Jennifer Arcuri Versus Walter Stevens, Jr., Eliana Defrancesch, in Her Capacity as Clerk of Court for St. John the Baptist Parish ( 2023 )

JENNIFER ARCURI NO. 23-CA-422
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
WALTER STEVENS, JR., ELIANA COURT OF APPEAL
DEFRANCESCH, IN HER CAPACITY AS
CLERK OF COURT FOR ST. JOHN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
BAPTIST PARISH
ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 80,321, DIVISION "C"
HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, JUDGE PRESIDING
August 29, 2023
9:19 am
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, Robert A. Chaisson, John J. Molaison, Jr., and Scott U. Schlegel
AFFIRMED
JJM
MEJ
RAC
DISSENTS WITH REASONS
JGG
SUS
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
JENNIFER ARCURI
Ike Spears
Kevin P. Klibert
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
WALTER STEVENS, JR.
Robert T. Garrity, Jr.
Pierre W. Mouledoux
MOLAISON, J.
In this election challenge case, the plaintiff, Jennifer Arcuri, appeals the trial
court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice her petition objecting to the
qualifications of the defendant, Walter Stevens, Jr., for the District 5 council seat in
St. John the Baptist Parish (“St. John”). For the reasons that follow, we find that
Mrs. Arcuri failed to meet her burden of proving that Mr. Stevens did not meet all
qualifications to run for office, and affirm the ruling of the trial court.
Procedural History
On August 10, 2023, Mr. Stevens filed his Notice of Candidacy for the
October 14, 2023 election. On August 17, 2023, Ms. Arcuri filed a timely
Objection to Candidacy and Petition to Disqualify Candidate alleging that Mr.
Stevens had violated the provisions of La. R.S. 18:492. Her specific claim was that
Mr. Stevens falsely represented on his Notice of Candidacy that he met all
requirements for office, including the requirement of St. John’s Home Rule Charter
that a candidate for office must be a qualified voter in St. John the Baptist Parish
for six months immediately prior to assuming office. The petition specifically
alleged that, according to the Louisiana Secretary of State’s Office, Mr. Stevens
had only been a qualified voter in St. John since August 1, 2023, with his prior
voter registration being in St. Charles Parish.
Mr. Stevens was timely served with the petition, and trial on the matter was
held on August 21, 2023. On that same date, the trial court ruled from the bench
upholding Mr. Stevens’ candidacy. The trial court rendered a corresponding
written judgment on August 22, 2023. This timely appeal followed.
23-CA-422 1
Assignment of error
On appeal, Ms. Arcuri contends that the trial court erred in finding that Mr.
Stevens met all of the qualifications to run for office, which includes being a
qualified voter in St. John Parish for six months immediately prior to assuming
office, when he admitted he was not registered to vote in St. John the Baptist
Parish until August 1, 2023.
Law and analysis
The purpose of the notice of candidacy is to provide sufficient information
to show a candidate is qualified to run for the office he seeks. Senegal v.
Obafunwa, 99-1449, 99-1450 (La. App. 3 Cir. 9/27/99), 745 So.2d 74, 76. Laws
governing disqualification of candidates must be interpreted in a manner that gives
the electorate the widest possible set of candidates and those laws must be
construed so as to promote rather than defeat candidacy. Deal v Perkins, 22-1212
(La. 8/1/22), 347 So.3d 121, 135.
Except as otherwise provided by law, a candidate shall possess the
qualifications for the office he seeks at the time he qualifies for that office. La. R.S.
18:451. In the instant case, Ms. Arcuri alleged in her petition that the basis for Mr.
Stevens’ disqualification is found in St. John’s Home Rule Charter. Specifically,
Part 1, Article III (A)(1)(a)(ii) of the charter provides, in relevant part that “[a]ll
councilmembers shall be qualified voters of and shall have resided within the
parish for a period of at least six months immediately preceding his assuming
office and shall reside in and be qualified voters of their districts or divisions.” As
stated in her petition, Ms. Arcuri interprets this provision to mean that Mr. Stevens
was required to have been a qualified voter in the district six months immediately
preceding his assuming office. On appeal, Ms. Arcuri further elaborates on her
argument:
23-CA-422 2
The presence of the preposition of after the term qualified voter, along with
the emphasized conjunctive requires that a qualified candidate for parish
council be both (1) a qualified voter of, (2) and resident in (3) the Parish, (4)
for at least six months preceding his assuming office, and additionally (5)
must reside in the particular district. (Emphasis in original).
In an election contest, the person objecting to the candidacy bears the burden
of proving at trial that a candidate is disqualified by setting out a prima facie case.
Trosclair v. Joseph, 14-675 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/9/14), 150 So.3d 315, 317; Lumar v.
Lawson, 20-251 (La. App. 5 Cir. 8/10/20), 301 So.3d 1243, 1249, writ denied, 20-
994 (La. 8/13/20), 300 So.3d 868. Once the objector makes a prima facie showing
that the grounds for disqualification exist, the burden shifts to the candidate to
rebut that evidence. Id.In the instant case the only evidence that Ms. Arcuri introduced at trial
consisted of a document titled “Walter Stevens voting history.” The document,
which consists of a spreadsheet,1 purports to show the district, precinct, parish and
address of Mr. Stevens when he voted in various elections dating back to 2000.
Notably, the document shows that Mr. Stevens registered to vote in St. John on
August 1, 2023, listing his address as 56 Ridgewood Drive in LaPlace. While he
did vote in St. Charles Parish on November 8, 2022, the document indicates that
Mr. Stevens previously voted in St. John Parish from November 4, 2014, through
November 3, 2020.
Mr. Stevens testified at trial he has lived at 56 Ridgewood Drive in LaPlace,
which is within the voting district for St. John Parish’s District 5 Council seat,
since 2020, but has resided in St. John Parish since 2013. He admitted that he
voted in St. Charles Parish in 2022, and stated that he had registered to vote in St.
John Parish on August 1, 2023. To support his claim of residency, Mr. Stevens
1
Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that the document was from the Louisiana Secretary of State’s
office, but there is no indication of origin on the document itself. Counsel later surmised that Mr. Stevens
had “authenticated” the document; however, a more accurate description would be that Mr. Stevens did
not disagree with the voting information presented to him. This document does not meet the requirements
to be considered to be self-authenticating as per La. C.E. art. 902. While Mr. Stevens did not object to the
introduction of the document, we note that he is not an attorney and was self-represented at trial.
23-CA-422 3
introduced several documents into evidence showing his 56 Ridgewood address,
including a Notice of Rule to Show Cause in a civil proceeding; a credit card
statement dated October 1, 2022; a Louisiana vehicle registration certificate dated
November 15, 2022, and, a closing disclosure indicated that Mr. Stevens had sold a
property in St. Rose, Louisiana on March 31, 2023.
After considering the evidence and testimony presented, the trial court
opined:
THE COURT:
As to the factual matters in Mr. Stevens’ rebuttal, he has
successfully convinced me that he has resided in this parish for a
period of at least six months prior to resuming [sic] his office. He has
also successfully convinced me that he does reside there and is a
qualified voter within District 5 at Ridgewood – 56 Ridgewood
because, as of the date that he swore all of this, these were truths, facts
peculiar to his life. It would be to the point that I would dismiss the
petition filed by the objector and permit Mr. Stevens to continue on in
his quest for that particular office.
In his written reasons for judgment, the trial judge further explained that “[a]t no
point in the proceedings did Mrs. Arcuri provide objective evidence that Mr.
Stevens did not live in St. John Parish for the requisite period required as a
candidate and, as such, never made the necessary prima facie showing required to
shift the burden of proof to the Defendant.”
Statutory interpretations are a question of law. Shell v. Wal–Mart Stores,
Inc., 00-997 (La. App. 3 Cir. 3/21/01), 782 So.2d 1155, writ denied, 01-1149
(La.6/15/01), 793 So.2d 1244. When a statute is clear and unambiguous and the
application of the statute does not lead to absurd consequences, the statute must be
applied as written. Smith v. St. Charles Par. Pub. Sch., 17-475 (La. App. 5 Cir.
5/1/18), 246 So. 3d 821, 826, writ denied, 2018-1001 (La. 10/8/18), 253 So. 3d
802. Appellate review regarding questions of law is simply a review of whether the
trial court was legally correct or incorrect. Anderson v. Dean, 22-233 (La. App. 5
Cir. 7/25/22), 346 So.3d 356, 364. On legal issues, the appellate court gives no
23-CA-422 4
special weight to the findings of the trial court, but exercises its constitutional duty
to review questions of law de novo and renders judgment on the record. Id.Concerning the assigned errors of fact, factual determinations are reviewed by the
appellate court under the manifest error or clearly wrong standard of review.
