Georgette Matassa and Phyllis Z. Rodrigue VS Madeline Jasmine and Jay Dardenne, in His Official Capacity as Louisiana Secretary of State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CE 1298 GEORGETTE N MATASSA AND PHYLLIS Z RODRIGUE VERSUS MADELINE JASMINE AND JAY DARDENNE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 22 2010 ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBER 34 DIVISION D 051 PARISH OF ST JAMES STATE OF LOUISIANA r J HONORABLE JANE TRICHEMILAZZO JUDGE 5 N tUJ a t GV r t 7 Attorneys for PlaintiffsAp glees Matthew W Pryor Barbara Lane Irwin Georgette N Matassa and Phyllis Z C Gonzales Louisiana Rodrigue Ernest L Jones Attorney for Defendant Appellant New Orleans Louisiana Madeline Jasmine Daniel E Becnel Jr Salvatore Christini Attorneys for Appellants Francis W Guidry Jr and Patrick C Reserve Louisiana Sellars Will Crawford Attorney for DefendantAppellee Jay Dardenne Louisiana Secretary Baton Rouge Louisiana of State William Bryan Attorney for DefendantAppellee Baton Rouge Louisiana Betty Madere Registrar of Voters BEFORE CARTER C WHIPPLE PARRO KUHN GUIDRY PETTIGREW J GAIDRY McDONALD McCLENDON AND HUGHES JJ This appeal was originally filed in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal but on the recusal of the Judges of that court the Louisiana Supreme Court issued an order transferring this appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeal 2 Judge Jewel E Duke ecused and Judge Robert D Downing not available did not participate s opin on a l c e le by y ca PARRO J Madeline Jasmine appeals a judgment disqualifying her as a candidate for the office of judge Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Second District Division A For the reasons expressed we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 8 2010 Madeline Jasmine filed a sworn Notice of Candidacy with the Louisiana Secretary of State purportedly qualifying as a candidate for the primary election scheduled for October 2 2010 for the office of judge of the Court of Appeal Fifth Circuit Second District Division A On July 12 2010 plaintiffs Georgette N Matassa and Phyllis Z Rodrigue filed a petition under LSAR 18 and 18 objecting to Judge Jasmine candidacy S 492 3 A A 1401 s on the grounds that she does not meet the qualifications for the office she seeks in the primary election Specifically plaintiffs allege that the Fifth Circuit is divided into three districts and argue that a candidate for judge of the second district of the Fifth Circuit must be domiciled in the second district It is uncontested that Judge Jasmine is domiciled in the third district The district court conducted a hearing on July 15 2010 On July 16 the district court issued written reasons for judgment and signed a judgment sustaining plaintiffs objection to Judge Jasmine candidacy and disqualifying s her as a candidate This appeal ensued 2 DISCUSSION This appeal presents the purely legal issue of whether an otherwise qualified domiciliary of the third district of the Fifth Circuit may run for the position of judge from the second district Article V 9 of the Louisiana Constitution provides Courts of Appeal Circuits and Districts Each circuit shall be divided into at least three districts and at least one judge shall be elected from each The circuits and districts and the number of judges as elected in each circuit on the effective date of this constitution are retained subject to change by law enacted by two thirds of the elected members of each house of the legislature In accordance with this constitutional mandate Louisiana Revised Statute b 5 312 13 divides the Fifth Circuit into three districts the first district is comprised of Jefferson Parish the second district is composed of St James Parish and that portion of St John the Baptist Parish east of the Mississippi Ms Jasmine currently serves as a district judge for the Fortieth Judicial District Court Parish of St John the Baptist 2 On July 14 2010 Patrick C Sellars and Francis W Guidry Jr filed a motion to intervene in the instant suit and a motion to continue the hearing Therein they referenced their action in federal court challenging the manner in which appellate court seats are apportioned The district court denied the motions on July 15 2010 and movers sought an appeal of that judgment We find no abuse of the district court sdiscretion in denying the motion to continue and no error in the denial of the motion to intervene Accordingly the ruling denying the motion to continue and to intervene is affirmed Thus Mr Sellars and Mr Guidry are not considered parties to this litigation River and the third district is composed of St Charles Parish and that portion of St John the Baptist Parish west of the Mississippi River Also in accordance with Article V 9 LSAR 13 provides S 312 3 E 1 that o nejudge shall be elected from the second district of the fifth circuit 3 Relative to the qualifications for judges Article V 24 of the Louisiana Constitution provides in pertinent part Judges qualifications A judge of the supreme court a court of appeal district court family court parish court or court having solely juvenile jurisdiction shall have been domiciled in the respective district A circuit or parish for one year preceding election and shall have been admitted to the practice of law in the state for at least the number of years specified as follows 1 For the supreme court or a court of appealsten years Judge Jasmine essentially reads Article V 24 as requiring that a judge of a court of appeal shall have been domiciled in the respective for one year preceding election circuit Her argument suggests that the term circuit applies to court of appeal judges while the terms district and parish refer to judges for the other courts covered by the Article She concludes that Article V 24 requires only that she be domiciled in the circuit for at least one year and that there is no requirement that she be domiciled in the specific legislatively created district provided by statute Judge Jasmine interpretation of Article V 24 would be somewhat s persuasive if that Article is read in isolation However onstitutional c interpretation is not to be approached in a word by word sentencebysentence even article byarticle examination but is to be made from a reading of the provisions in the context that each is a part of the Constitution as a whole body of law with full meaning given to the express language throughout the Constitution Chehardy v Democratic Executive Committee for Jefferson Parish 259 La 45 48 249 So 196 1971 2d 198 We find that Article V 9 relative to the structure of the courts of appeal read together with Article V 24 relative to the qualifications for judges for the courts of appeal demonstrate that the circuits shall be divided into districts that at least one judge shall be elected from each respective district and that a candidate for a constitutionally created district of a circuit must be domiciled in that district Under LSAR 13 the second district of the Fifth Circuit S 312 E 1 is allotted only one judge accordingly that judge must be from the second district Article V 9 does not preclude the possibility of a candidate running at large from an entire circuit provided at least one judge is elected from each s LSAR 13 and 2 provide respectively that the Court of Appeal for the Fifth S 312 E 1 Circuit shall be composed of eight judges six of whom are elected from the first district LSAR S 4 E 1 312 13 provides that one judge shall be elected from the third district F district See Lee Hargrave The Judiciary Article of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 37 La L Rev 765 77374 1977 As a matter of fact LSA R S D 1 312 13 provides that two of the twelve judges of the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit shall be elected from the circuit at large by the qualified electors thereof Therefore in order to qualify for such office a candidate for either of these two at large judgeships must comply with LSA Const art V 24 and shall have been domiciled in the respective circuit for one year preceding election The other ten judges shall have been domiciled in the respective district to meet the qualifications for these offices The district court acknowledged that the legislature cannot impose additional qualifications for judges by statute Knobloch v Democratic Committee 73 So 433 La App 1 Cir 1954 cited in Cook v Campbell 2d st 360 So 1193 La App 2nd Cir writ denied 362 So 573 La 1978 2d 2d Further the district court noted that the legislature is presumed to act with deliberation and knowledge of existing law regarding the same subject See Detillier v Kenner Regional Medical Center 03 3259 La 7 877 So 04 6 2d 100 The district court observed that LSAR 13 establishes districts for S 312 the fifth circuit that LSAR 13 provides that one judge shall be S 312 E 1 elected from the second district and concluded that the terms from and district necessarily relate back to the term district in Article V 24 The court opined that the use of the term district is deliberate and is directly related to the respective domicile requirements of Article V 24 We find that rather than superimposing an additional qualification for judgeship the district court conclusion gives effect to the constitutional s provisions at issue See LSA Const art V 9 and 24 We are mindful that the laws governing the conduct of elections should be liberally interpreted so as to promote rather than defeat candidacy Dixon v Hughes 587 So 679 La 1991 We are nevertheless constrained to find 2d that a candidate for the office of judge of the Fifth Circuit Second District must be domiciled in the second district Accordingly the district court judgment s disqualifying Judge Jasmine is affirmed AFFIRMED K STATE OF LOUISIANA l il co zzINGICZ COURT OF APPEAL Ll 1 1Si FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CE 1298 GEORGETTE N MATASSA AND PHYLLIS ZRODRIGUE VERSUS MADELINE JASMINE AND JAY DARDENNE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE GUIDRY J dissents and assigns reasons GUIDRY J dissenting The issue before this court is whether Judge Jasmine is a qualified candidate for the Office of Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Louisiana Constitution article 5 24A is the provision of our state constitution that expressly provides for the qualifications for judges and it states in pertinent part A judge of the supreme court a court of appeal district court family court parish court or court having solely juvenile jurisdiction shall have been domiciled in the respective district circuit or parish for one year preceding election Using basic parallel construction and giving credence specifically to the adjective respective it is clear that each of the divisions listed must correspond to the respective courts to which the division refers Therefore a plain reading of the clear express language of this provision simply requires a candidate for Court of Appeal Judge to have been domiciled in his or her respective circuit We are constitutionally prohibited as a court as is the legislature from adding an additional requirement that a person live in a particular district in the circuit that would require a constitutional amendment As noted by this court in Deculus v Welborn 07 1836 p 9 La App 1st Cir 9970 So 2d 1057 1062 affd 07 1888 La 10 964 So 2d 930 07 19 07 1 The constitution is the supreme law to which all legislative acts and all ordinances rules and regulations of creatures ofthe legislature must