Summary
finding because there is no clear and specific right to register to vote under two different parties, the district court did not err in declining to issue a writ of mandamus to order the Registrar to comply with Plaintiff's wishes to register as both Republican and Democrat
Summary of this case from Badeaux v. GoodellOpinion
No. 2015 CE 1356.
09-21-2015
Damon J. BALDONE and Kevin Voisin v. TERREBONNE PARISH REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, Rhonda R. Rogers.
Damon J. Baldone, Thomas E. Dunn, Houma, LA, for Appellants Plaintiffs–Damon J. Baldone and Kevin Voisin. James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, William P. Bryan, III, Assistant Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, for Appellees Defendant–Registrar of Voters for the Parish of Terrebonne, Rhonda R. Rogers.
Damon J. Baldone, Thomas E. Dunn, Houma, LA, for Appellants Plaintiffs–Damon J. Baldone and Kevin Voisin.
James D. Caldwell, Attorney General, William P. Bryan, III, Assistant Attorney General, Baton Rouge, LA, for Appellees Defendant–Registrar of Voters for the Parish of Terrebonne, Rhonda R. Rogers.
Opinion
WELCH, J.
[ 2] Damon J. Baldone and Kevin Voisin challenge the district court's judgment denying their petition for writ of mandamus, which sought an order requiring the Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters, Rhonda R. Rogers, to register Mr. Baldone as both a Democrat and a Republican. For reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 10, 2015, Mr. Baldone, previously a registered Democrat, appeared at the office of the Terrebonne Parish Registrar of Voters and completed an “Application for Change of Party Affiliation.” The form instructs the voter to “circle one” party out of a list of options or “write in” the name of a party to indicate that party with which he is currently affiliated; the form then instructs the voter to “circle one” of those options or “write in” the name of a party to indicate his new affiliation. The options from which the voter may choose are listed on the form as follows: Democrat, Republican, Green, Libertarian, Reform, None, and Other. Plaintiff circled both Democrat and Republican as the parties to which he wished to become affiliated. The Registrar of Voters entered Mr. Baldone's change in the state voter registration computer system as “Other,” since he did not select “one” political party.
Mr. Baldone filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus, alleging that he “[wa]s being denied his United States Constitutional Right granted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to associate with the political parties of his choice.” The petition was later amended to add, as an additional plaintiff, Kevin Voisin, and to allege that the Registrar of Voters's action in recording his party affiliation as “Other” violated, in addition to his right to freedom of association, his rights to [ 3] free speech and equal protection of the laws. The plaintiffs' amended petition stated that they were not alleging that any statute was unconstitutional, but rather that the Registrar's action in registering Mr. Baldone as “Other” was unconstitutional.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:221(A) provides, in pertinent part, that the duties of the registrar may be compelled by mandamus “at the suit of two or more qualified electors.”
After a hearing on August 14, 2015, the district court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the request for relief. A judgment in accordance with the district court's ruling was signed that same date. Plaintiffs filed an application for supervisory writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court, and on August 28, 2015, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued an order transferring this matter to this Court “for expedited consideration pursuant to [La.] R.S. 18:221(B).”
Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:221(B) provides that an appeal under that section shall be tried by preference over all other cases. Pursuant to La. R.S. 18:135, any voter wishing to change his voter registration to be effective for the election scheduled for October 24, 2015, must accomplish that change by September 23, 2015.
Herein, the plaintiffs raise six assignments of error in which they argue that the district court erred in failing to issue the writ of mandamus; in failing to find the Registrar's actions violated Mr. Baldone's right to exercise free speech, to freedom of association, and to equal protection of the laws; in failing to apply the strict scrutiny test; and in finding the State's interests outweighed Mr. Baldone's fundamental rights.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:58(A) provides, in pertinent part, that “[s]ubject to the direction of the secretary of state and as provided by law, the registrar in each parish shall be responsible for the registration of voters in the parish he serves.” The statute further provides that the registrar “shall participate in the state voter registration computer system established pursuant to La. R.S. 18:31 and shall provide all necessary assistance to the secretary of state to effectuate the inclusion of his parish in that system.”
Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:107(B) provides as follows:
[ 4] An elector may change his party affiliation by making application therefor in writing to the registrar. When he receives the request, the registrar shall note the political party designated by the registrant and the date of the change in the registrant's information on the state voter registration computer system and, if the original application is available in hard copy in the registrar's office, on the original application form.
The form Mr. Baldone filled out was a copy of Form # 0212, established pursuant to La. R.S. 18:107(B). It is undisputed that Form # 0212 is provided by the Louisiana Secretary of State for use statewide by all registrars of voters, and it lists the six party choices hereinabove mentioned.
