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: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: August 8, 2024
• Docket: 2024-CA-0484
• Status: Published

Opinion

ELISA KNOWLES COLLINS * NO. 2024-CA-0484

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

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

SCJ JENKINS, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART

I concur with the majority to reverse the trial court and sustain the objection

to Ms. Chambers’ candidacy. I dissent, however, in the majority’s decision to

affirm the trial court in maintaining the candidacy of Judge Hunter for the reasons

that follow.

The majority incorrectly concludes that Judge Hunter overcame the prima

facie evidence presented by the plaintiff that he had not filed his taxes for each of

the five previous tax years. I do not agree that once the CPA transmitted the returns

electronically and communicated the same to Judge Hunter, this constitutes

compliance with the filing requirements set forth in the notice of candidacy. The

process of a tax preparer electronically filing a tax return does begin with

transmission, however the act of uploading the requisite tax documents and

pressing submit or send does not automatically result in the filing of a tax return.

The majority relies exclusively on Clark v. Bridges, 2023-00237 (La.

2/22/23), 356 So. 3d 990 in its holding that Judge Hunter satisfied his burden of

proof showing that he filed his taxes for each of the five previous tax years. There

is a glaring distinction between Bridges’s successful transmission of her tax return

compared to the attempt by Judge Hunter to file his tax returns. First, Judge Hunter

filed no objective evidence to establish that he satisfied the obligations to qualify as a candidate, specifically, that he filed tax returns the previous five years leading

up to qualifying for elective office. Judge Hunter did not present what Bridges

presented at her trial: (1) Tax returns transmission; (2) tax returns filed and (3) tax

returns received.

In Bridges, the tax preparer testified that she transmitted the tax return on the

morning of January 25, 2023. She further testified she received confirmation, on

January 26, 2023 that the tax return had been transmitted to LDR. There was no

intervening act by the tax preparer “between transmission and receipt: the objective

evidence confirms that transmission, the operative event, was successful because

LDR received the filing.” 2023-00237, pp. 8-9, 356 So.3d at 994-95. The court

declared the law does not require anything more than this. Id., at p. 9, 356 So. 3d at

995.

Bridges also testified on her own behalf. She testified that her tax preparer

gave her a letter dated January 25, 2023 stating that her 2021 State and Federal tax

returns where filed electronically. Bridges admitted the letter into evidence.

Bridges also made her own public records request as to the filing of her 2021 taxes.

At trial, LDR confirmed that in response to Bridges request, LDR was able to

provide Bridges with written confirmation that the 2021 taxes were filed on

February 6, 2024.

Bridges was able to meet her burden of proof by establishing successful

transmission to LDR, and eventually receipt of her tax returns by LDR. Judge

Hunter on the other hand introduced no evidence of receipt of his delinquent tax

returns by LDR. In fact, Judge Hunter’s CPA, Rosie D. Harper, testified that the

transmission of the tax returns had not been received by LDR as of the date of the

hearing and admitted that on July 27, 2024 she received notice of rejection of the

tax returns she attempted to transmit on behalf of Judge Hunter. Ms. Harper also

shared in her testimony that from the time she attempted the transmission, July 16, 2024, the status message was “pending.” It was pending until the close of

qualifying on July 19, 2024. On cross examination, Ms. Harper testified that she

kept Judge Hunter updated on the status of actions in processing his tax returns but

she never confirmed that she had proof of acceptance/transmittal of the returns.

Another distinction between Bridges and Judge Hunter is that Judge Hunter

was required to provide a valid Identity Protection Personal Identification Number

for his tax return to be accepted. This necessitates an additional operative event to

occur for Judge Hunter’s tax return to be successfully accepted; whereas in Bridges

there was no additional step taken subsequent to the electronic transmission of the

tax return.

Finally, as stated in Bridges, the candidate was able to produce evidence that

LDR received her tax return; this is not the case for Judge Hunter. Judge Hunter

cannot prove that transmission was successful because he presented no evidence

that LDR received the filing. The only proof that Judge Hunter presented at trial as

it relates to the acceptance of his tax returns was through the testimony of his tax

preparer who testified that up until July 27, 2024, the transmission status was

“pending,” but on July 27, 2024, LDR rejected the transmission of the returns.

Accordingly, I find that Judge Hunter has not met his burden to overcome

the plaintiff’s prima facie case. The trial court’s judgment overruling the objection

to Judge Hunter’s candidacy should be reversed.

I concur in all other aspects of the opinion. I agree with the majority that Ms.

Chamber’s failed to meet her burden of proof to rebut the prima facie case of the

plaintiff’s objection to her candidacy.