Lee v. Lancaster
This text of 262 So. 2d 124 (Lee v. Lancaster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Plaintiff, the democratic candidate for Representative of House District 80, appeals a judgment which dismissed, on exception to the court’s jurisdiction, plaintiff’s demand that defendant, the Republican candidate who won the general election, be declared ineligible for failure to meet the residency requirements for legislators stated by Const, art. 3 § 9.1
But Const, art. 3 § 10 provides:
“Each house shall be the judge of the qualifications, election, and returns of its own members, choose its own officers, except the president of the Senate, determine the rules of its procedure, not inconsistent with the' provisions -of this Constitution, and may punish its members for disorderly conduct and contempt, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members elected, may expel a member.”
Where art. 3 § 10 is applicable, as in the case of a general election contest, the courts have no jurisdiction. State ex rel. O’Donnell v. Houston, 40 La.Ann. 598, 4 So. 482 (1888).
Plaintiff argues eligibility under art. 3 § 9 is not among the “qualifications” of which the House is the judge under art. 3 § 10. To the contrary, we hold that it is precisely those qualifications (including residency) which are stated by art. 3 § 9 of which § 10 makes the House the judge.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
262 So. 2d 124, 1972 La. App. LEXIS 5742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-lancaster-lactapp-1972.