BREAKING: Suspect in custody after chase in south Lafourche
October 17, 2017
Suspect charged with attempted murder in Lafourche high-speed chase, standoff
October 18, 2017
The battle over whether and when Terrebonne Parish must change its method of electing judges has a new venue – at least for now – as Attorney General Jedd Landry and Gov. John Bel Edwards bring their fight against the parish’s NAACP to a federal appeals court.
The Attorney General and the Governor are balking at a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Brady which finds that Louisiana violates Section 2 of the U.S. Voting Rights Act by allowing at-large voting for judges in the 32nd judicial district. Brady ruled that the practice strips black voters of electoral choice, and further found that the practice violates the U.s. Constitution because the discriminatory effect is purposeful.
Bringing the argument to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, in addition to staff assistant attorneys general, are members of a high-powered Virginia law firm hired by Landry with a long history of Republican Party activism. The Attorney General has refused to disclose how much taxpayers are paying for the services of Holtsman, Vogel, Josefiak and Torchinsky. His spokeswoman has said that contracts with the firm are still in draft form and so exempt from state public records laws.
Representing members of the Terrebonne Branch of the NAACP who brought suit in 2014 after continued inability to change the method of voting for judges are attorneys from the New York-based NAACP legal Defense Fund, which has litigated landmark voting rights cases throughout the U.S.
Landry and Edwards, through their attorneys, maintain that Judge Brady’s request for plans to change how the judges are selected amounts to an injunction, even though judicial elections in Terrebonne are not scheduled till 2020, and that on this basis the appeals court has the authority to step in to the as-yet incomplete case.
The NAACP’s attorneys reject that claim.
“These orders do not enjoin defendants from using the existing at-large voting system in the 32nd Judicial District as defendants contend,” an NAACP brief states. “All five at-large elected members of the 32nd JDC continue to sit on that court. Moreover, in neither of those rulings did this Court order any imminent proceedings to consider any proposed remedies nor, following such a proceeding, order any party or other entity to implement any remedies for the violations.”
In essence, the NAACP attorneys argue that it is too soon for an appeal to be brought, because the case itself is still not complete, and won’t be until a plan for new voting rules is decided upon, most likely by the state legislature.
Attorneys for the Governor and the Attorney General, however, appear to be saying “if not now when.”
If no appellate decision is attempted or made, their filings argue, and the legislature does come up with a solution, the time frame for appealing after that will be very short.
Terrebonne Parish NAACP President Jerome Boykin, one of the plaintiffs in the case, said he is not surprised that Edwards and Landry still press an appeal.
“This is a waste of taxpayer’s dollars on a case that should have been settled a long time ago,” Boykin said. “The state is in almost a billion dollar shortfall and yet they continue to spend taxpayer’s dollars to appeal a case that should have been settled a long time ago.”
Briefs filed in connection with the appeal raise some questions that are relatively new, and which were not explored during the trial before Judge Brady.
The state’s lawyers contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has shown signs that it does not consider judicial elections in the same light as other elections, suggesting that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should not apply to the case at all since judges, unlike school board members or parish councilwomen, do not “represent” anybody.
Attorneys for the NAACP have countered that the volume of cases where at-large voting for judges has been eliminated in Louisiana speaks for itself, and its people.
Ronald Wilson, a New Orleans civil rights lawyer who has worked on this case with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, has made clear his own impatience with the speed the courts of town.
“For decades, Black voters and others have pressed to change the voting method for the 32nd JDC in Terrebonne,” Wilson said. “Black voters looked to federal court to do what the Louisiana Legislature failed to do on six different occasions between 1997 and 2011 when it did not support proposals that would provide black voters in Terrebonne with fair electoral opportunity.”
A potential remedy presented at the trial is a scheme whereby Terrebonne is divided into five judicial sub-districts, each corresponding to one of the Terrebonne court’s five divisions. One of those five would become a minority sub-district. Black voters would be able to choose a candidate of their choice for that dstrict, the plan theorizes.
In briefs filed last week, however, attorney for the NAACP noted that while the five-district option got a favorable reaction from Judge Brady, other options could work as well. Among those, attorneys noted, could be one that the Attorney General or the Governor create with the Legislature.
A date for response to the briefs in reference to the appellate matter has not yet been set.
In a case that has grown exceedingly complex, Judge Brady himself will rule on the request by the defendants that his rulings be stayed. The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, will decide whether to grant the request by the plaintiffs to throw out the arguments made to it by the Governor and the Attorney General.
