Court Opinion

ID: 9699845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:53:35.433841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:58.427707
License: Public Domain

*483HAMITER, Justice
(dissenting).
For a number of years the sale of intoxicating liquors was authorized throughout Ward 4, of Caddo Parish, of which the incorporated municipality of Shreveport is a part. Simultaneously, between September 9, 1951 and November 6, 1951, petitions, seeking the calling of two local option elections, were separately circulated, (1) in the City of Shreveport, being addressed to the ■city council, and (2) in the entire unincorporated balance of Ward 4, being directed to the Caddo Parish Police Jury.
On the last mentioned date, and simultaneously, two separate sets of petitions relating to the mentioned respective portions of Ward 4 were filed with Miss Jim Martin, the Registrar of Voters of Caddo Parish, for checking and verification as required by law. In due course such work was completed; and delivery of the petitions occurred as follows: the Shreveport set to the municipal authorities on April 14, 1952, and the unincorporated area set to the Police Jury on May 7-, 1952.
Pursuant to the petitions the municipal authorities held an election within the City of Shreveport on July 15, 1952. Twenty-one days- later, or on August 5, 1952, an election in and for the entire unincorporated area was conducted by the Police Jury.
In the latter election a majority of the votes cast was against permitting the sale of intoxicating liquors; consequently, the Police Jury proceeded to enact the required ordinance to prohibit the sales. After the first reading and before final passage of the ordinance, however, this suit to annul the election was instituted.
The district court rejected the demands of plaintiffs, on the merits, and dismissed the suit. The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, reversed that judgment and decreed the election null and void. The cause is before this court on a writ of certiorari or review.
The basic question presented is whether or not the Legislature intended by the present local option statute, Act No. 372 of 1948, as carried into LSA-R.S., Title 26, Sections 581 to 595, inclusive, to authorize or permit the petitioning for and the calling and holding of an election restricted to the unincorporated portion of a ward. And that question, in my opinion, requires an affirmative answer when consideration is given to the history of the development of the legislation and to the statute as a whole, particularly to the pertinent provisions of the original Act No. 372 of 1948 which I quote as follows :
“Section 1. * * * that on the petition of not less than twenty-five (25%) per cent of the qualified electors residing in any ward, incorporated village, town or city of the state the governing authority there or [thereof] shall order a referendum election * * *; provided that such election shall be separately called and held, and the result separately binding for each incorporated village, town or city, and for the unincorporated balance of the ward; and pro*485vided also that no such election shall be held on a parish wide basis or for any subdivision other than hereinabove defined, and no such election shall be held for the same subdivision oftener than once in every two years.
% ‡ H* H* %
“Section 3. * * *
“A majority vote cast on each proposition shall separately determine that issue for the ward, or for the incorporated village, town or city, and when a ward contains an incorporated village, town or city, the issue shall be separately determined for said incorporated village, town or city and for the unincorporated balance of the ward.
j|c * % s{c ‡ ‡
“Section 6. Each qualified elector desiring a referendum election, shall sign a petition addressed to the governing authority of the subdivision in which he resides, and in substantially the following form:
Petition
To:
“The undersigned qualified electors respectfully request that you call an election to submit, in the manner provided by law, to the qualified electors of Ward - of - Parish, or of the city, town or village of -, the following three propositions : * * *
“Section 7. The multiple petitions for each ward, portion thereof or for each incorporated village, town or city must be bound together as one petition and shall be filed at one time with the Registrar of Voters * * *. The Registrar of Voters, shall have the petition * * * published at the earliest possible time in the official journal of the parish or municipality, as. the case may be, at the expense of the governing authority of the city, town or village, or unincorporated balance of a ward, as the case may be, charged with the duty of calling the election. * * *
“Section 8. The Registrar of Voters shall check the petition and attach thereto his sworn verification showing: * * * (4) The number of qualified electors of the ward or city, town or village, as the case may be, on the registration rolls as of the date of the filing of the petition * * He shall file the petition, with his sworn verification, with the governing authority charged with the duty of calling the election. * * * ”
Prior to the adoption of Act No. 372 of 1948 the local option law of this state was embodied in Act 17 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1935. It provided for the holding of an election throughout a parish or ward. Any municipality lying therein was included; but it was allowed to determine at the parish-wide or ward-wide election, through a separate tabulation, the question of the sale of low content alcoholic beverages within its boundaries. The electors of a parish or ward, in other words, were permitted to regulate the sale of beverages of high alcoholic content in that en*487tire subdivision, including any municipality contained therein.
But in the present statute respecting local option elections, the Legislature, using certain phraseology that did not appear in the former legislation, has manifested an intention to prohibit parish wide elections and to completely separate municipalities from wards. In the above-quoted provisions, as I understand and appreciate them, the lawmakers have ordained that where a ward contains no incorporated municipality the governing authority (the Police Jury), when properly petitioned, shall call and hold at its expense a ward-wide election. However, where the ward contains an incorporated municipality the legislative requirement, as I view it, is that the municipality and the balance of the ward shall have separate elections, each being conducted by the respective governing authority; and “that such election shall be separately called and held, and the result separately binding for each incorporated village, town or city, and for the unincorporated balance of the ward”.
Meanwhile, the multiple petitions “for each ward” (a ward containing no incorporated municipality), "portion thereof” (the unincorporated balance of a ward if a municipality is situated therein) or “for each incorporated village, town or city” must be bound together as one petition and filed with the Registrar of Voters. And when the work of checking and verification is completed the Registrar is obligated to publish the petition “at the expense of the governing authority of the city, town or village, or unincorporated balance- of a ward, as the case may be, charged with the duty of calling the election.”
The view of the majority herein concedes that under the present statute 25% of the electors residing in an incorporated municipality of a ward may petition for and obtain a municipal wide election, in which the electors in the unincorporated balance of such ward can not participate. But it concludes that the latter citizens are not permitted to vote at an election involving their specific area, unless and until 25% of the electors of the entire ward seek and are granted a ward-wide election in which all of the electors of the ward, including those of the municipality, will be allowed to vote.
In my opinion such result would be clearly discriminatory and unjust to the electors of the ward residing without the municipality, and I can not possibly believe that the Legislature intended it. Moreover, it could amount to their partial disfranchisement. Becoming interested in local option to the extent that it concerns only the city in which they live, and knowing that they are adequately protected under the statute, the electors of that municipality might well refuse to join in petitions for a ward-wide election; in which event signatures of 25% of the entire ward electors, required for the election, could never be obtained.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent.