LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ETHICS Vs. ROBERT MURRAY AND THE HON. ARTHUR A. MORRELL, COMMISSIONER OF ELECTIONS FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
* NO. 2007-CA-1219 * COURT OF APPEAL * LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF ETHICS FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS ROBERT MURRAY AND THE HON. ARTHUR A. MORRELL, COMMISSIONER OF ELECTIONS FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS * * ******* BELSOME, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion. The trial judge correctly noted the limited time available to contest the election qualifications of a candidate. In doing so, she acknowledged the latest date and time a hearing should commence. The trial judge further noted that Mr. Murray contacted the court that morning before the hearing, sometime prior to 9:00 a.m. Unfortunately, the record is vague with respect to when the Criminal Clerk of Court, Arthur Morrell, entered the hearing. While Mr. Morrell’s appearance is not noticed on page one of the transcript, he participates at page seven of the ten page transcript. If service of process is correlative of notice then these facts indicate notice. The facts presented in this case are distinguishable from those of Darnell v. Alcorn, 1999-2405 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1999), 757 So.2d 716, which the majority relied upon. These facts support sufficient notice. Mr. Murray was fully aware of the proceedings and Mr. Morrell was present at the hearing. Given the limited parameters that exist when contesting candidacy, we should not encourage parties to avoid service that would defeat an election contest. Therefore, I do not agree with the majority’s opinion. Additionally, I reiterate my concern as set forth in Louisiana State Board of Ethics v. Garrett, 2006-0263 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/21/06), 929 So.2d 176. The question as to whether La. R.S. 18:492 (A)(5) can pass constitutional muster still remains. Again, as in Garrett, a constitutional challenge to the statute has not been raised and therefore cannot be explored by this Court. Thus, based on the record in this case I dissent.
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.