Quintanilla v. Whitaker, 21-160 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/1/21), 334 So.3d 892, 893.
In our reading of the St. John’s Home Rule Charter, Part 1, Article III
(A)(1)(a)(ii), we find, as the trial court did, that the requirement for candidacy
consists of two parts: that he or she reside within St. John Parish, within the
relevant district, for six months before assuming office, and, that he or she be a
qualified voter2 within the district. Here, Mrs. Arcuri did not allege in her petition
that Mr. Stevens failed to meet the residency requirement. Rather, she couched her
claim in terms that a candidate for office must be a registered voter in St. John the
Baptist Parish for six months immediately preceding assuming office, and Mr.
Stevens only registered in the district on August 1, 2023.
We agree with the trial court that Mrs. Arcuri failed to make a prima facie
case for Mr. Steven’s disqualification sufficient to transfer the burden of proof to
2
The term “qualified voter” is not defined in La. R.S. 18:101, nor does a definition appear
elsewhere in the Election Code or in the St. John Parish Home Rule Charter. We interpret the term to
mean “broadly related to being qualified to vote.” See, Deal v. Perkins, 22-01212 (La. 8/1/22), 347 So.3d
121, 135.
23-CA-422 5
him.3 Nevertheless, we find that there is sufficient evidence in the record4 to
support Mr. Stevens’ assertion that he had resided in the Council 5 district for more
than six months before qualifying to run for office.
3
In making this determination, we have also considered provisions of the St. John Home Rule
Charter which provide the qualifications for other elected offices and appointments within the parish. For
example, Article III (B) related to the qualifications to run for Parish President of St. John Parish states:
The parish president shall be a qualified voter of the parish and shall
have resided within the parish for a period of two years immediately preceding
his assuming office.
Article II, Section 2-20 provides:
To be eligible for appointment or to serve as a member of the civil service board,
a person shall be a citizen of the United States of America and shall be a qualified voter
of the parish and shall have resided within the parish for a period of three years prior to
his assuming office.
In our reading of these provisions, which do not contain the same ambiguity as Part 1, Article III
(A)(1)(a)(ii), it becomes clear that the “qualified voter” requirement and the “residency” requirement are
separate factors, with the time limitation only applicable to residency within the parish. To conclude
otherwise would be interpretation of the council requirements without consideration of its counterparts.
If we were to apply Ms. Arcuri’s suggested construction, then it could be interpreted to mean that
while a candidate would not need to meet the residency requirement before qualifying (as long as the six
months were attained after qualifying but before inauguration), the candidate would still be required to
have completed a voter registration in St. John Parish six months before qualifying. Arguably this would
be an absurd result.
As observed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Maw Enterprises, L.L.C. v. City of Marksville,
14-0090 (La. 9/3/14), 149 So.3d 210, 218:
The issue, in part, involves statutory construction, which is resolved by resort to
well-settled rules. Those rules instruct that the meaning and intent of a law is determined
by considering the law in its entirety and all other laws on the same subject matter and by
placing a construction on the provision in question that is consistent with the express
terms of the law and with the obvious intent of the legislature in enacting it. Allen v.
Allen, 13-2778 (La. 5/7/14), 145 So.3d 341, citing In re Succession of Boyter, 99-0761, p.
9 (La.1/7/00), 756 So.2d 1122, 1129; Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, p. 5 (La.7/7/99), 739
So.2d 762, 766. A statute must be applied and interpreted in a manner that is consistent
with logic and the presumed fair purpose and intention of the legislature in passing it. Id.In construing legislation, it is presumed that the intention of the legislative branch is to
achieve a consistent body of law. Id.In reading related provisions of the St. John Parish Home Rule Charter in tandem with the one at
issue, consistency would mean a distinct separation of voter registration and residency requirements. And
while an argument can be made about the grammatical composition and placement of punctuation, we
note the court’s reasoning in Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n v. Guglielmo, 276 So. 2d 720, 725 (La. Ct. App.),
writ denied, 279 So.2d 690 (La. 1973), “in interpreting a statute, the courts are not bound by strict
grammatical rules, but rather have the duty to determine true legislative intent. Edwards v. Daigle, 201
La. 622, 10 So.2d 209.” It is well settled that in construing a statute niceties of grammatical rules and use
of words, punctuation or placement of phrases may not be so strictly adhered to as to obscure the true
meaning of the law and thwart the legislative intent. Finn v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation,
141 So.2d 852 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1962) and cases therein cited.
4
Ms. Arcuri objected generally to Mr. Stevens’ exhibit D-1 on the basis that it appeared “to be
documents relating to properties in St. Charles Parish.” Ms. Arcuri did not specifically object to Exhibit
D-2 (Mr. Stevens’ truck registration), D-3 (Mr. Stevens credit card statement), and D-4 (a notice of a rule
to show cause served upon Mr. Stevens at the 56 Ridgewood address.) After the trial court admitted Mr.
