Case Name: Walter C. DUMAS v. Louis JETSON, H.M. "Mike" Cannon in His Capacity as Clerk of Court For the Parish of East Baton Rouge and James H. "Jim" Brown, Secretary of State
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1983-12-05
Citations: 446 So. 2d 744
Docket Number: No. CE 83 1347
Parties: Walter C. DUMAS v. Louis JETSON, H.M. “Mike” Cannon in His Capacity as Clerk of Court For the Parish of East Baton Rouge and James H. “Jim” Brown, Secretary of State.
Judges: Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS, PONDER, COLE, SHORTESS, CARTER, SA-VOIE, LANIER and CRAIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 446
Pages: 744–747

Head Matter:
Walter C. DUMAS v. Louis JETSON, H.M. “Mike” Cannon in His Capacity as Clerk of Court For the Parish of East Baton Rouge and James H. “Jim” Brown, Secretary of State.
No. CE 83 1347.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Dec. 5, 1983.
Norman L. Haymer, Jr., Baton Rouge, Alvin Turner, Jr., Gonzales, for plaintiff-appellant.
Janice Clark, Alfred Williams, Steve Marks and Glenn Lorio, Kenneth DeJean, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.
Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS, PONDER, COLE, SHORTESS, CARTER, SA-VOIE, LANIER and CRAIN, JJ.
Chief Judge Covington and Judges Watkins and Alford did not participate.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an election contest proceeding wherein plaintiff, Walter C. Dumas, a candidate for the Louisiana House of Representatives from District No. 61, alleges that irregularities and/or fraud exist in regard to the general election held on November 19, 1983, sufficient to affect the outcome of the election. In said election defendant received 4091 votes and plaintiff received 3878 votes, a difference of 213 votes. From a judgment maintaining an exception of no cause of action, plaintiff appeals. Defendant answers the appeal insofar as the trial court dismissed an exception of prescription.
NO CAUSE OF ACTION
In plaintiffs original and second supplemental and amending petitions, plaintiff alleges:
5.
Petitioner alleges that irregularities and/or fraud exist in regard to the election on November 19, 1983, including but not limited to the casting of votes, tabulation and counting of votes cast in the General Election which irregularities and/or fraud effected the outcome of the election as regards to petitioner and defendant cited herein such that petitioner would have won the election held on November 19, 1983, as more specifically set forth hereinafter.
6.
Petitioner specifically alleges on information and belief that the conducting of the election, especially by the commissioners, the casting, handling, and tabulation in the November 19, 1983, General Election were irregular, fradulent, incorrect and that the said irregularities and/or fraud effected the outcome of the election as related to petitioner cited herein, including, but not limited, as example:
a) At precinct 10, ward 1, a commissioner, JERRY JOHNSON, despite protest from petitioner's poll watcher, ERNEST STEPHENS, and request from the commissioner-in-charge, CARRIE TEMPLE, electioneered and campaigned all day November 19, 1983, inside the polling place and in the voting booth for defendant, LOUIS JETSON, and intimidated petitioner's poll watcher, all in violation of R.S. 18:1461, et seq. and other applicable State and Federal laws prohibiting such acts within the restricted area surrounding the polling place;
b) Commissioners, JERRY JOHNSON AND JOHN B. SIBLEY, at precinct 10, ward 1, despite protest from petitioner's poll watcher went into the voting booth with voters who were not entitled to nor requested assistance in violations of R.S. 18:563 and other applicable State and Federal laws;
c) At precinct 70, ward 1, eommissioner-in-charge, WILLIE SPEARS, was unable to be located from 8:00 to 12:00 noon. He was also unavailable from 12:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. during which times commissioners assisted voters in the voting booth who were not entitled nor requested any assistance in violations of R.S. 18:563 and other applicable State and Federal laws;
d) At precinct 32, ward 1, the commis,sioner-in-charge, J.P. WILLIAMS, consumed alcoholic beverages while conducting voting. Further, while one voter was voting, he opened the curtains, and told her to vote number 51, all in violation of R.S. 18:564, et seq. The eommissioner-in-eharge left this precinct at least six (6) times during the times votes were being cast;
e) At precinct 32, ward 1, commissioner-in-charge J.P. WILLIAMS, yelled out vote 51 to voters inside the polling »place. Further he yelled out flight 51 is arriving;
f) At precinct 32, ward 1, eommissioner-in-charge, J.P. WILLIAMS, gave to voters political ballots that contained defendant, LOUIS JETSON'S number;
g) At precinct 32, ward 1, commissioner-in-charge, electioneered and campaigned inside the polling place for defendant, LOUIS JETSON;
h) At precinct 63, ward 1, the commissioner-in-charge, RITA O'CONNER, was not qualified to serve as a commissioner. Further, she permitted commissioners to assist voters in the voting booth who were not entitled nor requested any assistance in violations of R.S. 18:563 and other applicable State and Federal laws;
i) At precinct 32, ward 1, commissioners despite protest from petitioner's poll watcher went into the voting booth with voters who were not entitled to nor requested assistance;
j) At precinct 10, ward 1, GERALDINE DAVIS AND JERRY JOHNSON, were not qualified to serve as a commissioner.
k) At precinct 10, 32, 63 and 70 over 300 votes were illegally and/or fraudently cast for defendant, LOUIS JETSON;
l) At precinct 10, 32, 63 and 70 over 300 people voted who were unqualified to vote at said precincts;
m) More votes were tabulated at precincts 10, 32, 63 & 70 than persons signing the polling list to vote.
We conclude that plaintiff has stated a cause of action. Each individual allegation cannot be read separately, but rather must be read together. Importantly, after alleging various acts of misconduct, plaintiff alleges that over 300 votes were illegally cast, which if proven would necessitate a new or restricted election as authorized by La.R.S. 18:1432 A.
PRESCRIPTION
This suit was filed on Monday, November 28,1983, at 5:27 P.M., some nine (9) days after the election. La.R.S. 18:1405 B provides a six (6) day time period after the election within which to file an action contesting the election. In computing the time, Sundays and other legal holidays are included, except that if the final day falls on a Sunday or legal holiday, then the next legal day shall be the final day. La.R.S. 18:1413.
We conclude that under La.R.S. 1:55 the Friday, November 25, 1983, after Thanksgiving is a legal holiday. Thus since November 25, 1983, was the sixth and last day, plaintiff had until Monday, November 28, 1983, to file suit. Therefore, the trial judge was correct in overruling the exception of prescription.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
LANIER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for reasons to be assigned.
COLE, J. respectfully dissents. Appellant has plead only conclusions of law and now seeks to make a collateral attack upon the legality of votes cast without protest.
CARTER, J., dissents for reasons assigned by COLE, J.