ELISA KNOWLES COLLINS * NO. 2024-CA-0484
VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL LESLIE RICARD CHAMBERS, * HON. MARCUS L. HUNTER, FOURTH CIRCUIT AND NANCY LANDRY IN HER * CAPACITY AS THE STATE OF LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ******* THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
APPEAL FROM 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT EAST BATON ROUGE NO. C751318, “24-B” Honorable Donald R. Johnson, Judge ****** Judge Rachael D. Johnson ****** (Court composed of Chief Judge Terri F. Love, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Sandra Cabrina Jenkins, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge Dale N. Atkins, Judge Rachael D. Johnson, Judge Karen K. Herman, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott)1
BELSOME, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART. LOBRANO, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART FOR THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY JENKINS, J. JENKINS, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART
David Mark Bienvenu, Jr. Anthony J. Lascaro BIENVENU FOCO & VIATOR, LLC 4210 Bluebonnet Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Michael Paul Bienvenu Kolby P. Marchand KINCHEN WALKER BIENVENU BARGAS REED & HELM, LLC 8550 United Plaze Blvd., Suite 202 Baton Rouge, LA 70809
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Alesia M. Ardoin R. Gray Sexton
1 Judge Tiffany Gautier Chase recused herself from this case. LAW OFFICES OF R. GRAY SEXTON 8680 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite D Baton Rouge, LA 70810
Willie Hunter, Jr. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIE HUNTER, JR. 900 St. John St. P.O. Box 3105 Monroe, LA 71210
Daniel J. Hunter THE HUNTER & HUNTER LAW FIRM, LLC 4521 Jamestown Ave, Suite 2 Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Shauncey Hunter Rideway CHRISTIAN AND SMALL, LLP 603 Duling Ave., Suite 294 Jackson, MS 39216
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEE
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART
AUGUST 8, 2024, AT __1_: _26__PM2
2 Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:1409(F) provides that “[j]udgment [by the court of appeal in an
action objecting to candidacy] shall be rendered within twenty-four hours after the case is argued. The court of appeal shall indicate the date and time rendered on the judgment.” Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:1413 states that “[c]omputation of all time intervals in this Chapter shall include Sundays and other legal holidays. However, if the time interval ends on a Sunday or other legal holiday, then noon of the next legal day shall be deemed to be the end of the time interval.” RDJ This is an election suit concerning whether Appellees, Leslie Richard TFL Chambers (“Ms. Chambers”) and Marcus L. Hunter (“Judge Hunter”), should be DLD RML disqualified as candidates for the upcoming election for the office of Associate PAB DNA Justice of the Louisiana Supreme Court for District Two (“Associate Justice, Dist. KKH NEK Two”). Appellant, Elisa Knowles Collins (“Ms. Collins”), seeks review of the July
31, 2024 trial court judgment, overruling her objections to Ms. Chambers’ and
Judge Hunter’s qualifications for candidacy for Associate Justice, Dist. Two. Upon
review of the facts and applicable law of the matter sub judice, we affirm in part
and reverse in part.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 17, 2024, Ms. Chambers and Judge Hunter3 each filed a notice of
candidacy with the Louisiana Secretary of State seeking election to the office of
Associate Justice, Dist. Two. On July 19, 2024, Ms. Chambers amended her notice
of candidacy to update her email and phone number. Then, on July 26, 2024, Ms.
Collins filed a petition challenging Ms. Chambers’ and Judge Hunter’s
qualifications to run as candidates for Associate Justice, Dist. Two. Trial occurred
3 Judge Hunter is currently a Judge on the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
1 on July 30, 2024. At the commencement of trial, the trial court considered a motion
to strike filed by Ms. Collins, as well as a motion to strike and an exception of no
case of action filed by Judge Hunter.
Ms. Collins moved to strike all constitutional challenges presented by Ms.
Chambers as it pertains to Ms. Chambers’ residency or domicile requirements. Ms.
Chambers raised constitutional challenges to Act 7 of the 2024 Regular Legislative
Session enacted on May 1, 2024 (“Act 7”);4 La. Const. art. 5 § 24; and La. R.S.
18:451. Ms. Collins argued that a court cannot declare a statute unconstitutional in
the context of a summary proceeding. Ms. Collins further argued that Ms.
Chambers had almost three months to file an ordinary action in federal or state
court to challenge the statute as being unconstitutional but chose not to do so. Ms.
Chambers argued that she was not presenting a constitutional challenge to the
requirements of residency in order to assert a claim, but instead was raising the
issue as a defense to the challenge of her candidacy. In particular, she cites
nationwide jurisprudence to avoid an unconstitutional application of the one-year
residency requirement in which reapportionment has resulted in the loss of a
district. The trial court denied Ms. Collins’ motion to strike.
Judge Hunter’s motion to strike and exception of no cause of action asserted
that Ms. Collins’ pleadings were legally deficient and did not meet the necessary
evidentiary requirements. Judge Hunter argued that Ms. Collins failed to produce
self-authenticated documents in her initial pleadings to support her argument that
Judge Hunter did not file his federal taxes in 2022 and his state taxes in 2021,
2022, and 2023. Ms. Collins countered that to defeat a no cause of action claim, a
4 On May 1, 2024, the Louisiana State Legislature enacted Act 7. Act 7 provided for the
redistricting of Louisiana Supreme Court districts. Act 7 enacted La. R.S. 13:101.2 and 101.3 and repealed La. R.S. 13:101, 101.1 and 312.4.
2 plaintiff only needs to show that if the allegations presented in their petition are
assumed to be true, there is relief that can be provided to the plaintiff. The trial
court denied Judge Hunter’s motion to strike and exception of no cause of action.
The trial court heard testimony from Ms. Collins, Ms. Chambers, and Rosie
Harper (“Ms. Harper”), a certified public accountant and Judge Hunter’s tax
preparer. In support of her challenge to Ms. Chambers’ and Judge Hunter’s
candidacies, Ms. Collins testified that she has lived in East Baton Rouge Parish
since October 1983. From 1983 to 2016, she resided on Lanier Drive, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. She currently lives on East Caprice Avenue, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana because her property on Lanier Drive flooded and was subsequently
demolished. Ms. Collins intends to move back to her property on Lanier Drive at
some point. Ms. Collins is registered to vote and her voter registration card, which
she received on June 3, 2024, was submitted into evidence. Her voter registration
card indicated that she resides within District Two as defined by Act 7. The voter
registration card also shows that she has been registered to vote in her ward or
precinct for almost forty years.
Ms. Chambers testified that she resides in Prairieville, Louisiana, which is in
Ascension Parish. She further testified that since she became an attorney in May
2009, she has been a part of the legal community in East Baton Rouge Parish. She
acknowledged that she did not reside in District Two when she filed her initial
notice of candidacy on July 17, 2024, and her amended notice of candidacy on July
19, 2024. Ms. Chambers also acknowledged that she is not a registered voter in
District Two and has never been a registered voter in East Baton Rouge Parish.
While working in East Baton Rouge Parish, Ms. Chambers resided in St. Helena
Parish for the first few years and now currently resides in Ascension Parish. While
3 practicing law part time, Ms. Chambers would use her Ascension Parish address as
the address for her law practice.
Ms. Chambers testified that she filed her 2021, 2022, and 2023 taxes through
a third-party application called TurboTax. For her 2022 tax return filed through
TurboTax, Ms. Chambers received a report from TurboTax showing her name,
address, bank account number, and her bank routing transit number. In addition to
this, the report showed that she was due a refund of $4,958.00. Ms. Chambers
testified that she checked on the status of her tax return when she went to the
Louisiana Department of Revenue’s website, and the only feedback she received
was that no information had been processed. She stated that she believes it takes
about four to six weeks to process the returns so she did not find it unusual that she
had not received her refund. As of the July 30, 2024 hearing, Ms. Chambers
averred that she had not received her $4,958.00 refund.
Ms. Harper testified that she has been a certified public accountant since
1995, and Judge Hunter has been her client since 2019. Ms. Harper serves as Judge
Hunter’s tax preparer for his personal taxes and his company. Ms. Harper testified
that on July 12, 2024, she and Judge Hunter communicated over text to discuss
information she needed to file his 2022 and 2023 tax returns. Judge Hunter
provided the documents and information she requested. On July 16, 2024, Ms.
Harper electronically filed Judge Hunter’s 2022 and 2023 state and federal income
tax returns. Ms. Harper testified that the IRS accepted Judge Hunter’s 2021 tax
return on July 18, 2022. Ms. Harper also confirmed that she personally prepared
and handled Judge Hunter’s tax returns for 2018, 2019, and 2020 by going online
and receiving an account transcript from the IRS. Ms. Harper subsequently wrote
letters to Judge Hunter confirming the filing of his tax returns from 2018 through
4 2023. On July 27, 2024, Ms. Harper discovered that the IRS rejected Judge
Hunter’s tax returns that she filed for 2022 and 2023 because the IRS temporarily
required an IP pin. Ms. Harper notified Judge Hunter of this rejection on the same
day.
At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court determined that Ms. Chambers
and Judge Hunter were qualified to run for Associate Justice, Dist. Two.
Accordingly, on July 31, 2024, the trial court rendered judgment, denying Ms.
Collins’ petition to disqualify Ms. Chambers and Judge Hunter from the election.
The judgment also denied the aforementioned motions to strike and the exception
of no cause of action. This timely appealed followed.
On appeal, Ms. Collins raises four assignments of error: (1) the trial court
committed legal error in denying her motion to strike regarding Ms. Chambers; (2)
the trial court committed legal error in judicially nullifying the domicile
requirements for election to judicial office set forth in La. Const. art. 5 § 24, La.
R.S. 18:451 and Act 7, thus allowing Ms. Chambers to seek election in District
Two despite not being domiciled in District Two at the time of qualification and
for one year preceding her election; (3) the trial court committed legal and manifest
factual error in applying a legally erroneous standard of proof by not disqualifying
Ms. Chambers for falsely certifying that she had filed her 2022 Louisiana state
income tax return; and (4) the trial court committed legal and manifest factual error
in applying a legally erroneous standard of proof by not disqualifying Judge
Hunter for falsely certifying that he had filed his 2022 federal income tax return
and his 2021, 2022, and 2023 Louisiana state income tax returns.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
5 “A trial court's findings of fact are reviewed under a manifest error standard
of review, and issues of law are reviewed for determination of whether the
interpretive decision is legally correct.” Jefferson Fin. Fed. Credit Union v. New
Orleans Libations & Distilling Co., 22-0123, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/31/22), 351
So. 3d 783, 785 (citing Smith v. Charbonnet, 17-0634, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir.
8/2/17), 224 So. 3d 1055, 1059). In addition, the determination of domicile made
in the trial courts are subject to a manifest error standard of review. Schindler v.
Russ, 22-0533, p. 12 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/8/22), 346 So. 3d 309, 317, writ denied,
2022-01214, p. 1 (La. 8/11/22), 343 So. 3d 703, 704 (quoting Suarez v. King, 21-
0458, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/3/21), 366 So. 3d 315, 318).
“The person objecting to the candidacy of a person bears the burden of
proof.” La. State Bd. of Ethics v. Garrett, 06-0263, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/21/06),
929 So. 2d 176, 180 (citations omitted). “[O]nce 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.” Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, p. 8 (La. 3/24/05), 899 So. 2d 535, 542.
“Generally, the legal term ‘burden of proof’ ‘denotes the duty of establishing by a
fair preponderance of the evidence the truth of the operative facts upon which the
issue at hand is made to turn by substantive law.’” Id. (quoting Black’s Law
Dictionary (8th ed. 2004)).
DISCUSSION
La. R.S. 18:492, entitled Grounds for an objection to candidacy, provides in
pertinent part:
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:
6 (1) The defendant failed to qualify for the primary election in the manner prescribed by law.
....
(3) The defendant does not meet the qualifications for the office he seeks in the primary election.
....
(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.
