Yasha Clark And Morgan Walker v. Stephanie Bridges And Darren Lombard, In His Official Capacity As Clerk Of Court For The Parish Of Orleans, State Of Louisiana And Robert Kyle Ardoin, In His Official Capacity As Louisiana Secretary Of State

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #010
FROM
: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The O
pinion handed down on the 22nd day of February, 2023 is as follows:
BY W
eimer, J.:
2023-C-00237 YASHA CLARK AND MORGAN WALKER VS. STEPHANIE BRIDGES
AND DARREN LOMBARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK
OF COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, STATE OF LOUISIANA
AND ROBERT
KYLE ARDOIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE (Parish of Orleans
)
REVERSED; CANDIDACY REINSTATED. SEE OPINION.
Hughes, J., concurs in the result.
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Genovese, J., dissents and assigns
reasons.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
McCallum, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No.2023-C-00237
YASHA CLARK & MORGAN WALKER
STEPHANIE BRIDGES AND DARRE,N LOMBARD,
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, STATE OF LOUISIANA AND
ROBERT KYLE ARDOIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA
SECRETARY OF STATE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal,
Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans
WEIMER, C.J.
This election matter concerns whether a defendant should be disqualified as a
candidate for a judgeship. After a review of the law, the judgment sustaining an
objection to candidacy and petition for disqualification filed by the plaintiffs is
reversed, and the defendant's candidacy is reinstated because, at the time of her
candidacy, she complied with the statutory law and administrative regulations related
to filing her income tax return
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Yasha Clark and Morgan Walker (plaintiffs) filed a petition to disqualiff
Stephanie Bridges (defendant) as a candidate for the upcoming election for the office
of Orleans Parish Civil District Court Judge, Division "B." The plaintiffs alleged that
Ms. Bridges falsely certified that she had filed her state and federal income taxes for
VS.

the past five years, citing La. R.S. l8:492(4)(1) and (7).' The specific issue before
this court is whether Ms. Bridges' 2021 state tax returns were electronically filed at
the time she filed her notice of candidacy.
on the morning of January 25,2023, Ms. Bridges and her husband visited
Mobile Tax, LLC ("Mobile"), a tax preparation business co-owned by Jimmie Brown
and Gina Brown, to have their 2021 federal and state tax returns electronically filed.
While at Mobile, Mr. Brown informed the couple that their 2021tax returns had been
electronically filed and gave them a letter on Mobile letterhead stating that the tax
returns were filed. Approximately an hour later, Ms. Bridges filed a sworn notice of
candidacy with the Orleans Parish Clerk of Court, declaring her intent to run for
Orleans Parish Civil District Court judge. The notice of candidacy required
certification that for each of the previous five tax years, Ms. Bridges "filed [her]
federal and state income tax returns, [she] ... filed for an extension of time for filing
either [her] federal or state income tax return or both ..., or [she] was not required to
file either a federal or state income tax return or both." See La. R.S. 18:a$(A)(2);
La. R.S. l8:a92(A)(7) (quoted below)
The plaintiffs, registered voters in the district wherein Ms. Bridges was running
for office, filed a petition objecting to Ms. Bridges' candidacy, asserting that she
' ln pertinent part, La. R.S. l8:492(4) provides:
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:
(1) The defendant failed to qualifu for the primary election in the manner
prescribed by law.
(7) The defendant falsely certif,red on his notice ofcandidacy that for each of
the previous five tax years he has hled 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. l8:463(AX2), or was not required to file either a federal
or state income tax return or both.
2

