209 So. 3d 752
La.2016Background
- Plaintiff challenges 1998 amendment (Act 1492) to La. Const. art. I, § 10, arguing it was not properly enacted under La. Const. art. XIII, § 1.
- Legislative history shows Green amendments were included in the House version but omitted from the enrolled bill presented to voters.
- District court declared the amendment null and void for failure to comply with the mandatory amendment procedures.
- Threshold issues: standing and mootness; the election had occurred and votes for Shepherd were not counted.
- Louisiana Supreme Court holds the amendment was not constitutionally adopted due to not presenting to voters the language approved by the legislature.
- Constitutional remedy: reaffirmation that the two-thirds assent, publication, and other procedural elements are mandatory safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge amendment | Shepherd has a legally protected interest in candidacy. | Standing is lacking because he would not have benefited from omitted Green text. | Shepherd has standing; broad standing conferred for constitutional challenges to amendment procedures. |
| Mootness to entertain the challenge | Controversy remains capable of repetition and avoids review due to short election windows. | Election already occurred; mootness should bar relief. | Controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review; not moot for purposes of adjudicating amendment validity. |
| Validity of La. Const. art. I, § 10 as amended by 1997 La. Acts 1492 | Enrolled bill omitting Green amendment violates Art. XIII, § 1; fails to present exact legislature-approved language. | Substantial compliance enough; failing Green amendment is clerical or separable if electorate approved the rest. | amendment null and void; failure to present the exact legislature-approved text violates mandatory procedures. |
| Enrolled bill rule and look-behind to legislative history | Cannot rely solely on enrolled bill; must consider legislative history to ensure two-thirds assent. | Enrolled bill rule prohibits looking behind the enrolled text. | Louisiana may look to legislative history to test compliance with Art. XIII, § 1; enrolled bill rule rejected in this context. |
| Severability and impact of omission vs addition | Even with omission, the legislature would have passed the rest; severability should apply. | No severability because Green amendment is essential; voters did not approve the language passed by the Legislature. | Severability does not save; the essential mandatory elements were not satisfied, so the amendment is invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Jones, 198 La. 507, 3 So.2d 761 (La. 1941) (mandatory procedural safeguards for constitutional amendments)
- Lucas v. Berkett, 98 So.2d 229 (La. 1957) (substantial compliance; enrolled bill rule; journal entries)
- Board of Liquidation of State Debt of Louisiana v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 122 So.2d 850 (La. 1929) (court may investigate validity of constitutional amendments beyond enrolled text)
- Graham v. Jones, 3 So.2d 782 (La. 1941) (mandatory nature of amendment provisions; not merely directory)
- State v. Rochon, 75 So.3d 876 (La. 2011) (capable of repetition, yet evading review; election-law exceptions)
- Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (U.S. 1974) (capable of repetition, yet evading review; enduring impact of election laws)