Stevens’ exhibits into evidence, Ms. Arcuri’s counsel simply stated, “[n]ote objection.”
23-CA-422 6
Decree
For the foregoing reasons, and on the showing made, we find that Mrs.
Arcuri failed to meet her burden of proving Mr. Stevens did not meet all
requirements to run for office. Therefore, we hold that Judge Snowdy was not
manifestly erroneous in upholding Mr. Stevens’ candidacy. Accordingly, the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
23-CA-422 7
JENNIFER ARCURI NO. 23-CA-422
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
WALTER STEVENS, JR., ELIANA COURT OF APPEAL
DEFRANCESCH, IN HER CAPACITY
AS CLERK OF COURT FOR ST. JOHN STATE OF LOUISIANA
THE BAPTIST PARISH
GRAVOIS, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion which affirms the
dismissal of plaintiff, Jennifer Arcuri’s, challenge to the candidacy of Mr. Stevens.
While I agree with the facts as represented in the majority opinion, the
opinion provides only a partial exposition on the law on statutory interpretation.
Conspicuously missing from the majority’s consideration is this equally
important component of statutory interpretation:
[I]t is presumed that every word, sentence, or provision in a law was
intended to serve some useful purpose, that some effect is to be given
to each such provision, and that no unnecessary words or provisions
were employed. [internal citation omitted] As a result, courts are
bound, if possible, to give effect to all parts of a statute and to
construe no sentence, clause or word as meaningless and surplusage if
a construction giving force to, and preserving, all words can
legitimately be found.
Moss v. State, 05-1963 (La. 4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1185, 1196.
In my view, the majority’s interpretation of the language in the St. John the
Baptist Home Rule Charter, Part 1, Article III (A)(1)(a)(ii), quoted hereafter, fails
to apply the above tenets to the pertinent language in the Home Rule Charter:
[A]ll councilmembers shall be qualified voters of and shall have
resided within the parish for a period of at least six months
immediately preceding his assuming office and shall reside in and be
qualified voters of their districts or divisions.
Rules of grammar govern statutory interpretation unless they contradict
legislative intent or purpose. Marco Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Dep’t of
Transportation & Dev. By & Through Wilson, 21-0123 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/13/21),
23-CA-422 8
329 So.3d 288, 301, writ denied, 21-01195 (La. 11/10/21), 326 So.3d 1247.
Moreover, the law shall be applied as written, and therefore, a court must give
effect to the literal application of the language of a statute, including its
grammatical construction, except in the rare case where such application will
produce absurd or unreasonable results. Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 05-
0979 (La. 4/4/06), 925 So.2d 1202, 1211.5
In the subject provision of the Home Rule Charter, there are two
prepositions in the first part of the rule: “of” and “within”. General rules of
grammar demand that each preposition has an object. Accordingly, the object of
the two prepositional phrases “qualified voters of” and “resided within” is “the
parish”. Further, the lack of any punctuation in this provision compels the
conclusion that the phrase “for a period of at least six months” modifies both
prepositional phrases equally, thus requiring the candidate to have been a qualified
voter of the parish for at least six months immediately preceding his assuming
office AND shall have resided within the parish for at least six months
immediately preceding his assuming office. The majority’s analysis ignores the
preposition “of” following “qualified voters” in the first sentence, and therefore, I
believe leads to the incorrect interpretation that the six-month period does not
apply to the “qualified voters of” the Parish requirement.
Additionally, without reading the six-month time period as also pertaining to
the “qualified voters of” the Parish requirement, the majority’s interpretation of
this provision could lead to the absurd result, in my opinion, that someone could
run for and be elected to a parish council seat in St. John the Baptist Parish without
even being a qualified voter of St. John the Baptist Parish until the time he assumes
5
Punctuation as well as grammatical construction in general, although never relied upon
to defeat the obvious intent, may operate as an aid in the construction and interpretation of the
statute. Joy v. City of St. Louis, 138 U.S. 1, 32, 11 S.Ct. 243, 251, 34 L.Ed. 843 (1891).