should be disqualified because she did not file one or more ofher federal and/or state
tax returns for the last five tax years. At the February 7 , 2023, trial of the matter,
evidence was introduced regarding the status of the filing of Ms. Bridges' 2021tax
returns. The plaintiffs, Ms. Bridges, Ms. Brown, and the Assistant Director of the
Policy Services Division for the Louisiana Department of Revenue ("LDR"), Emily
Toler, testified. Additionally, letters from the LDR in response to public records
requests were introduced at the hearing and admitted into evidence. A fourth letter,
issued by Mobile to the Bridges at the conclusion of their visit, was introduced and
admitted.
In a letter from the LDR, dated January 27,2023, the LDR indicated that the
department did not have a 2021 tax return on file for Ms. Bridges. Another letter
from the LDR, dated February 6,2023, was addressed to the plaintiffs' counsel and
likewise stated that the LDR did not have Ms. Bridges' 2021 tax return on file. A
third letter from the LDR, also dated February 6,2023,was addressed to Ms. Bridges
and stated that her 2021 tax return was on file. During her testimony, Ms. Toler
explained that responses in the February 6letters differed from each other because
the LDR's system had updated by the time a search was conducted in response to Ms.
Bridges' public records request. Ms. Toler further testified that she did not know if
the LDR was capable of seeing the mechanism by which the tax returns were filed or
how long it takes the LDR to process and record the filing of tax returns that are
electronically filed.
Ms. Bridges testified that on the morning of January 25,2023, she and her
husband signed the federal and state tax return forms for submission to the Internal
Revenue Service ("IRS") and the LDR at Mobile's office. They remained at the
office until approximately 10:30 &.ffi., when they were informed by Mr. Brown that
J

their 2021federal and state tax returns had been electronically filed, and he handed
them a folder containing copies of their electronically filed federal and state tax
returns. Ms. Bridges further testified that Mr. Brown also gave them a letter dated
January 25,2023, stating that their 2021 state and federal tax returns were filed
electronically.2 This letterwas also admitted into evidence. Ms. Bridges testified that
she knew her 2021 state and federal tax returns were filed by Mobile when she left
the office
Ms. Brown testified that she is the co-owner and manager of Mobile and that
she handles all the electronic filing for the business. She further testified that her
business partner, Mr. Brown, is an accountant and auditor, and that he prepared the
2021 federal and state tax returns for the Bridges. Ms. Brown explained that
Mobile's electronic filing system involves submitting the federal and/or state returns
through a third-party filing service called TaxWise. She further stated that TaxWise
is utilized by Mobile to send the respective tax returns to both the LDR and the IRS
and that once TaxWise facilitates the delivery, Ms. Brown receives an
acknowledgment that the tax return has been accepted. Ms. Brown testified that the
Bridges came into the Mobile office to sign the returns on January 25,2023, and she
electronically filed their returns at approximately l0:30 a.m. Ms. Brown also testified
that Mr. Brown provided the Bridges with a letter stating that their 2021federal and
2 The letter stated, in pertinent part:
Enclosed are your 2021Federal and state income tax returns.
Your Federal tax return has been filed electronically. Your refund will be mailed to
you by the Internal Revenue Service. Please keep a copy of the retum with your
records.
Your 2021 LA state tax return is enclosed. ... Your LA state retum was filed
electronically. Please keep the enclosed copy for your records.
4

state tax retums were electronically filed. Ms. Brown, however, stated that there is
normally a delay between the time TaxWise receives the returns and the time that it
transmits the returns to the IRS and/or the LDR. She testified that it was not until the
followingday, January 26,2023,that shereceived anacknowledgment fromTaxWise
that the Bridges' federal and state tax returns had been electronically transmitted. At
trial, Ms. Brown did not produce any documentation of TaxWise's acknowledgment.
After trial of the matter, the district court sustained the objection to the
candidacy, thereby disqualiffing Ms. Bridges as a candidate for the office she was
seeking. The court of appeal thereafter affrrmed the district court's determination.
Relying on this court's reasoning in Braggs v. Dickerson,22-01227 (La.8ll3l22),
344 So.3d 63, and in Russo v. Burns, 14-1963 (La.9l24ll4),147 So.3d 1111, both
the district court and the majority of the court of appeal en banc panel found that
without ensuring delivery of the 2021tax return, Ms.Bridges could not have known
whether or not her tax returns were filed when she signed her notice of candidacy
Having presented no evidence of confirmation that the LDR was in receipt of the
2021tax return prior to her certification of her notice of candidacy, they concluded,
Ms. Bridges failed to satisfied her burden to rebut the prtma facie case of the
plaintiffs' objection to her candidacy
Ms. Bridges' writ application was granted to address the question of whether
tax returns that have been filed electronically are filed when transmitted. For the
reasons that follow, that question is answered in the affirmative.
DISCUSSION
Courts are bound by the language of a statutory provision and must apply the
law as written. "When the wording of a Section is clear and free of ambiguity, the
letter of it shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit." La. R.S.
5