Ms. Collins’ Motion to Strike
Ms. Collins argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to strike
because a court may not declare a statute unconstitutional during a summary
proceeding. Ms. Collins further argues that under La. R.S. 18:1406(C)5 and La.
R.S. 18:1409(A)(1),6 the challenge to Ms. Chambers’ and Judge Hunter’s
candidacies was tried as a summary proceeding. After review of the record, we
determine that Ms. Chambers was not asking the trial court to declare Act 7, La.
Const. art. 5 § 24, and La. R.S. 18:451 are unconstitutional. Instead, Ms. Chambers
5 La. R.S. 18:1406(C) states in pertinent part:
The defendant shall be served with citation directing him to appear in court no later than 10:00 a.m. on the fourth day after suit was filed, subject, however, to the provisions of R.S. 18:1408(D). The defendant is not required to answer the petition, but if he answers, he shall do so prior to trial. 6 La. R.S. 18:1409(A)(1) states in pertinent part:
Actions objecting to the calling of a special election, objecting to candidacy, contesting the certification of a recall petition, or contesting an election shall be tried summarily, without a jury, and in open court. The trial shall begin no later than 10:00 a.m. on the fourth day after suit was filed.
7 argued that Ms. Collins sought an unconstitutional application of Act 7; La. Const.
art. 5 § 24; and La. R.S. 18:451 in this case. Thus, we affirm the trial court’s denial
of Ms. Collins’ motion to strike.
Tax Return Challenge
Ms. Collins argues that Judge Hunter and Ms. Chambers should be
disqualified for the election for Associate Justice, Dist. Two because they failed to
file their federal and/or state tax returns for the five previous tax years. To
disqualify Judge Hunter and Ms. Chambers as candidates for the election of
Associate Justice, Dist. Two, Ms. Collins needed to establish a prima facie case for
disqualification. See Cranch v. Wicker, 20-0716, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/13/20),
311 So. 3d 384, 386. Ms. Collins established her prima facie case by providing
public record request results from the Louisiana Department of Revenue (“LDR”)
regarding the filing of tax returns for Judge Hunter and Ms. Collins. LDR reported
that Judge Hunter failed to file a federal tax return in 2022 and Louisiana state
income tax returns for 2021, 2022, and 2023. LDR reported that Ms. Chambers
failed to file a Louisiana state income tax return in 2022.
According to La. R.S. 18:492 (A)(7), if a “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,” there are grounds for an objection to the
defendant’s candidacy. When interpreting La. R.S. 18:492 (A)(7), the secretary of
LDR is allowed to provide us guidance. Clark v. Bridges, 23-00237, p. 6 (La.
2/22/23), 356 So. 3d 990, 993-94. Pursuant to La. R.S. 47:1511, “the secretary [of
LDR] is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of
this Title and the purposes of any other statutes or provisions included under the
secretary’s authority. These rules and regulations … will have the full force and
8 effect of law.” La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I, § 4911(B)(4) provides practical
guidance as to what it means to file tax returns for the purposes of La. R.S. 18:492
(A)(7). La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I, § 4911(B)(4) states that an electronically
filed tax return is deemed filed “on the date transmitted to the department or to a
third party acting as the department’s agent.”
Ms. Collins argues that Judge Hunter failed to show that he filed his 2022
federal and state tax returns by the extended due dates of October 15, 2023 and
November 15, 2023. The record reflects that Judge Hunter filed his 2022 and 2023
tax returns the day before he filed his notice of candidacy on July 17, 2024. Ms.
Collins further argues that Judge Hunter failed to provide evidence that his income
tax returns were accepted by July 17, 2024, and that relying on his CPA tax
preparer is not a valid defense to a false certification when a filing fails to meet the
requirements of La. R.S. 47:1511.
Ms. Harper, Judge Hunter’s CPA tax preparer, testified that she transmitted
his tax returns electronically. She testified that on July 16, 2024, she electronically
filed Judge Hunter’s 2022 and 2023 state and federal income tax returns. Ms.
