Elisa Knowles Collins v. Leslie Ricard Chambers, Hon. Marcus L. Hunter, and Nancy Landry in Her Capacity as the Secretary of State for the State of Louisiana

• Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana
• Decided: August 20, 2024
• Docket: 2024-C-01005
• Status: Published

Opinion

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #038

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinion handed down on the 20th day of August, 2024 is as follows:

PER CURIAM:

2024-C-01005 ELISA KNOWLES COLLINS VS. LESLIE RICARD CHAMBERS, HON. MARCUS L. HUNTER, AND NANCY LANDRY IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA (Parish of East Baton Rouge)

JUDGMENTS OF THE LOWER COURTS REVERSED. SEE PER CURIAM.

Weimer, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

Crain, J., concurs and assigns reasons.

Griffin, J., dissents. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-C-01005

ELISA KNOWLES COLLINS

VS.

LESLIE RICARD CHAMBERS, HON. MARCUS L. HUNTER, AND NANCY LANDRY IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge

PER CURIAM

We granted certiorari in this election matter to determine whether the lower

courts erred in overruling a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications. For the reasons

that follow, we reverse the judgments of the lower courts.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 17, 2024, Judge Marcus L. Hunter (“Judge Hunter”)1 filed a sworn

notice of candidacy with the Louisiana Secretary of State seeking election to the

office of Associate Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court for District Two.

Pursuant to the provisions of La. R.S. 18:463, Judge Hunter certified that he met

several requirements, including the following:

If I am a candidate for any office other than United States Senator or representative in congress, that for each of the previous five tax years, I have filed my federal and state income tax returns, have filed for an extension of time for filing either my federal or state income tax return or both, or was not required to file either a federal or state income tax return or both.

On July 26, 2024, plaintiff, Elisa Knowles Collins, a qualified elector and

resident of District Two, filed a petition in the 19th Judicial District Court for the

1 Judge Hunter currently serves on the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge objecting to Judge Hunter’s candidacy.2 Citing La. R.S.

18:492(A), plaintiff alleged that Judge Hunter was not qualified because he “falsely

certified on his notice of candidacy that for each of the previous five tax years he

has filed his federal and state income tax returns.” The matter proceeded to trial.

At trial, plaintiff produced an affidavit from Cynthia Pugh, Assistant Director

in the External Reporting Division of the Louisiana Department of Revenue and

Taxation. The affidavit indicated filings on Judge Hunter’s Louisiana Individual

Income Taxes were confirmed for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, but indicated no

filings were confirmed on his account for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023.3

Judge Hunter called his accountant and tax preparer, Rosie Harper, as his sole

witness. Ms. Harper testified that on July 12, 2024, she communicated with Judge

Hunter in a series of text messages to discuss information she needed to file his 2022

and 2023 tax returns. Ms. Harper testified that after receiving the requested

information, she electronically filed Judge Hunter’s 2022 and 2023 state and federal

income tax returns using Drake Software on July 16, 2024. As of July 17, 2024, the

status of the 2022 and 2023 tax returns were listed as “pending.” On July 27, 2024,

Ms. Harper discovered the IRS rejected Judge Hunter’s 2022 tax return.4 As a result,

the 2022 state tax return was rejected based on the IRS’s rejection.

In addition to Ms. Harper’s testimony, Judge Hunter also introduced

documentary evidence including images of the text conversation between himself

and Ms. Harper, a letter from Ms. Harper dated July 16, 2024 stating he was in

compliance with the filing of his federal and state tax returns from 2019 through

2 Plaintiff also filed a challenge to another candidate for District Two. This portion of her challenge is not before this court in the instant filing. 3 As to the 2023 tax year, the affidavit stated, “La. R.S. 47:103(D)(2) provides for an automatic filing extension through November 15, 2024.” 4 Ms. Harper elaborated on cross-examination that because the status was still listed as “pending” on July 27, 2024, she “asked” Drake Software to “rehang” the information. Thereafter, the status reflected the tax return had been rejected.

2 2023, various Drake Software printouts including one indicating Judge Hunter’s

2022 federal and state tax filings had been rejected, images indicating various tax

documents/returns had been uploaded to DropBox, and a letter dated July 27, 2024

from Ms. Harper again stating Judge Hunter was in compliance with filings for the

relevant five-year period and providing a DropBox link to various files. Notably,

Judge Hunter did not testify at trial, nor did he introduce copies of any of his tax

returns.

At the conclusion of trial, the district court overruled plaintiff’s challenge to

Judge Hunter’s candidacy. In oral reasons for judgment, the district court explained

that it found plaintiff had carried her burden of proof and established a prima facie

case. Nonetheless, the court indicated that Judge Hunter was “able to meet that or

exceed that prima facie case. . . .”

Plaintiff appealed. The court of appeal, sitting en banc, affirmed the judgment

of the district court overruling the challenge to Judge Hunter’s candidacy. Collins

v. Chambers, 2024-0484 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/8/24), ___ So. 3d ___.5 Two judges

dissented and would have reversed, finding that Judge Hunter did not satisfy his

burden to overcome plaintiff’s prima facie case.

Upon plaintiff’s application, we granted certiorari to review the correctness of

the judgments below.

DISCUSSION

We begin from the well-settled and indisputable proposition that there is

nothing more fundamental to our society than the ability of our electorate to choose

its leaders. Becker v. Dean, 2003-2493 (La. 9/18/03), 854 So. 2d 864, 869. Because

election laws must be interpreted to give the electorate the widest possible choice of

candidates, a person objecting to candidacy bears the burden of proving that the

5 As discussed in footnote 2, supra, plaintiff also challenged the qualifications of another candidate. The court of appeal reversed the judgment of the district court overruling this challenge. This portion of the court of appeal’s judgment is not before us.

3 candidate is disqualified. Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La. 3/24/05), 899 So.

2d 535, 541. The party on which the burden of proof rests must establish a prima

facie case. If that party fails to carry his burden of proof, the opposing party is not

required to present any countervailing evidence. On the other hand, once the party

bearing the burden of proof has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts

to the opposing party to present sufficient evidence to overcome the other party’s

prima facie case. Id. at 542.

The exclusive grounds for disqualification of a candidate are set forth in La.

R.S. 18:492. Deal v. Perkins, 2022-01212 (La. 8/1/22), 347 So. 3d 121, 131. In the

case at bar, plaintiff’s challenge is based on La. R.S. 18:492(A)(7), which provides:

A. An action objecting to the candidacy of a person who qualified as a candidate in a primary election shall be based on one or more of the following grounds:

* * *

(7) The defendant falsely certified on his notice of candidacy that for each of the previous five tax years he has filed his federal and state income tax returns, has filed for an extension of time for filing either his federal or state income tax return or both as provided in R.S. 18:463(A)(2), or was not required to file either a federal or state income tax return or both.

In support of her challenge, plaintiff produced a sworn affidavit from an

employee of the Louisiana Department of Revenue and Taxation indicating it had

no confirmed tax filings for Judge Hunter for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023. The

district court found, and we agree, that this evidence established a prima facie case

under La. R.S. 18:492(A)(7). The burden therefore shifted to Judge Hunter to

establish that he did not falsely certify that he filed his taxes for the preceding five

years.

In assessing the level of proof necessary to meet this burden, we find it helpful

to first review our decision in Clark v. Bridges, 2023-00237 (La. 2/22/23), 356 So.

3d 990. In Clark, the lower courts disqualified a candidate under La. R.S.

4 18:492(A)(7) based on a finding that she could not establish that her electronically-

filed tax returns had been delivered to the taxing authorities at the time she signed

her notice of candidacy.

In addressing this issue, we considered La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I, §

4911(B)(4), the administrative provision governing electronic filing of tax returns,

which provides, “[a] return, report or other document filed electronically is deemed

filed on the date transmitted to the department or to a third party acting as the

department’s agent.” Based on this provision, we explained that transmission by the

taxpayer is the operative event in determining the electronic filing date:

The regulation provides that a return filed electronically is deemed filed on the date of transmission to the LDR or on the date of transmission to a third party acting as its agent. The standard set forth in the regulation is not determined by the date on which the LDR receives the tax return electronically, but, rather, the date on which the filing party has transmitted the tax return either to the LDR or to the third party acting as the LDR’s agent. Transmission by the taxpayer is the operative event for electronic filing. Id. at 994 [emphasis added].

The evidence in the record of this case does not establish the nature of the

documents which were purportedly transmitted to the taxing authorities. Unlike the

candidate in Clark, Judge Hunter did not testify he signed the tax returns or

witnessed their transmission. No copies of the actual returns were introduced into

evidence. Although Ms. Harper provided screen shots from her own website

referencing various file names, she never identified which, if any, of these

documents were actually Judge Hunter’s completed returns. Without corroborating

evidence of what was actually filed, merely showing that some documents may have

been transmitted to the taxing authorities does not establish that tax returns for the

relevant period were in fact transmitted.6

6 Notably, the evidence in this case differs sharply from the evidence in Clark, where the candidate established that her tax preparer received a clear acknowledgment that the candidate’s federal and state tax returns had been electronically transmitted. By contrast, Ms. Harper’s testimony indicates (continued…)

5 Considering the record before us, we are compelled to find that Judge Hunter

has not rebutted plaintiff’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the judgment of the court

of appeal is reversed, and the challenge is sustained.7

DECREE

For the reasons assigned, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff, declaring

Marcus L. Hunter ineligible as a candidate for the office of Associate Justice of the

Louisiana Supreme Court for District Two, and he is accordingly disqualified. It is

hereby directed that the Secretary of State of the State of Louisiana be served with a

certified copy of the final judgment in this case pursuant to La. R.S. 18:1410. The

Secretary of State shall remove the candidate’s name from the ballot if the ballot has

not been printed. If the ballot has been printed with the disqualified candidate’s

name, any votes received by the disqualified candidate shall be void and shall not be

counted for any purpose whatsoever.