1:4; see La. C.C. art.9; see also La. C.C.P . art.5052. As indicated by Professor Alain
Levasseur in his treatise LOUISIANA LAW OF OBLIGATIONS IN GENERAL-A
COMPARATIVE Crvn LAw PERSPECTIVE, author's notes, p. xix (2020)
civilian methodology and the civil code instruct that the sources of law
are legislation and custom, and that legislation is the superior source of
law. LAS-C.C. arts 1, 3. Legislation, which is defined as the solemn
expression of legislative will, LSA-C.C. art. 2, is to be interpreted
according to the rules set forth in the Civil Code. [arts 9-11] In
Louisiana, legislation is superior to any source of law[.] LSA-C.C. art.
2. ... Although jurisprudence is persuasive in analyzing statutory law
in our civil law system, the courts are not the lawmakers. The sources
of law, as stated in the Civil Code, are legislation and custom. Judicial
pronouncements are not sources of law. In our civilian jurisdiction,
legislation, the solemn expression of the legislative will, is the superior
source of law. Jurisprudence constant carries 'considerable persuasive
authority,' but is not the law and must yield to legislative
pronouncements.t3l
As is required in Louisiana's civil law system, this court begins, as it must, with the
statutory pronouncements of the legislature. See La. R.S. l:4;La. C.C. art.9.
An objection to a candidacy may be raised on the grounds that the qualified
candidate has falsely certified on his or her notice of candidacy that for each of the
previous five tax years, he or she has filed federal and state income tax returns, has
filed for an extension of time for filing either federal or state tax returns or both, or
was not required to file either a federal or state tax return or both. See La. R.S.
$:a92(A)(7) (the relevant portions of which are cited and quoted in footnote 1).
Although the statute is lacking in explicit guidance as to what it means to "file" tax
returns for the purposes of this provision, the LDR is nonetheless empowered to
provide this practical guidance. See La. R.S. 47:l5l l, which provides:
In addition to specific authority granted to the secretary
elsewhere, the secretary is authorized to prescribe rules and regulations
to carry out the purposes of this Title and the purposes of any other
3 Willis-Knighton Medical Center v. Caddo-shreveport Sales and Use Tax Commission, 903
So.2d 1071, 1085, 1086, 1092, and 1109, (La.2005).
6

statutes or provisions included under the secretary's authority. These
rules and regulations shall be promulgated pursuant to the provisions of
the Administrative Procedure Act and will have the full force and effect
of law.
The legislature's limited and carefully delineated grant of authority recognizes the
realities of the constantly changing circumstances which the legislature cannot
anticipate, including rapid technological advancements. The grant of this authority
by the legislature to an agency reflects the administrative agency's obligation to
administer a matter assigned by the legislature and the appreciation of the agency's
coresponding institutional knowledge and expertise. Pursuant to this legislative
grant of authority, the LDR has prescribed relevant rules and regulations regarding
the manner of filing tax returns. See La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I, $ 4911(B).
This election matter involves electronic filing of tax returns, which is
specifically governed by La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I, $ 4911(8)(4).4 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 fonh 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
a In pertinent part, La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I, $ 4911(B) provides:
File Date of a Return, Report and Other Document
4.ElectronicallyFiled. Aretum,reportorotherdocumentfiledelectronically
is deemed flrled on the date transmitted to the department or to a third party acting as
the department's agent.
filing.
7

