The powers and duties of the police jury have for their object the administration of the affairs of the parish (not merely the administration of the affairs within the limited territorial boundaries from which a juror is elected). LSA-R.S. 33:1236.

Correspondingly, while a representative is now elected from an area designated a “representative district” without regard to ward boundaries, he cannot be a district officer. It cannot be argued that membership in the House of Representatives is a “district office” within the purview of LSA-R.S. 18:394.1 subd. C. The House of Representatives being a house of the state legislature has for its object the legislative administration of the affairs of the state and like a police jury not merely the affairs of the territorial area from which a member is elected.

Though, as the majority correctly states, police jurors were historically elected from “police jury wards,” they have, at least since Act 161 of 1894 had the character of parish officer. See Centani v. Marrero, supra. Election from within a ward does not absolutely assign to the office to which elected the designation “ward office.” I look to the nature of the powers and duties delegated and assigned to determine the character of the office.

A “police juror” must possess the same qualifications as a member of the House of Representatives. LSA-R.S. 13:1225. Since LSA-R.S. 18:394.1 subd. C requires the same number (300) of signatures of qualified voters for a candidate for a parochial office as for a member of the House of Representatives, it is apparent that “police juror” was intended to be included in the term “parochial offices.”

Finally, absent anything to the contrary. I presume that in 1975 the legislature had available to it sufficient data and information from which it could conclude that there was no “police jury ward”- from which a candidate for the “parochial office” of “police juror” could not have obtained the 300 signatures required by LSA-R.S. 18:394.1 subd. C because of the insufficiency of the number of registered voters therein. 
      
      . “Nominating papers must be signed for each candidate by qualified voters entitled to vote in the election for which the candidate files nominating papers in the number of at least one thousand for any candidate to be voted for by the electors of the state at large, five hundred for justices of the supreme court, judge of the court of appeal, member of the public service commission, member of any state board or commission or other office of state character whose election is provided by law, four hundred for senators, district and judicial offices, three hundred for members of the House of Representatives and parochial offices, one hundred for municipal officers in municipalities with a population of less than twenty-five thousand, one hundred seventy-five for municipal officers in municipalities with a population of twenty-five thousand or more but less than fifty thousand, two hundred for municipal officers in municipalities with a population of fifty thousand or more but less than one hundred thousand, two hundred fifty for municipal officers in municipalities with a population of one hundred thousand or more but less than three hundred thousand, five hundred for municil>al officers in municipalities with a population of more than three hundred thousand, and twenty-five for ward officers and for any other office not otherwise provided for herein.”
     
      
      . The Act of March 25, 1813, “Further defining the organization, authority and functions of police juries,” in Sec. 1 provided for the first time that parishes should be divided “into as many wards as their local situation may require or permit, for the purpose of securing to each of the said wards an equal representation in the police jury.” Sec. 2 provided that the inhabitants of each ward in each parish were to elect “such number of representatives as they are entitled to have in the police jury of their said parish . . . .” (La.Acts 1813, pp. 154-156.)
      Earlier, La.Acts 1811-1812, ch. 36, at pp. 180-181, an Act of April 30, 1811, “Supplementary to and amending an Act intitled [sic] ‘An Act relative to wards, levees and to the police of cattle [sic], and for other purposes,’ ” See. 3, described the parish governing authority for the first time as “the parish meeting, or police jury,” provided a change in composition to “a jury of twelve inhabitants presided by the parish judge,” and provided for the 12 members to be elected at large by the qualified voters of the entire parish.
      For earlier history, see Calhoun, “The Origin and Early Development of County-Parish Government in Louisiana (1805-1845),” 18 La.Historical Q. 56, 93-99 (1935).
     
      
      . Although not in evidence, Louisiana Almanac (9th ed. 1975), citing the U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population (1970), lists wards with far fewer than 300 total inhabitants (not electors), e. g., Caldwell Ward 6, population 138, and Red River Ward 8, population 130.