Arcuri v. Stevens

1

JENNIFER ARCURI v. WALTER STEVENS, JR., ELIANA DEFRANCESCH, IN HER CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH

No. 23-CA-422

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit

August 29, 2023

ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 80,321, DIVISION "C" HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, JENNIFER ARCURI Ike Spears Kevin P. Klibert

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, WALTER STEVENS, JR. Robert T. Garrity, Jr. Pierre W. Mouledoux

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois, Marc E. Johnson, Robert A. Chaisson, John J. Molaison, Jr., and Scott U.Schlegel

AFFIRMED

JJM

MEJ

RAC

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. JUDGE

In this election challenge case, the plaintiff, Jennifer Arcuri, appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing with prejudice her petition objecting to the qualifications of the defendant, Walter Stevens, Jr., for the District 5 council seat in St. John the Baptist Parish ("St. John"). For the reasons that follow, we find that Mrs. Arcuri failed to meet her burden of proving that Mr. Stevens did not meet all qualifications to run for office, and affirm the ruling of the trial court.

Procedural History

On August 10, 2023, Mr. Stevens filed his Notice of Candidacy for the October 14, 2023 election. On August 17, 2023, Ms. Arcuri filed a timely Objection to Candidacy and Petition to Disqualify Candidate alleging that Mr. Stevens had violated the provisions of La. R.S. 18:492. Her specific claim was that Mr. Stevens falsely represented on his Notice of Candidacy that he met all requirements for office, including the requirement of St. John's Home Rule Charter that a candidate for office must be a qualified voter in St. John the Baptist Parish for six months immediately prior to assuming office. The petition specifically alleged that, according to the Louisiana Secretary of State's Office, Mr. Stevens had only been a qualified voter in St. John since August 1, 2023, with his prior voter registration being in St. Charles Parish.

Mr. Stevens was timely served with the petition, and trial on the matter was held on August 21, 2023. On that same date, the trial court ruled from the bench upholding Mr. Stevens' candidacy. The trial court rendered a corresponding written judgment on August 22, 2023. This timely appeal followed.

Assignment of error

On appeal, Ms. Arcuri contends that the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Stevens met all of the qualifications to run for office, which includes being a qualified voter in St. John Parish for six months immediately prior to assuming office, when he admitted he was not registered to vote in St. John the Baptist Parish until August 1, 2023.

Law and analysis

The purpose of the notice of candidacy is to provide sufficient information to show a candidate is qualified to run for the office he seeks. Senegal v. Obafunwa, 99-1449, 99-1450 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/27/99), 745 So.2d 74, 76. Laws governing disqualification of candidates must be interpreted in a manner that gives the electorate the widest possible set of candidates and those laws must be construed so as to promote rather than defeat candidacy. Deal v Perkins, 22-1212 (La. 8/1/22), 347 So.3d 121, 135.

Except as otherwise provided by law, a candidate shall possess the qualifications for the office he seeks at the time he qualifies for that office. La. R.S. 18:451. In the instant case, Ms. Arcuri alleged in her petition that the basis for Mr. Stevens' disqualification is found in St. John's Home Rule Charter. Specifically, Part 1, Article III (A)(1)(a)(ii) of the charter provides, in relevant part that "[a]ll councilmembers shall be qualified voters of and shall have resided within the parish for a period of at least six months immediately preceding his assuming office and shall reside in and be qualified voters of their districts or divisions." As stated in her petition, Ms. Arcuri interprets this provision to mean that Mr. Stevens was required to have been a qualified voter in the district six months immediately preceding his assuming office. On appeal, Ms. Arcuri further elaborates on her argument:

The presence of the preposition of after the term qualified voter, along with the emphasized conjunctive requires that a qualified candidate for parish council be both (1) a qualified voter of, (2) and resident in (3) the Parish, (4) for at least six months preceding his assuming office, and additionally (5) must reside in the particular district. (Emphasis in original).

In an election contest, the person objecting to the candidacy bears the burden of proving at trial that a candidate is disqualified by setting out a prima facie case. Trosclair v. Joseph, 14-675 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/9/14), 150 So.3d 315, 317; Lumar v. Lawson, 20-251 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/10/20), 301 So.3d 1243, 1249, writ denied, 20994 (La. 8/13/20), 300 So.3d 868. Once the objector makes a prima facie showing that the grounds for disqualification exist, the burden shifts to the candidate to rebut that evidence. Id.