That TaxWise is a third party acting as the LDR's agent flows logically and
rationally from the evidence in the record. The LDR received the tax returns of Ms.
Bridges. The LDR's February 6 letter to Ms. Bridges' counsel undisputedly confirms
that Ms. Bridges' tax returns were received by the LDR. The only way this receipt
and acknowledgment could be accomplished is if TaxWise was in fact a third-party
agent of the LDR.
Although the regulations do not define what it means to be a "third party acting
as the department's agent," the record testimony establishes that the third party here
acted as a mere conduit for the completed tax return. Further, record evidence
establishes that, once the tax preparer sent the completed tax return to TaxWise, this
third party did nothing more than shuttle the completed tax return from the tax
preparer to the LDR.5 Ms. Brown testified that she transmitted the tax return on the
morning of January 25, 2023.6 Ms. Brown funher testified that she received
confirmation, on January 26, 2023, that the tax return had been transmitted to the
LDR. There was no intervening act by Ms. Brown between transmission and receipt:
the objective evidence confirms that transmission, the operative event, was successful
' The status of TaxWise as an agent of the LDR would hardly seem in dispute as it is not contested
by the evidence in the record that Ms. Bridges' tax return was ultimately received and accepted by
the LDR by way of transmission through TaxWise.
6 There is notable concern in the categorical exclusion of direct testimony by reasonably reliable
third parties, to form the objective basis for candidates' knowledge that theyhave timely filed their
tax retums, in contrast with the continued reliance on the efficacy of the LDR's public records
request letters routinely used to establish a prima facie case in candidacy challenges. The facts of
this matter establish a significant delay between the transmission time of an electronically filed tax
return and the time at which the tax return is recognized by the LDR's internal reporting system. The
plaintiffs do not contest the portion of Ms. Brown's testimony that on January 26,2023, TaxWise
sent confirmation of its transmission of the tax refurn to the LDR. However, the transmission of the
tax return was not reflected in the LDR's records until a February 6,2023, public records request
letter issued to Ms. Bridges stating her 2021tax return was filed. Further confounding is that a letter
to the plaintiffs' counsel, dated that same day (but presumably generated hours earlier), reflected Ms.
Bridges' 2021 tax return had not been filed. Consequently, it is obvious relying on the statutory
language which refers to "filing" and the agencyregulations which make "filing" the operative event
when income tax returns are submitted electronically, is salutary given the delays that occur after the
matter is transmitted to the LDR.
8

because LDR received the filing. Ms. Bridges has met her burden to establish that
her tax returns were filed prior to the filing of her notice of candidacy.
In Louisiana's civil law system, an application of the clear language of the
statutory pronouncements and agency regulations establishes that Ms. Bridges
satisfied the obligations to qualify as a candidate. Because the statute and regulation
are clear, the analysis is concluded.
However, a secondary source, the jurisprudence related to qualifying for public
office, which is only applicable if the statutes related to qualifying are ambiguous,
further corroborates the decision of this court. See Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758,
p. 6 (La. 3/24/05), 899 So.2d 535,541 (Election laws must be interpreted to give the
electorate the widest possible choice of candidates.). A court determining whether
the person objecting to candidacy has carried the burden of proof must liberally
construe the laws governing the conduct of elections with an eye toward promoting,
rather than defeating, candidacy. See Landiak, 05-0758 at 6-7, 899 So.2d at 541.
The evidence establishes Ms. Bridges' tax preparer electronically transmitted her
completed tax return. Ms. Bridges thereafter certified that her tax returns were filed
as of that date. As indicated, the evidence establishes that the tax return at issue was
filed, transmitted, and received. 7 The law does not require anything more than this.
Ms. Bridges sufficiently rebutted the prima facie case of the plaintiffs who are
7 The district court indicated:
This Court notes Ms. Bridges' testimony [i]s authentic and truthful. There
is no doubt to this trier of fact that Ms. Bridges took [the] steps that she believed
would be sufficient to execute her Notice of Candidacy . . . . [T]his Court finds her
reliance on the assertions of her tax preparer to be reasonable.
9

objecting to her candidacy. Accordingly, Ms. Bridges is deemed a qualified
candidate.s
In an effort to be thorough, as evaluation of the cases cited by the majority of
our learned colleagues on the court of appeal demonstrates that these cases are
distinguishable.e This court's rulings in Braggs and Russo involved filing of tax
returns by mail, which is separately governed by La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I, $
491 I (B)( 1). As Braggs and Russo indicate, filing by mail requires its own specific
form of proof of transmittal, generally limited to confirmation from the post offlrce
that the tax returns were delivered. To comport with the regulations for electronic
filing, proof of transmittal does not necessitate proof that the tax returns were
delivered.
CONCLUSION
The secondary source ofjurisprudence provides oft-cited persuasive authority
when the law enacted by the legislature is unclear. Because the primary source of
statutory law enacted by the legislature and the regulation promulgated pursuant to
legislative authority is clear, resort to jurisprudence is unnecessary. In Louisiana's
civil law system, when proper deference is afforded to the legislative acts, courts
avoid acting extrajudicial by "legislating from the bench."
Based on the law applicable to the facts in this matter, the judgment
disqualifying Ms. Bridges is reversed, and Ms. Bridges' candidacy is reinstated
REVERSED; CANDIDACY REINSTATBD.
8 As an aside, and not determinative, the 2021 tax return demonstrated Ms. Bridges was owed a
refund.
' The dissents of Judges Lobrano and Dysart properly analyzed the applicable statutory and
regulatory language.
l0

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-C-00237
YASHA CLARI( AIYD MORGAN WALKER
STEPEAME BRIDGES AI\ID DARREN LOMBARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURTFOR THE PARISE OF ORLEANS,
STATE OF LOUISIANA AI\D ROBERT KYLE ARDOIN,IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIAT.IA SECRETARY OF STATE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,
Parish of Orleans Civil
Eughes, J., concurs in the result.
vs.

SUPREME COURT OF LOIISIANA
No. 2023-C-00237
YASHA CLARK AND MORGAN WALKER
STEPHAI\IE BRIDGES AND DARREN LOMBARD,IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEAI\S,
STATE OF LOUISIAI\A AND ROBERT KYLE ARDOIN,IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,
Parish of Orleans Civil
Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
I agree with the majority of the court of appeal that the candidate did not meet
her burden of proof in this matter, and therefore I dissent from the plurality.t As I
noted in Deal v. Perkins, what is at stake in election cases such as this one is the
fundamental integrity of the process of qualiffing for elected public office. 2022-
l2l2 (La. 8lll22),347 So. 3d 121, 140 (Crichton, J., dissenting) (citing Percle v.
Taylor, 2020-0244, p. 12 (La. App. 5 Cir. 815120),301 So. 3d 1219, 1228, writ
denied,2020-0983 (La.8ll0l20),300 So. 3d 878). In my view, allowing a candidate
to provide inaccurate information under oath, without allowing the corresponding
I A plurality opinion (consisting of less than four votes at the Louisiana Supreme Court) "lack[s]
precedential authority." See Warren v. La. Med. Mutual Ins. Co.,2007-0492 (La. l2l2l08),21
So.3d I 86, 210 (Knoll, J., concurring). For the United States Supreme Court, "[w]hen a fragmented
Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices,
the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred
in the judgments on the narrowest grounds ." Marl<s v. United States,430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct.
990, 5l L.Ed.zd260 (1977) (internal quotations omitted). See also generally State v. Thompson,
l5-0886 (La.9ll8l17),233 So. 3d529,568 (Crichton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part);
Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, LLC v. Louisiana Workers' Comp. Corp.,202l-00566 (La.
3125122),338 So. 3d 1148, 1159 (Crichton, J., concurring in the result) ("[B]ecause there is no
clear majority in agreement with the reasoning utilized herein, the matter is considered a plurality
opinion and not a majority.").
VS.

remedy of disqualification for making those inaccurate statements, renders the
Notice of Candidacy meaningless. Finally, also as in Perkins, this case again
highlights the necessity of legislative intervention in the context of notices of
candidacy. This is particularly true in cases that involve electronic filing of necessary
documentation; it is essential that our laws keep pace with ever-changing technology.
See Clarkv. Bridges,2023-CA-0093 (La. App. 4 Cir.2ll5l23), --- So. 3d --- (Chase,
J concurring).

SUPREME COURT OF LOIISIAIIA
No. 2023-C-00237
YASHA CLARK AND MORGAN WALKER
STEPHAME BRIDGES AND DARREN LOMBARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEAIIS,
STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ROBERT KYLE ARDOIN, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans
Civil
Genovese, J., dissents and assigns the following reasons:
'oTax retums that have not been delivered to the Louisiana Department of
Revenue have not been filed." Braggs v. Dickerson,22-01227, p. I (La. 8ll3l22),
344 So.3d 63 (citing Russo v. Burns, 14-1963, p. 4 (La.9l24ll4),147 So.3d 1111,
I I l4). When e-filing a state income tax return, which is the undisputed method of
filing used in this case, "[a] return . . . filed electronically is deemed filed on the date
transmitted to the department or to a third party acting as the department's agent."
La. Admin. Code tit. 61,pt. I, ch.49, $ 4911(B)(4). The facts in this case are not in
dispute. The issue is pure and simple-whether a state income tax return filed
electronically can be considered "transmitted" to the Louisiana Department of
Revenue (the "LDR") or to a "third party as the department's agento'by a potential
candidate filing her notice of candidacy without proof of transmission of said return
to the legally required state agency? The answer is no.
This case hinges on the burden of proof. The party contesting a potential
candidate's qualifications in an election bears the burden of proof to show that the
potential candidate should be disqualified. See La. R.S. 18:1401 (which provides
that "[a] qualified elector" may bring an action objecting to a candidacy); La. R.S.
18:492 (which sets forth grounds for an objection to a candidacy); Landiak v.
vs.

Richmond,05-0758, pp.6-7 (La.3124105), 899 So.2d 535,541. Once that burden of
proof is met, then the burden of proof shifts to the potential candidate to prove she
is duly qualified to seek office. 1d.,05-0758, p. 8, 899 So.2d at 542. In the case at
bar, Plaintiffs proved that Mrs. Bridges' state income tax return for the year 2021
had not been received prior to Mrs. Bridges filing her notice of candidacy. Mrs.
Bridges' state income tax return was allegedly filed by her tax preparers, Mr. Brown
and Ms. Brown, the morning of her qualiffing. Mr. Brown gave Mrs. Bridges a
letter and copy of her alleged filing of her federal and state income tax returns and
assured her that her returns had been electronically filed. Ms. Brown allegedly
electronically filed Mrs. Bridges state income tax retum with a third party state
agent, TaxWise, who in tum allegedly transferred said filing to the LDR. That is the
extent of what Mrs. Bridges is relying on as meeting her burden of proving that she
had filed her state income tax retum prior to her notice of candidacy-nothing more.
Mrs. Bridges contends that she has satisfied her burden of proof as to the filing
of her return with her testimony and that of Ms. Brown. Though Mrs. Bridges does
not have to prove receipt of her filing by the LDR, she does have to prove the
transmission of her fiIing. Ms. Bridges cannot merely rely on her self-serving
testimony and that of Ms. Brown in meeting her burden of proving an electronic
filing. She must prove the transmission of her state income tax return to either the
LDR or its acknowledged agent before the filing of her notice of candidacy. In order
to do so, all Mrs. Bridges had to do was submit corroborating proof of her said
electronic filing by objective documentation such as a transmittal email, an
electronic acknowledgement, receipt, or refund that reflected her state income tax
return had been transmitted prior to her qualiffing. That was not done. The
majority's failure to require such objective proof in this case opens Pandora's Box
such that anyone can simply sign an aflidavit that they filed electronically with their

