Case Name: Louis CHARBONNET, III v. Henry E. BRADEN, IV
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1978-04-14
Citations: 358 So. 2d 360
Docket Number: No. 9522
Parties: Louis CHARBONNET, III v. Henry E. BRADEN, IV.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, REDMANN, LEM-MON, STOULIG, BOUTALL, SCHOTT, BEER, GARSAUD and BAILES, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 358
Pages: 360–364

Head Matter:
Louis CHARBONNET, III v. Henry E. BRADEN, IV.
No. 9522.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
April 14, 1978.
Tucker, Schonekas & Garrison, Gibson Tucker, Jr., Andry & Andry, Gilbert V. Andry, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff-ap-pellee.
Murray, Murray, Ellis, Braden & Landry, Stephen B. Murray, Douglas, Nabonne & Wilkerson, Ronald P. Nabonne, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Donald B. Ensenat, Asst. Atty. Gen., for State of Louisiana.
Before SAMUEL, REDMANN, LEM-MON, STOULIG, BOUTALL, SCHOTT, BEER, GARSAUD and BAILES, JJ.

Opinion:
BOUTALL, Judge.
Candidate Louis Charbonnet, III contests the election of Henry E. Braden, IV to the office of Senator, Fourth State Senatorial District of Louisiana. The respondent filed exceptions of prescription and peremption which were overruled. On the merits the trial court ruled in favor of Charbonnet, and Braden appealed. The election and the resulting contest are within the provisions of Louisiana's new Election Code, effective January 1, 1978, Act 697 of 1976 as amended, now Revised Statutes, Title 18.
EXCEPTION OF PRESCRIPTION
R.S. 18:1406 A provides:
"An action objecting to candidacy or contesting an election shall be instituted by filing a petition in a competent court and posting a copy of the petition in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the office of the clerk of court where the petition is filed. The petition shall set forth in detail the grounds for the objection or contest."
Defendant contends that this action was not timely, because although the petition was filed within five days after the date of the election, a copy of the petition was not posted in a conspicuous place at the entrance of the office of the clerk of court until the sixth day after the election.
The Election Code does not allocate the responsibility for completing the mandated procedures, once the judicial machinery is put into action by the filing of a petition. Defendant's exception is based on the premise that the posting of the petition at the entrance of the clerk's office is a burden placed on the plaintiff in an election suit in order to toll the running of the peremptive period of R.S. 18:1405 B.
The statute requiring the posting cannot be reasonably interpreted to impose this burden on the plaintiff. The handling of petitions after timely filing is a function traditionally assigned to the clerk of court, and we perceive no intent of the Election Code to change this function, nor do we perceive any purpose for doing so.
We hold that a plaintiff in an election suit interrupts any period of prescription or peremption by filing a petition in a competent court, and any mandatory provisions thereafter relating to the handling of the petition do not affect the question of timely filing.
. R.S. 18:1405 B provides:
"An action contesting any election involving election to office shall be instituted within five days after the date of the election, and no such contest shall be declared moot because of the performance or nonperformance of a ministerial function, including but not limited to matters relating to the printing of ballots for the general election."