In the instant case the only evidence that Ms. Arcuri introduced at trial consisted of a document titled "Walter Stevens voting history." The document, which consists of a spreadsheet,^[1] purports to show the district, precinct, parish and address of Mr. Stevens when he voted in various elections dating back to 2000. Notably, the document shows that Mr. Stevens registered to vote in St. John on August 1, 2023, listing his address as 56 Ridgewood Drive in LaPlace. While he did vote in St. Charles Parish on November 8, 2022, the document indicates that Mr. Stevens previously voted in St. John Parish from November 4, 2014, through November 3, 2020.

Mr. Stevens testified at trial he has lived at 56 Ridgewood Drive in LaPlace, which is within the voting district for St. John Parish's District 5 Council seat, since 2020, but has resided in St. John Parish since 2013. He admitted that he voted in St. Charles Parish in 2022, and stated that he had registered to vote in St. John Parish on August 1, 2023. To support his claim of residency, Mr. Stevens introduced several documents into evidence showing his 56 Ridgewood address, including a Notice of Rule to Show Cause in a civil proceeding; a credit card statement dated October 1, 2022; a Louisiana vehicle registration certificate dated November 15, 2022, and, a closing disclosure indicated that Mr. Stevens had sold a property in St. Rose, Louisiana on March 31, 2023.

After considering the evidence and testimony presented, the trial court opined:

THE COURT:

As to the factual matters in Mr. Stevens' rebuttal, he has successfully convinced me that he has resided in this parish for a period of at least six months prior to resuming [sic] his office. He has also successfully convinced me that he does reside there and is a qualified voter within District 5 at Ridgewood - 56 Ridgewood because, as of the date that he swore all of this, these were truths, facts peculiar to his life. It would be to the point that I would dismiss the petition filed by the objector and permit Mr. Stevens to continue on in his quest for that particular office.

In his written reasons for judgment, the trial judge further explained that "[a]t no point in the proceedings did Mrs. Arcuri provide objective evidence that Mr. Stevens did not live in St. John Parish for the requisite period required as a candidate and, as such, never made the necessary prima facie showing required to shift the burden of proof to the Defendant."

Statutory interpretations are a question of law. Shell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 00-997 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/21/01), 782 So.2d 1155, writ denied, 01-1149 (La.6/15/01), 793 So.2d 1244. When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the application of the statute does not lead to absurd consequences, the statute must be applied as written. Smith v. St. Charles Par. Pub. Sch., 17-475 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/1/18), 246 So.3d 821, 826, writ denied, 2018-1001 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So.3d 802. Appellate review regarding questions of law is simply a review of whether the trial court was legally correct or incorrect. Anderson v. Dean, 22-233 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/25/22), 346 So.3d 356, 364. On legal issues, the appellate court gives no special weight to the findings of the trial court, but exercises its constitutional duty to review questions of law de novo and renders judgment on the record. Id. Concerning the assigned errors of fact, factual determinations are reviewed by the appellate court under the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review. Quintanilla v. Whitaker, 21-160 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/1/21), 334 So.3d 892, 893.

In our reading of the St. John's Home Rule Charter, Part 1, Article III (A)(1)(a)(ii), we find, as the trial court did, that the requirement for candidacy consists of two parts: that he or she reside within St. John Parish, within the relevant district, for six months before assuming office, and, that he or she be a qualified voter^[2] within the district. Here, Mrs. Arcuri did not allege in her petition that Mr. Stevens failed to meet the residency requirement. Rather, she couched her claim in terms that a candidate for office must be a registered voter in St. John the Baptist Parish for six months immediately preceding assuming office, and Mr. Stevens only registered in the district on August 1, 2023.

We agree with the trial court that Mrs. Arcuri failed to make a prima facie case for Mr. Steven's disqualification sufficient to transfer the burden of proof to him.^[3] Nevertheless, we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record^[4] to support Mr. Stevens' assertion that he had resided in the Council 5 district for more than six months before qualifying to run for office.

Decree

For...