Judge Hunter’s returns were still in “pending” status as late as July 19, 2024 (two days after qualification). This testimony leaves open the question of whether those returns had been properly transmitted to the taxing authorities at the time of qualification. 7 No application for rehearing of a decision of this court in a case involving an objection to candidacy shall be entertained. La. Sup.Ct. Rule X, § 5(c). See also La. R.S. 18:1409(I).

6 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

LESLIE RICARD CHAMBERS, HON. MARCUS L. HUNTER, AND NANCY LANDRY IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

On Writ a/Certiorari to the Court ofAppeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish ofEast Baton Rouge

I additionally concur in the opinion; however, I would have ordered that the

case be orally argued prior to the rendering of this decision. While this matter was

extensively researched and carefully evaluated, and all the filings are available for

public viewing, allowing the public to witness oral arguments demonstrates to the

citizens that the full deliberative process occurred and provides a salubrious effect

and the reassurance of transparency while affording the parties an opportunity to be

heard. 1

Although I acknowledge the need for expediency in resolution and can attest

to the hard work and careful deliberation that occurred in reaching the decision in

this matter, the public should have the opportunity to see and hear the case argued.

Accordingly, I believe this court should have exercised discretion to have this matter

of public interest assigned for oral argument before reversing the lower court's

judgment and disqualifying the candidate for office of Associate Justice of the

Louisiana Supreme Court for District Two.

1 The Louisiana Supreme Court was among the first to broadcast its oral arguments live over the internet. See the Louisiana Supreme Court website for details. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 2024-C-01005 ELISA KNOWLES COLLINS VERSUS LESLIE RICARD CHAMBERS, HON. MARCUS L. HUNTER, AND NANCY LANDRY IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge

HUGHES, J., dissents.

It is a universal tenet that candidacies for elected office are favored, except in

some countries like Russia and Iran where the field of candidates is restricted to

assure a certain outcome (China doesn’t even pretend).

The issue before the court is whether the two challenged candidates “falsely

certified” concerning their taxes. The relevant inquiry is the state of mind of the

candidates when the certification is made. The issue is not, in hindsight, whether

taxes have been filed, mailed, transmitted, received, and/or rejected. There is an

obvious difference between a candidate who has done nothing, and knows it, and

one who in good faith believes his taxes have been filed when he or she so certifies.

In this case during a six-hour trial, the two challenged candidates provided sworn

testimony and objective evidence accepted by the trial court, which ruled in their

favor. Judge Hunter was told by his CPA that his taxes had been filed. Ms.

Chambers was told by TurboTax that she had a refund coming. It is the task of the

trial court to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses. Without

showing any error on the part of the trial court, this court merely substitutes its own

judgment for that of the trial court, in contravention of established law. SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

vs. LESLIE RICARD CHAMBERS, HON. MARCUS L. HUNTER, AND NANCY LANDRY IN HER CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge

The applicable statutes require that a candidate for office certify that he "filed"

state and federal tax returns. La. R.S. 18:463 and 18:492(A)(7). Thus, we must

interpret "filed"-not "transmitted," which is the agency definition of the term. The

judiciary is not required to give deference to the agency's definition in La. Admin.

Code Title 61, pt. I§ 491 l(B)(4). Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct.

2244, 2247 (2024). See also TWISM Enterprises, L.L.C. v. State Bd. ofRegistration

for Pro. Engineers & Surveyors, 2022-Ohio-4677, 172 Ohio St. 3d 225,223 N.E.3d

371; Clark v. Bridges, 2023-00237 (La. 2/22/23), 356 So. 3d 990 (Crain, J.

dissenting). The majority ignores this separation of powers issue and accepts, then

interprets, the agency definition of "filed." Performing my constitutional duty, I

interpret "filed" to require transmission of a properly executed tax return plus some

indicia of delivery. That was not proven here. Anything less undermines the purpose

of the statute, carries a potential for abuse, and offers no meaningful expectation of

confidence that tax returns have actually been filed. Respectfully, I concur.