tax preparer and that would be considered satisfactory proof of having timely done
so.
Mrs. Bridges has failed to meet her burden of proving that she timely
transmitted her electronic filing to either TaxWise or the LDR, prior to the filing of
her notice of candidacy. Because Mrs. Bridges failed to meet and satisfy her burden
of proof after that burden shifted to her to do so, her notice of candidacy is invalid,
and she must be disqualified as the trial court and the court of appeal have so
ruled. Consequently, I dissent from the majority and would affirm the lower courts'
rulings.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-C-00237
YASHA CLARK AND MORGAN WALKER
vs.
STEPHANIE BRIDGES AND DARREN LOMBARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS,
STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ROBERT KYLE ARDOIN, IN ms
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,
Parish of Orleans Civil
CRAIN, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
A candidate's false certification in a notice of candidacy regarding the filing
of federal and state income tax returns is a mandatory ground for disqualification.
See La. R.S. 18:492A(7). Finding defendant's certification accurate, the plurality
concludes she timely transmitted the return to "a third party acting as the
department's agent." See La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I, §491 l(B)(4). The record
does not establish this critical fact. At best, defendant proved her tax preparer
electronically delivered the return to a filing service, "TaxWise." Counsel for the
defendant concedes in her writ application that "the trial court record is completely
devoid of any testimony or evidence regarding whether Tax Wise is an
authorized/approved software or vendor." The plurality nevertheless infers that
Tax Wise is the department's agent because, at some undetermined point, a tax return
was delivered to the department. According to the plurality, an entity that "did
nothing more than shuttle the completed tax return from the tax preparer to the LDR"
must be "the department's agent." I cannot make that factual leap. At best, this may
establish that Tax Wise acted as an agent for the tax preparer.

While I agree with the primacy of legislation, what is interpreted here is an
administrative rule adopted by the executive, not legislative, branch. The references
by the plurality to statutory authority lend nothing in support of its conclusion. In
fact, they raise serious questions about the legislative power to delegate such
authority. I dissent.
2

SUPREME COURT OF LOTISIANA
No. 2023-C-00237
YASHA CLARK AND MORGAN WALKER
STEPHAT\IE BRIDGES AND DARREN LOMBARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEAI\S,
STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ROBERT KYLE ARDOIN,IN IIIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIAI\A SECRETARY OF STATE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans
Civil
McCallum, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.
I agree that the lower courts' judgments must be reversed. I write separately
to underscore that no change in law has occurred as a result of this decision and our
decision is not inconsistent with our recent decisions in Braggs v. Dickerson,22-
1227 (La. 8ll3l22),344 So.3d 63 and Russo v. Burns, 14-1963 (La. 9124/14), 147
So. 3d I I I l. My concern for the integrity of our system of elections is well
documented as seen by my dissent to the majority opinion in Deal v. Perkins,2022-
01212 (La. 8/1122),347 So. 3d (McCallum, J. dissenting.). However, this case does
not invoke questions concerning the integrity of the procedure for qualifring as a
candidate; concluding otherwise misses the mark.
At worst, this matter considers the efficacy of our electronic tax filing process,
and possibly some concerns that new technological means of submitting tax retums
may lead to inconsistent jurisprudential decrees. To that point, it must be noted that
both Braggs and Rzsso involved the submission of tax retums by mail, via the United
States Postal Service, whereas this matter involves electronically submitted tax
returns. In Russo, this Court hinged its opinion heavily on the fact that La. Admin.
Code tit.6l, Pt. I, S 4911 B (l) included the terms "delivery" and "delivered." The
Court found that proof of "delivery" or receipt of the mailed tax return was required
1
vs.

