In re Lorusso, 85 So. 3d 712

Lorusso won Louisiana House District 94 in the March 10, 2007 election and filed a campaign disclosure on March 1, 2007 listing a $30,000 personal payment to his campaign as a contribution.
On August 28, 2007 Lorusso sought an advisory opinion to correct the report, proposing to designate the $30,000 as a personal loan on Schedule B rather than a contribution on Schedule A-1.
The Board issued an advisory opinion on September 14, 2007 concluding amendments to pre-election reports are prohibited, and the error could not be corrected without violating voters’ interests; this was reaffirmed December 18, 2009.
On May 12, 2010 Lorusso requested a declaratory opinion; a public hearing was held June 18, 2010; the Board reaffirmed its advisory opinion on November 19, 2010.
Lorusso appealed the November 19, 2010 declaratory opinion; the Louisiana Court of Appeal exercised jurisdiction and ultimately reversed and rendered in his favor, awarding costs against the Board.
The court discussed statutory changes and administrative rules (post-Duplantis) governing declaratory opinions and amendments, and whether staff plus Board procedures permit amendments to timely-filed reports.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the declaratory opinion is reviewable	Lorusso contends the opinion is a final, justiciable declaratory judgment subject to review.	Board argues advisory opinions/declaratory opinions are not reviewable under prior Duplantis limitations.	Reviewable; court retains supervisory jurisdiction over declaratory opinions presenting a justiciable controversy.
Whether Lorusso may amend the report to show the $30,000 as a loan	Lorusso should be allowed to amend to correct the designation from contribution to loan.	Amendment would violate the reporting requirements and could trigger penalties; amendment not permitted post-election.	Lorusso may amend the report to reflect the loan designation.
What governs the ability to amend—statutes, rules, or Board practice	statutes and Board rule § 1606 imply a mechanism to permit corrections for minor violations and corrections can be made.	Board previously concluded amendments are prohibited and relied on a broader policy against retroactive changes.	Absence of explicit prohibition on amendments and existence of implicit correction procedure permits amendment.

Duplantis v. Louisiana Board of Ethics, 782 So.2d 582 (La. 2001) (advisory opinions not reviewable; distinctions between advisory opinions and board decisions)
Church Point Wholesale Beverage Co., Inc. v. Tarver, 614 So.2d 697 (La. 1993) (declaratory judgments require present, justiciable controversies)
Am. Waste & Pollution Control Co. v. St. Martin Parish Police Jury, 627 So.2d 158 (La. 1993) (definition of justiciable controversy and declaratory relief principles)
Prator v. Caddo Parish, 888 So.2d 812 (La. 2004) (defining justiciable controversy in declaratory judgments)
Steiner v. Reed, 57 So.3d 1188 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2011) (criteria for justiciable, immediate disputes in declaratory actions)