Case Name: STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Frank PLAIA v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-06-10
Citations: 296 So. 2d 809
Docket Number: No. 54269
Parties: STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Frank PLAIA v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.
Judges: BARHAM, JJ dissents for reasons assigned.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 296
Pages: 809–813

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Frank PLAIA v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.
No. 54269.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
June 10, 1974.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Warren E. Mouledoux, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Paul J. Ferlita, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-appellant.
James P. Screen, New Orleans, for La. Bd. of Health, defendant-appellee.
Harry A. Burglass, Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant.

Opinion:
DIXON, Justice.
In litigation commenced in June of 1971, the Louisiana Board of Health was ordered to issue a birth certificate to Elizabeth Maria Plaia designating her race as "white." State ex rel. Plaia v. Louisiana State Board of Health, La.App., 275 So.2d 201 (1973). Subsequently, alleging that only a "short form" birth registration card had been issued instead of a regular birth certificate, Plaia sought to compel compliance with the judgment of the Court of Appeal. In answer to the rule, defendant argues that it is obligated to enforce Act 46 of 1970 (R.S. 42:267) until it is declared unconstitutional, and that its compliance be adjudged sufficient. Plaintiff then filed a supplemental petition asking that Act 46 of 1970 be declared unconstitutional because it provided no definitions for the terms used in the statute, and because it was unconstitutionally discriminatory because it referred only to persons of Negro blood.
The statute involved states:
"In signifying race, a person having one-thirty second or less of Negro blood shall not be deemed, described or designated by any public official in the state of Louisiana as 'colored/ a 'mulatto,' a 'black/ a 'negro/ a 'griffe/ an 'Afro-American/ a 'quardroon/ a 'mestizo/ a 'colored person' or a 'person of color.' "
In brief and argument before us the defendant board agrees with the plaintiff that the statute is unconstitutional. The attorney general, however, argues that the statute is constitutional, in that there are legitimate governmental reasons for racial classification, and that the statute can be administered.
None of the parties before us take the position that there is no legitimate governmental interest in racial designation on birth certificates. That question is not before us. We are only required to decide whether R.S. 42:267 is so vague that it cannot be administered, or whether it is null because of invidious racial discrimination.
It is neither.
The act prohibits "any public official" from describing or designating any person as a Negro (or as any of the listed terms sometimes used to refer to persons of Negro blood) unless that person has more than one-thirty-second of Negro blood. The act is clear and simple. It does not require the racial designation of any person. "In signifying race, a person having one-thirty second (sic) or less of Negro blood shall not be deemed, described or designated by any public official in the state of Louisiana as 'colored' . . ."
A reasonable explanation of the legislative purpose of the act is that it was a definition, not of the terms indicated in the title, but of the phrase "traceable amount," formerly of legal significance in racial designation in this State. Sunseri v. Cassagne, 195 La. 19, 196 So. 7 (1940). Louisiana is now prohibited, by R.S. 42:267, from designating as "Negro" those persons with only a "traceable amount" of Negro blood.
The district judge was persuaded by opinions of the Court of Appeal which found that terms used in the act (colored, mulatto, black, griffe, Afro-American, etc.) were vague and not sufficiently defined. State, ex rel. Plaia, supra; Thomas v. Louisiana State Board of Health, La.App. 278 So.2d 915 (1973). In those cases the court assumed, as does the defendant, that the defendant is required to take some action in racial designation based on the terms used in the act. That assumption is unwarranted. The act merely prohibits the use. of such racial terms unless the person described has more than one-thirty-second Negro blood.
R.S. 40:242-40:245 govern the registration of child births in Orleans Parish. The physician, midwife or parent is required to file the certificate with the local registrar. R.S. 40:243. The required information to be shown on this certificate is detailed in R.S. 40:244. Certificates on file may not be altered except on receipt of acceptable evidence, pursuant to regulations of the board. R.S. 40:266, 40:322. In order to justify a change in birth registration, the evidence must leave no room for doubt. State, ex rel. Schlumbrecht v. Louisiana State Board of Health, La.App., 231 So.2d 730 (1970). Except as provided in R.S. 40:158, the registrar "shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any birth . . . certificate filed in his office . . ." R.S. 40:156.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. That part of the judgment holding Act 46 of 1970 unconstitutional is reversed. That part of the judgment ordering the Louisiana State Board of Health, through the local registrar for the Parish of Orleans, to issue a certified copy of the certificate of live birth of Elizabeth Maria Plaia, born March 10, 1965 at Ochsner Foundation Hospital to Grace Lucille Raphiel, wife of Frank Joseph Plaia, Jr., is affirmed.
BARHAM, JJ dissents for reasons assigned.