Mr. Baldone circled “Democrat” as his current party affiliation, and then circled both “Democrat” and “Republican” to reflect his intention to change party affiliations. He claims that the Registrar, in recording his party affiliation as “Other,” violated his constitutional rights and should be subject to a writ of mandamus to fulfill her ministerial duty to record his party affiliation to accurately reflect his wishes as expressed on the form, i.e., that he be registered simultaneously with two different political party affiliations.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3863 provides that “[a] writ of mandamus may be directed to a public officer to compel the performance” against a public officer involving the performance of an official duty, nothing can be inquired into but the question of duty on the face of the statute and the ministerial character of the duty he is charged to perform. Plaisance v. Davis, 2003–0767 (La.App. 1st Cir.11/07/03), 868 So.2d 711, 718, writ denied, 2003–3362 (La.2/13/04), 867 So.2d 699.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which must be used sparingly by the court and only to compel action that is clearly provided by law. The remedy is not available to command the performance of an act that contains any element of discretion, however slight. Further, mandamus is to be used only when there is a [ 5] clear and specific legal right to be enforced or a duty to be performed. It never issues in doubtful cases. Bonvillian v. Department of Ins., 2004–0332 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/16/05), 906 So.2d 596, 599, writ not considered, 2005–0776 (La.5/6/05), 901 So.2d 1081; see also Ex parte Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 322 F.2d 113, 115 (5th Cir.1963) (noting that mandamus is an inappropriate remedy for determining the correctness of a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for a difference of opinion).
Laws are presumed to be constitutional and legal and must be treated and acted upon as such by “subordinate executive functionaries” until or unless their unconstitutionality or illegality has been judicially established; in a well-regulated government, obedience to its laws by executive officers is absolutely essential and of paramount importance. Plaisance, 868 So.2d at 718–719, quoting State ex rel. New Orleans Canal & Banking Co. v. Heard, 47 La. Ann. 1679, 1696, 18 So. 746, 752 (1895).
We are cognizant of Mr. Baldone's argument that his political beliefs and “ideas fall within the spectrum of both the Republican and Democratic Parties.” The district court, nevertheless, opined that the Election Code clearly presupposed that an individual voter would choose one political party with which to affiliate. We agree. A plain, common sense reading of the applicable statutes, in the context of the Election Code as a whole, demonstrates that the law contemplates that each voter will choose a single party affiliation—or none. Indeed, the essence of voting is making choices; at the heart of the election process is each voter's right and responsibility to thoughtfully examine the available options and ultimately select that single option that the voter believes is best.
We are aware that, pursuant to La. R.S. 1:7, the term party, as used in La. R.S. 18:107, may refer to “party” or “parties,” as the singular may include the plural and vice versa.
See La. R.S. 1:3, which provides, in pertinent part, that words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to common and approved usage.
[ 6] Thus, we find that there is no “clear and specific legal right” to register simultaneously with two different party affiliations. Mr. Baldone acknowledged that the form at issue was one prescribed by the secretary of state and was the only form available for a change of registration. As there is no clear and specific right to register to vote under two different parties, the district court did not err in declining to issue a writ of mandamus to order the Registrar to comply with Mr. Baldone's wishes.
Furthermore, it is undisputed that the statutorily-mandated, computerized state voter registration system implemented by the Louisiana Secretary of State provided no means by which a voter's registration could be recorded under two different parties simultaneously; thus, the Registrar herein literally could not accede to Mr. Baldone's request. To urge that the Registrar violated Mr. Baldone's constitutional rights by not facilitating his request to register under two parties implies that she was logistically capable of doing so, an implication not supported by the facts herein.
Under the circumstances presented here, we find that the district court correctly denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the request for relief.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above and foregoing reasons, the August 14, 2015 judgment of the district court is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiffs/appellants, Damon J. Baldone and Kevin Voisin.
AFFIRMED.
GUIDRY, J. concurs and assigns reasons.
GUIDRY, J., concurs.
[ 1] I agree with the majority's conclusion that the district court did not err in denying Mr. Baldone's petition for writ of mandamus. It appears that a challenge to the processes by which La. R.S. 18:107(B) is implemented would be more properly sought by means of a declaratory judgment action or other ordinary proceeding.
Additionally, I write separately to express my concern that the law does not appear to provide guidance to a registrar when a voter's choice does not fall within the options provided. Here, Mr. Baldone sought to change his registration from one recognized party to two recognized parties; he did not choose “other”—the option generally provided when a voter wishes to register with a party that has not been recognized under La. R.S. 18:441. I question whether or not the registrar had the authority to choose a party designation for him, rather than simply declining to change his registration status.