for a candidate to properly certiS their filing of state and federal income taxes.r
Russo and Braggs are still good law.
As in Russo, we apply the appropriate, but different, provision of the
Louisiana Administrative Code. That provision, La. Admin. Code tit. 61, pt. I, $
4911 B (4), provides:2
Electronically Filed. 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 (Emphasis added).
For reference and comparison, Russo relied on and considered the following
language inLa. Admin. Code tit.6l, pt. I, $ 49ll B (l):
Delivery by the United States Postal Service. A retum, report or other
document in a properly addressed envelope with sufficient postage
delivered by the United States Postal Service is deemed filed on the
date postmarked by the United States Postal Service.
The difference is undeniable. One provision specifies and uses the terms
"delivery" and "delivered;" the other does not.3 Furthermore, the electronic filing
provision allows for a method of transmission and filing that does not involve the
Department itself. A taxpayer may be deemed to have filed his or her retum by
simply transmitting the return to an approved third parfy agent of the Department.
The record before us reflects the candidate in question, Stephanie Bridges,
I Braggs relied solely on Rarsso as authority for disqualifying the candidate.
2 As noted by Chief Justice Weimer, La. R.S. 47:l5l I authorizes the secretary to prescribe such
rules and regulations.
3 Additionally, in looking to the other provisions of La. Admin. Code tit. 61, pt. I, $ 491I B, one
can see the use of the terms "delivery" and "delivered" have been specific and intentional.
Provision B (2) provides, "Delivery by Courier. A return, report or other document delivered by
courier is deemed filed on the date it is delivered to the department's headquarters or a regional
office." Provision B (3) provides, "Delivery by the Taxpayer. A return, report or other document
delivered by the taxpayer or a representative of the taxpayer is deemed filed on the date it is
delivered to the department's headquarters or a regional office." These provisions are clear;
"delivery" and receipt of the tax return is required when one chooses that form of submitting a tax
return. Even more on point, Provision B (5), which does not include o'delivery" or "delivered,"
shows that when such terms are not used, the Department may still specify other terms mandating
actual receipt. Provision B (5) provides, "Electronic Payment as a Substitute. In the case where a
taxpayer is allowed to and has elected to have an electronic payment represent his return, the retum
shall be considered filed on the date the transmitted funds are posted to the state of Louisiana's
bank account." (Emphasis added). In the provision at hand, not only are the terms "delivery" and
"delivered" absent, but no substitute or any other mandate of receipt is used in their absence.
2

transmitted her return to an approved agent and in fact had a letter confirming the
transmission at the time she certified that she had filed her state and federal income
taxes for the past five years. She thereby rebutted the petitioners' prima facie case.
This case is decided not by any change in jurisprudential law, but by the mere
reading of the applicable provisions of the Louisiana Administrative Code. If
anything, this case affirms the prior jurisprudence and reasoning in Braggs and
Russo. This Court simply reads the applicable administrative code, as promulgated,
and applies its plain language; a very civilian approach.
3

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2023-C-00237
YASHA CLARK AND MORGAN WALKER
STEPHANIE BRIDGES AND DARREN LOMBARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEAi\S,
STATE OF LOUISIANA AND ROBERT KYLE ARDOIN,IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LOUISIAIIA SECRETARY OF STATE
On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit,
Parish of Orleans Civil
GRIFFIN, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.
Testimonial evidence of a professional tax preparer may be used to meet the
evidentiary burden that a candidate had the requisite knowledge of the transmission
of their tax returns under La. Admin Code. tit. 61, pt. I, $ 491 l(BX4). The testimony
of Ms. Bridges' tax preparer, Gina Brown, established the 2021 tax return was
transmitted to TaxWise on the morning of January 25,2023, prior to Ms. Bridges'
completion of herNotice of Candidacy form.
Although distinguishable, I maintain my position that Braggs v. Dickerson,
22-1227 (La.8/13122),344 So.3d 63, was wrongly decided and that the same
evidentiary standard articulated above should apply to ta< retums submitted by mail.
There is no requirement in La. Admin. Code tit. 61, pt. I, $ 4911(BXl) that a
candidate mail their tax returns via certified mail.
vs.