253 So. 3d 815
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Melinda Doucet filed a notarized Notice of Candidacy for Jefferson Parish School Board Dist. 7 including the La. R.S. 18:463 certification that for the prior five tax years she filed federal and state returns, filed extensions, or was not required to file.
- Billy Joseph North sued, alleging Doucet falsely certified having filed Louisiana state returns for 2013, 2016, and 2017 (and sought disqualification under La. R.S. 18:492 and 18:494(A)).
- Louisiana Department of Revenue records showed a 2014 state return but no records for 2013, 2015, 2016, or 2017; LDR witness confirmed diligent search could not locate returns for 2013, 2015–2017.
- Doucet conceded she did not file Louisiana state returns for 2015–2017 and claimed she filed extensions; her tax attorney testified federal extensions existed for some years but no state extensions for 2016 and 2017 (only an online state extension for 2015).
- Trial court found Doucet had not filed Louisiana state returns or state extensions for 2016 and 2017, disqualified her; Doucet appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the statutory language requires state and federal returns (or extensions) for each year and federal-only extensions do not satisfy the state requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (North) | Defendant's Argument (Doucet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. 18:463(A)(2)(a)(iv) permits a federal extension alone to satisfy the certification | Doucet falsely certified; must be disqualified because state returns/extensions missing | Federal extension suffices to meet the statute even if no state extension was filed | Federal-only extensions do not satisfy statute; candidate must have filed both federal and state returns, or extensions for both; affirmed disqualification |
| Whether the statute is ambiguous such that Doucet's certification should be construed in her favor | N/A (objector carries burden) | Statute ambiguous; any doubt resolved in favor of candidate | Court found statute not ambiguous; applied plain meaning requiring state filings/extensions as separate requirement |
| Allocation of burden in election contest proof | North met prima facie burden to object | Once prima facie shown, Doucet must rebut by proving compliance | Appellee made prima facie showing; Doucet failed to rebut for 2016–2017; supports disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Hughes, 176 So.3d 1135 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (standard of review: manifest error for facts; de novo for law)
- Trosclair v. Joseph, 150 So.3d 315 (La. App. 5 Cir.) (purpose of notice of candidacy and burden in candidacy objections)
- Dixon v. Hughes, 587 So.2d 679 (La. 1991) (election laws construed to promote rather than defeat candidacy)
- Landiak v. Richmond, 899 So.2d 535 (La.) (once objector makes prima facie showing, burden shifts to defendant to rebut)