yield Macon v Costa 437 So 2d 806 810 La 1983 Our state s constitution provisions are not grants of power but instead are limitations on the otherwise plenary power of the people exercised through the legislature World Trade Center Taxing Dist v All Taxpayers Property Owners 050374 La 6 908 So 2d 623 05 29 632 While the clear language of La Const art 5 24 sets out the qualifications for a candidate seeking election to the Court of Appeal both La Const art 5 9 and La R 13 address the geographical areas within the circuit in S 312 b 5 which any qualified candidate may run The use of the word from in La Const art 5 9 refers to the election districts and the respective electorate therein who may choose from any candidate that is qualified by virtue of his or her being domiciled in the circuit The geographical designation of election districts is not to establish the qualifications for candidates for the Court of Appeal but simply to geographically divide the electorate within a circuit If the electorate from any of the designated voting districts choose not to elect a person because he or she is not domiciled in their particular district they are free to do so however as our state constitution plainly provides such a person may nevertheless qualify for the office and present his or herself for election by virtue of their meeting the qualifications as expressly provided for in Article 5 section 24A Here we have a constitutional article that expressly provides that a judicial candidate must be domiciled in that court circuit a separate constitutional s provision mandating the division of the circuit into three districts and a statutory provision providing the specific geographical region included in each election district of that circuit The latter two provisions do not establish that a person must be domiciled within a specific election district in order to qualify as a candidate for that circuit Similar to the Louisiana Supreme Court holding in the Deculus v s Welborn case to the extent that two provisions address different circumstances one should not be used to determine an issue addressed in the other See Deculus 07 1888 pp 7 8 La 10 964 So 930 935 The jurisprudence of our 07 2d state is clear election laws must be interpreted to give the electorate the widest possible choice of candidates Landiak v Richmond 05 0758 p 6 La 05 24 3899 So 2d 535 541 Any doubt concerning the qualifications of a candidate should be resolved in favor of allowing the candidate to run for public office Landiak 05 0758 at 7 899 So 2d at 541 Therefore I respectfully dissent 3 10 co II IN1 GEORGETTE N MATASSA ZZ Inr 6 1Oa FIRST CIRCUIT i 1SZ l0 r 1 AND PHYLLIS Z RODRIGUE VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL MADELINE JASMINE STATE OF LOUISIANA AND JAY DARDENNE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE NO 2010 CE 1298 KUHN J dissenting in part I am compelled to dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that affirms the trial court disqualification of the plaintiff even though elections in s our circuit courts of appeal have perhaps traditionally yielded the election of judges to the district in which they are domiciled But our role as judges is simply to interpret the law i in this case very clear constitutional provisions and not to e interject personal beliefs or opinions into the equation To do so would turn our appellate courts into policy courts which they certainly are not Here the majority drifts off into substituting its logic or view of tradition for the clear language of the constitution Judge Guidry wellreasoned dissent is an appropriate analysis of the s constitution and points out soundly the clear language therein that sets forth the qualifications of circuit court of appeal judges When a constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences its language must be given effect Unequivocal constitutional provisions are not subject to judicial construction and should be applied by giving words their generally understood meaning Ocean Energy Inc v Plaquemines Parish Government 04 0066 La 7 880 So 1 7 Certainly legislation and law 04 6 2d review articles cannot be used to explain what the constitution means or how it should be read the majority falls into error in using La R 13 and the cited S 312 1 law review article to interpret our constitution Likewise it is neither helpful nor appropriate to consider even unconsciously the traditions of past elections While I may like to accept and follow tradition my role as a judge in this case does not allow this Further it seems that the dilemma brought into focus in this suit will not practically or politically occur in other circuits If the Supreme Court should choose to enunciate a policy concerning the constitutional issues in this case that is in fact the role of that court but not that of this court 2 STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CE 1298 P U a N GEORGETTE MATASSA AND PHYLLIS Z RODRIGUE VERSUS MADELINE JASMINE AND JAY DARDENNE IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE mil McCLENDON J agrees in part and dissents in part Respectfully I agree with the majority opinion with the exception of the affirmation of the denial of the motion to continue and to intervene This ruling is premature The record is unclear as to whether the judgment denying the motion to continue and to intervene was rendered while a recusal motion was pending If such judgment was rendered prior to disposition of the motion to continue and to intervene then the judgment would be an absolute nullity In re Sassone 070651 La 6 959 So 859 Thus I would remand to 07 29 2d the district court for supplementation of the record on this limited issue
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
