re: AG threatens 8 New Orleans leaders with removal from office in court clerk battle

quote:

---

There is no new office.

---

Ok. No new office was created. The legislature just changed the name and responsibilities of the office.

quote:

---

I’ve already acknowledged the legislature likely possessed the constitutional authority to abolish the office.

My argument is narrower than the one you keep attributing to me.

I’m questioning the democratic legitimacy of abolishing an elected office after voters had already selected someone for it but before he could assume office, thereby rendering that election outcome politically meaningless.

You appear to believe that if the legislature possesses the technical authority to do that, then no legitimate democratic concern exists.

---

I think your argument has merit.

Presumably the election in Orleans Parish was authorized by the State. It was not some rogue local election, the authority to hold the election came from the State, in fact - I imagine the State required it. But I could be wrong on that, and it would change how I am thinking.

Such an election is held to choose someone who will do certain duties entrusted to the office ultimately by the State.
Election is held and a winner is determined. But the State then says we are taking those duties away from the person elected and giving them to another person not elected to perform those duties via abolishing the position itself.
There is something wrong with that. I would argue that the due process rights of the voters and the candidate elected were violated. I understand that the State has the power to abolish the office. But you cannot hold an election under your power and then when the results come in essentially ignore the election.

plenary power is still subject to constitutional limits.

Legislatures have plenary power to determine how presidential electors are chosen. But if a legislature chooses an election to determine how electors are chosen there are constitutional protections that have to be followed.

If the legislature doesn't like the result of the vote, plenary power doesn't give the legislature the ability to change their method AFTER the voters have voted.

quote:

---

It looks like we all agree that she was not elected to the office she currently holds.

---

It's the same office.

quote:

---

It's the same office.

---

Same office, different name and different duties.

quote:

---

If the legislature doesn't like the result of the vote, plenary power doesn't give the legislature the ability to change their method AFTER the voters have voted.

---

Jim, is this an opinion, or can you cite the appropriate law that says this?
Because as you've stated it, an election invalidates the state's power to modify how it operates. That seems to me to be a little far fetched.

"Sorry, State Legislature, you can't change X now, we've already held an election."

quote:

---

I’m questioning the democratic legitimacy of abolishing an elected office after voters had already selected someone for it but before he could assume office, thereby rendering that election outcome politically meaningless.

---

This is my assumption, as well.

quote:

---

Such an election is held to choose someone who will do certain duties entrusted to the office ultimately by the State.

Election is held and a winner is determined. But the State then says we are taking those duties away from the person elected and giving them to another person not elected to perform those duties via abolishing the position itself.
There is something wrong with that. I would argue that the due process rights of the voters and the candidate elected were violated. I understand that the State has the power to abolish the office. But you cannot hold an election under your power and then when the results come in essentially ignore the election.

---

I could hug you right now.

Again, semantics.

Explain then what a CIVIL CoC does that a CRIMINAL CoC does not, or vice versa, while executing the performance of their duties. They're the same job, no?

quote:

---

No - I am not going to cite any law or brief the issue

---

Sorry that you feel that way. Unfortunately, it undermines your position as emotional rather than based in merit. You do you, I guess.

quote:

---

Regardless, the optics are horrible - it looks like banana-republic level shite you see in Africa and Central America

---

Are you new to New Orleans politics, Bud? If you think the consolidation of two offices is bad, have I got some headlines out of NOLA that'll make you choke on your Chai tea!

quote:

---

It undermines my position that I am not going to do legal work for free on a message board? That is odd.

---

Holy crap, you're one of those.

You come onto a message board, and refuse to have a conversation. You're BRILLIANT. Just brilliant.

I really tried to honestly debate this with you, and you pull THAT beauty.