23-CA-422 9
office. I do not believe the drafters of the Home Rule Charter intended this absurd
result.
In addition, if the drafters had not intended for the time element to apply to
both the “qualified voters” status and the residency requirement within the Parish,
then there would have been no reason for the drafters to restate the “qualified
voters” requirement at the end of the provision when establishing a residency
requirement within their districts or divisions. It is implicit that if one is a
“qualified voter” within their district or division, they are a “qualified voter” within
the Parish.
Finally, I disagree with the majority’s position that the time element should
apply only to the residency requirement based on its comparison to other
provisions in the Home Rule Charter. The Legislature is presumed to have enacted
each statute with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing laws on the
same subject. Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 694 So.2d 184 (La. 1997). I
believe that these provisions support my analysis because the enacting entity chose
to exclude the time element in these other provisions, unlike the councilmember
qualification provision. For example, Article III(B) of the Home Rule Charter
related to the qualifications to run for Parish President of St. John Parish states:
The parish president shall be a qualified voter of the parish and shall
have resided within the parish for a period of two years immediately
preceding his assuming office. [Emphasis added.]
The enacting body clearly chose to limit the time element to residency by placing
“the parish” without the time element after “qualified voter of” in the first
sentence. The enacting body could have easily incorporated this same language in
the councilmember provision at issue, but chose not to do so. Courts are not free
to rewrite laws to effect a purpose that is not otherwise expressed. Cacamo v.
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 99-3479 (La. 6/30/00), 764 So.2d 41, 44. Accordingly,
23-CA-422 10
I do not agree that this Court can disregard the language as written in the Home
Rule Charter provision at issue.
It is undisputed that on August 1, 2023, Mr. Stevens registered to vote in St.
John the Baptist Parish after having been a registered voter in St. Charles Parish for
the 2022 election cycle. Having admittedly been a registered voter in another
parish as of July 31, 2023, Mr. Stevens cannot fulfill the Home Rule Charter’s
requirement for councilmembers that he have been a qualified voter of St. John the
Baptist Parish for at least six months prior to assuming office, in the event that he
is elected. Thus, because he has not fulfilled the requirements of La. R.S. 18:4516
and the Home Rule Charter, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and
disqualify Mr. Stevens from the October 14, 2023 election for Parish Council,
District 5, St. John the Baptist Parish.
6
La. R.S. 18:451 provides:
A person who meets the qualifications for the office he seeks may become a
candidate and be voted on in a primary or general election if he qualifies as a
candidate in the election. Except as otherwise provided by law, a candidate shall
possess the qualifications for the office he seeks at the time he qualifies for that
office. In the event that the qualifications for an office include a residency or
domicile requirement, a candidate shall meet the established length of residency
or domicile as of the date of qualifying, notwithstanding any other provision of
law to the contrary. No person, whether or not currently registered as a voter with
the registrar of voters, shall become a candidate if he is under an order of
imprisonment for conviction of a felony.
23-CA-422 11
JENNIFER ARCURI NO. 23-CA-422
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
WALTER STEVENS, JR., ELIANA COURT OF APPEAL
DEFRANCESCH, IN HER CAPACITY
AS CLERK OF COURT FOR ST. JOHN STATE OF LOUISIANA
THE BAPTIST PARISH
SCHLEGEL, J., DISSENTS FOR THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY
GRAVOIS, J.
23-CA-422 12
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON LINDA M. WISEMAN
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
AUGUST 29, 2023 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
23-CA-422
E-NOTIFIED
40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY (DISTRICT JUDGE)
IKE SPEARS (APPELLANT) KEVIN P. KLIBERT (APPELLANT) ROBERT T. GARRITY, JR. (APPELLEE)
MAILED
WALTER STEVENS (APPELLEE) PIERRE W. MOULEDOUX (APPELLEE) LEANDRE M. MILLET (APPELLEE)
56 RIDGEWOOD DRIVE ATTORNEY AT LAW ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
LAPLACE, LA 70068 615 HICKORY AVENUE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRIST
HARAHAN, LA 70123 PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST
POST OFFICE BOX 399
1342 HIGHWAY 44 RIVER ROAD
RESERVE, LA 70084