Judicial suit raises concerns

School roundup set for tomorrow in Terrebonne
March 3, 2016
Todd Champagne
March 9, 2016
School roundup set for tomorrow in Terrebonne
March 3, 2016
Todd Champagne
March 9, 2016

Terrebonne Parish President Gordon Dove says his desire for the parish to enter an on-going federal voting rights case that challenges how local judges are elected is a simple matter of finding a way to enter the discussion.


But examinations of court records and interviews with attorneys and local officials suggest that last week’s filing of Dove’s request to intervene in the case – done on behalf of the parish but without the consent or input of council members – could result in taxpayers being led down an expensive legal path, including partial liability to the plaintiffs for their attorney fees.

At a Parish Council meeting scheduled for tonight, council members and some members of the public plan to ask why the council was not consulted.

A March 2017 trial date has been set by U.S. District Court Judge J. James Brady in the matter of Terrebonne Parish NAACP et al vs. Jindal. The local NAACP branch and its


Dove argues judicial districts can’t be split

co-plaintiffs allege that because Terrebonne Parish elects all five of its judges on an at-large basis, black votes are diluted in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The suit, if successful, would block the state from holding further Terrebonne judicial elections until a remedy could be fashioned.

‘SEAT AT THE TABLE’


An at-large vote in this case means the judges for all five of the parish’s court divisions are elected by all of the people in the parish.

“We are intervening to get a seat at the table,” Dove said, when asked why the parish was being brought into a suit in which it was not named as a defendant. “We are concerned about it, and we don’t know what is going to happen.”

One of the remedies outlined in the claim would be a splitting of the judiciary into five separate districts, with one or more having a hefty minority population.


“We cannot split our five judges,” said Dove, whose filing includes details of the cost the parish bears for the court system. “We cannot have the future of our judicial system decided in a court of law.”

In 2011, when Dove was a state lawmaker, a bill crafted by former state Rep. Damon Baldone offered a legislative solution to the problem, the creation of one, possibly two, minority sub-districts. The legislation failed in the House, partially due to a split delegation, with Dove presenting strenuous objection.

If Judge Brady finds that the current system of choosing judges in Terrebonne violates Section 2, the governor would likely have to recommend, or possibly appoint a panel to recommend, a specific legislative solution.


Attorneys for the NAACP say they are opposing the parish’s motion to become a part of the suit, filed at Dove’s request, because with the litigation so far along, the addition of a defendant-intervener could result in additional delays and costs. The case was filed in 2014.

Matthew Block, Gov. John Bel Edwards’ counsel, confirms the case is among many that Edwards’ staff is reviewing, to determine if it wishes to continue offering a defense. The case has not been singled out for review, he said.

VIOLATION ALLEGED


The request to be brought into the case has already been filed but a date for a hearing on the matter has not yet been set. Judge Brady will have to determine whether he will allow the intervention.

Jerome Boykin, president of the Terrebonne Parish Branch of the NAACP, questions the authority of Dove to unilaterally bring the parish into the fray without the approval of the Parish Council, believing he has overstepped his authority.

“I think it is a clear violation of the Home Rule Charter, to have the parish attorney file this frivolous motion without the approval of the parish council,” Boykin said. “We plan to seek action against everybody that is involved. I did not write the parish’s Home Rule Charter.”


Boykin had pointed out that the motion to intervene was brought by “The Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government through its President, Gordon E. Dove, in his official capacity.”

The Home Rule Charter contains no special authorization for the parish president to act as the parish’s agent for litigation purposes without council approval.

State law describes an “agent” as someone with the “procedural capacity to sue to enforce a right of his principal when specifically authorized to do so.”


The distinction is significant because a 2009 Attorney General’s opinion instructed the parish of St. Landry that its parish president – absent a specific authorization in their charter – could not act on his own to bring a lawsuit, unless an act of the council said he could.

The question of whether Dove overstepped his boundaries is an issue separate from the merits of the proposed intervention itself. But the boundary question is one reason former parish councilman Alvin Tillman plans to publicly question the decision.

While Dove may see his authority to make the commitment in federal court as an extension of a service that he is authorized to spend public money on, Tillman sees it as “a stretch.”


“Why is it that you want to utilize the parish funds for a matter that you have no jurisdiction over anyway?” Tillman said. “There is nothing you can do to get it done or not get it done. You can do that from the sidelines.”

Legal experts say that in a case such as this an intervener is a party who joins a lawsuit to participate alongside either a plaintiff or a defendant. Federal courts have maintained that a person or entity having an interest relating to the subject of the action can be admitted to cases when they might be harmed as a result of the on-going suit’s outcome.

DROPPING THE BALL?


A Washington, D.C., attorney who has extensively litigated Section 2 cases at the U.S. Department of Justice as well as for private clients, Christian Adams, is among recognized experts on the topic who say an intervention such as the one Dove seeks is not unusual.

“A plaintiff intervener might just have a new person not represented in the original complaint,” Adams said. “A defendant intervener might be getting involved because the defendant is dropping the ball.”

Usually, Adams said, there are no negative consequences for an entity with intervener status.


Legal costs can mount for entities involved in Voting Rights Act cases, according to the plaintiff attorneys.

The city of Yakima, Washington, confirmed for The Times last week that its defense of a Section 2 case has thus far cost in excess of $700,000. Charleston County, S.C. spent $2 million defending itself unsuccessfully against a Section 2 action. In Fayette County, Georgia, the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Education have spent more than $1.11 million on legal fees in a case that also involves at large voting brought under Section 2.

Some attorneys say that once a judge permits a party to intervene, it is difficult to get that same judge to let them bow out simply because expenses are mounting, without acquiescing to some form of settlement. Others, such as Adams, disagree, suggesting that it is a fairly easy process.


While opposing the intervention of the parish, Leah Aden says there will come a point in time for the local government to be involved in the discussions, once the existence of the violation has been agreed upon.

E-mail queries to Julius Hebert, the parish attorney, as well as to Dove and other administration officials, concerning the parish president’s authority to move ahead without council approval, did not receive a response.

‘I think it is a clear violation of the Home Rule Charter, to have the parish attorney file this frivilous motion without the approval of the parish council.’


Jerome Boykin

The Terrebonne NAACP’s suit against the governor and attorney general of Louisiana will likely be tried in March, unless it’s settled before then. The case alleges violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act. Now Terrebonne Parish is looking to enter the action, as a defendant intervenor.

FILEJudicial suit raises concerns


U.S. District Court Judge J. James Brady a Bill Clinton appointee, will decide whether to grant a request by the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, through Parish President Gordon Dove, for inclusion in the suit. Court papers filed by parish attorneys say the parish fears the cost of change that may come to the court system.

COURTESY