Yasha Clark & 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

YASHA CLARK & MORGAN * NO. 2023-CA-0093
WALKER
* COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
STEPHANIE BRIDGES AND
DARREN LOMBARD, IN HIS * STATE OF LOUISIANA
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

TGC
CHASE, J., CONCURS AND ASSIGNS REASONS

I concur with the majority opinion, finding our Supreme Court’s opinion in

Braggs v. Dickerson, 22-1227 (La. 8/13/22), 344 So.3d 63 is binding on this Court.

However, I write separately to point out a need for clarification for future cases as

we are in a time where technology is ever changing.

The trial court found that Mrs. Bridges was truthful in her belief that she had

filed her federal and state income taxes as evidenced by the letter from her tax

preparer of fifteen (15) years. However, subjective belief is not enough. See

Braggs and Russo v. Burns, 2014-1963 p. 4 (La. 9/24/14), 147 So.3d 1111. As

pointed out by the majority, the testimony of Ms. Toller of LDR established that

the Bridges’ Louisiana tax return had not been received on January 25, 2023, the

date Mrs. Bridges qualified for office. Thus, the trial court was correct in finding

that plaintiffs had in fact established a prima facie case. “The party on which the

burden of proof rests must establish a prima facie case. If that party fails to carry

his burden of proof, the opposing party is not required to present any

countervailing evidence.” Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758, p.8 (La. 3/24/05), 899

So.2d 535, 542.

Several fundamental principles have been repeatedly espoused by our

Supreme Court and courts across Louisiana. “Election laws must be interpreted to

give the electorate the widest possible choice of candidates, a person objecting to

candidacy bears the burden of proving that the candidate is disqualified.” Landiak,

2005-0758, pp. 6-7, 899 So.2d at 541; See Becker v. Dean, 2003–2493, p. 7 (La.

9/18/03), 854 So.2d 864, 869; Russell v. Goldsby, 2000–2595, p. 4 (La. 9/22/00),

780 So.2d 1048, 1051; Dixon v. Hughes, 587 So.2d 679, 680 (La. 1991); Messer v.

London, 438 So.2d 546 (La. 1983). Further, a court determining whether the

person objecting to candidacy has carried his burden of proof must liberally

construe the laws governing the conduct of elections “so as to promote rather than

defeat candidacy.” Becker, 2003–2493, p. 7, 854 So.2d at 869; Russell, 2000–2595,

p. 4, 780 So.2d at 1051; Dixon, 587 So.2d at 680. Any doubt concerning the

qualifications of a candidate should be resolved in favor of allowing the candidate

to run for public office. Becker, 2003-2493, p. 7, 854 So.2d at 869; Landiak, 2005-

0758, pp.6-7, 899 So.2d at 541.

La. Admin. Code, as cited to by the majority, states that “a return is deemed

filed on the date transmitted to the department or to a third party acting as the

department’s agent.” Mrs. Bridges was advised, and it is documented, that her

federal and state returns were electronically filed by her tax preparer. She believed

that the returns were electronically filed. Unfortunately, the returns were not

actually transmitted to LDR on January 25, 2023 as advised by the tax preparer.

This gap in transmittal time has resulted in a candidate being eliminated from a

race. I believe that our laws must be interpreted to remain current with our ever

changing technology.

2