Harper further testified that Judge Hunter’s 2021 tax return was accepted on July
18, 2022. During trial, multiple text messages and letters between Judge Hunter
and Ms. Harper were introduced that showed that Judge Hunter relied on Ms.
Harper to file his federal and state tax returns. The Louisiana Supreme Court in
Bridges made it clear that a transmission to a third party acting as a defendant’s
agent constitutes filing for purposes of filing a tax return electronically. The court
in Bridges stated:
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
9 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.
23-00237, p. 7, 356 So. 3d at 994.
On July 16, 2024, and July 27, 2024, Ms. Harper communicated to Judge
Hunter in writing that his 2022 and 2023 tax returns had been filed.7 Although
there was testimony that Judge Hunter’s taxes had been rejected and needed to be
filed in an alternate manner, we find that the rejection does not amount to a failure
to file. Once the CPA transmitted the returns electronically and communicated the
same to Judge Hunter, he complied with the filing requirements set out in the
notice of candidacy. Judge Hunter satisfied his burden to rebut the prima facie case
of Ms. Collins’ objection to his candidacy. After review of the record, we find that
Judge Hunter satisfied his burden of proof showing that he filed his taxes for each
of the five previous tax years.
Ms. Collins then argues that Ms. Chambers failed to meet her burden of
proof by failing to provide evidence of transmission showing that she
electronically filed her 2022 state income tax return. We agree. In Wicker, the First
Circuit Court of Appeal held that “uncorroborated and self-serving testimony” was
not enough to meet the burden of proof to rebut the plaintiffs’ prima facie case. 20-
0716, p. 4, 311 So. 3d at 386. Without affirmative documentary proof showing that
her tax return had been filed, the First Circuit Court of Appeal determined that the
candidate was disqualified for falsely certifying that all of her state returns for the
7 On July 27, 2024, Judge Hunter was notified that the IRS received his 2022 and 2023
electronically filed taxes but they were rejected. The 2022 and 2023 tax returns were rejected because the IRS temporarily required an IP pin.
10 last five years had been filed when she signed her notice of candidacy. Id. at p. 9,
311 So. 3d at 389.
The TurboTax document Ms. Chambers provided as evidence does not
provide proof of transmission of her 2022 Louisiana state tax return to a third
party. The TurboTax document only provides that if Ms. Chambers were to file her
2022 Louisiana state tax return, she would be owed a refund in the amount of
$4,958.00. The TurboTax document gave her instructions on how to file her 2022
Louisiana state tax return by mail and electronically, which implies that she had
not yet submitted her 2022 Louisiana state tax return. This is further supported by
her testimony when she attempted to view the status for her 2022 tax return on the
LDR’s website, the only feedback she received was that “no information had been
processed.” Ms. Chambers did not provide any other documents showing that she
transmitted her 2022 Louisiana state tax return. Without affirmative documentary
proof of transmission, Ms. Chambers relied on her own self-serving testimony. As
established in Wicker, self-serving testimony does not meet the burden of proof to
show that Ms. Chambers filed her taxes. Thus, Ms. Chambers failed to meet her
burden of proof to rebut the prima facie case established by Ms. Collins in her
objection to Ms. Chambers’ candidacy.
Domicile Challenge
As we find that the objection to Ms. Chambers’ candidacy for the upcoming
election for the office of Associate Justice, Dist. Two has merit because she failed
to demonstrate that she filed her state taxes in 2022, the domicile issue is moot. “It
is well established that appellate courts will not render advisory opinions from
which no practical results can follow.” Whitney Nat’l Bank of New Orleans v.
Poydras Ctr. Assocs., 468 So. 2d 1246, 1248 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1985) (citation
11 omitted). “As a result, Courts have established the rule that moot questions will not
be considered on appeal.” Id. (citation omitted). Accordingly, we will not consider
the issue of Ms. Chambers’ domicile.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the July 31, 2024 trial court judgment
in part and reverse in part. We affirm the trial court’s overruling the objection to
Judge Hunter’s candidacy. However, we reverse the trial court’s overruling the
objections to Ms. Chambers’ candidacy and sustain the objection to Ms.
Chambers’ candidacy.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART