On Monday, September 19th, the Baton Rouge Advocate posted an article about the latest development in the legal challenge to Plan 22, the map adopted by the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board on May 5th.
You may recall that I am one of four plaintiffs in that legal challenge, Singleton, et al vs. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, et al. The suit asks the court to rule Plan 22 null and void due to its violation of a state statute that prohibits the use of split precincts and to require the School Board to consider the only other map nominated in its final proceedings, the Ware-Collins 11.
For more background information on the suit, please see previous posts.1
In June, the state court issued a judgment in the suit. The School Board appealed the court’s judgment. On Friday, September 16th the First Circuit Court of Appeal issued its decision on the School Board’s appeal.
The Advocate article covering the First Circuit’s decision was posted online on September 19th and then published in the print edition on Tuesday, September 20th. The online article is entitled, “East Baton Rouge Parish School Board wins election map case on appeal, but case may now go to trial.”2 The same article appears in the print edition beneath the headline, “Appeals judges rule election map valid.”
What they say about books and their covers can also be said about newspaper articles and their headlines, so I’d like to take a moment to clear up some confusion the articles’ titles (and lede) create.
Both Advocate article headlines are misleading. The title of the online article declares “East Baton Rouge Parish School Board wins the election map case on appeal.” However, the School Board did not win the case. The School Board won the appeal. It may seem a subtle difference, but it’s actually quite significant.
The School Board appealed the state court’s ruling which contained several parts. One part was a temporary injunction of Plan 22 (effectively prohibiting its use in the fall election). The appeals court determined that based on the evidence provided, the state court erred in its decision to grant that temporary injunction. (This part of the First Circuit’s decision is effectively meaningless, though, since the Fall election is underway and Plan 22 will not be reinstated.)
The appeals court did side with the School Board and reverse the state court’s permanent injunction of Plan 22 and its order that the School Board adopt a legally compliant map. However, the effect of those reversals may be temporary since the appeals court also upheld the state court’s denial of the School Board’s “peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action.”
What the hell is a “peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action”? For a full explanation, read the excerpt from the First Circuit’s decision below.3 My oversimplified explanation follows. (Remember I am not an attorney.)
By asserting a “peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action,” the School Board essentially argued that we the plaintiffs are not “legally entitled to the relief sought.” I assume this is the equivalent of asking the court to dismiss the case for lack of legal grounds. The appeals court sided with the state court not the School Board on that point.
Here’s an excerpt from the First Circuit’s decision:
“In reviewing these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, with every doubt resolved in the plaintiffs’ favor, and accepting all allegations as true, we find that the plaintiffs’ petition states a valid cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Sheffler, 950 So.2d at 647. We are not required to determine whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail at a trial on the merits of their request for declaratory or permanent injunctive relief. See Louisiana Public Service Comm’n, 117 So.3d at 537. Thus, the trial court properly denied the School Board’s peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action.” [Emphasis added]
The appeals court affirmed the state court’s denial of the School Board’s objection. That’s not to say we, the plaintiffs, won the case. It simply means that we have the right for our case to proceed to a hearing in the state court. In other words, the election map case has not been decided yet, so it is misleading to declare “East Baton Rouge School Board wins election map case on appeal” as the Advocate does in its September 19th headline. Nor is it accurate to declare “Appeals judges rule the election map valid,” as the Advocate does in its September 20th headline.
What is accurate?
The School Board has not won the election map case.
Neither have the plaintiffs.
The appeals court’s decision allows the suit to be heard in state court.
Please continue to follow this issue.
Please do not rely on the Advocate for all of your information.
For more background information on the suit, please refer to the previous posts:
“Re: La R.S. 17.71.3(E)(1)” (May 30, 2022)
“So, Where Were We?” (July 11, 2022)
Nyman, Tania. “Re: La R.S. 17.71.3(E)(1)” 30 May 2022.
Nyman, Tania. “So, Where Were We?” 11 July 2022.
Lussier, Charles. “East Baton Rouge Parish School Board wins the election map case on appeal,” The Advocate (Baton Rouge), 19 Sept. 2022. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/article_ebb51938-3836-11ed-af07-43761d1a0875.html
From the First Circuit’s decision, p. 12: “As used in the context of the peremptory exception, a ‘cause of action’ refers to the operative facts which give rise to the plaintiff’s right to judicially assert the action against the defendant. Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP, 2006-1774 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So.2d 641, 646. The purpose of the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition. Scheffler, 950 So.2d at 646. The purpose of the exception of no cause of action is not to determine whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail at trial, but to only ascertain if a cause of action exists.”