re: Judge stops just-passed law doing away with the Orleans Criminal Clerk of Court position

Muh screaming broad!

No. In a weird twist of fate, the bureaucrats who initially sponsored my position really like me. I’ve secured order funding sources for my position since then anyway though. But being so entrenched in state and local politics sucks. It’s very discouraging. I’m considering transitioning out soon

Most likely the same people who are currently teaching them inside the prisons they are housed in.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Okay, I had to look it up but the office of clerk of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans was created in 1975 (when the 1974 Constitution became effective) when the legislature adopted R.S. 13:1371.2. This is the same law that the legislature just repealed.

---

It was established in the 1879 constitution. The 1975 constitution continued the existence of the previously established office.

---

Red Stick Rambler, I appreciate the thoughtful discourse but I think it’s suspect that you won’t concede this point.

quote:

---

Red Stick Rambler, I appreciate the thoughtful discourse but I think it’s suspect that you won’t concede this point.

---

Won’t concede what point? Do you mean my disagreement with your position that it was “explicitly unconstitutional” for the legislature to abolish the office of criminal clerk in Orleans?

With all due respect, your whole argument is based on a simple slight of hand; you keep insisting the that criminal clerk position was “continued” in the 1974 Constituion as if that’s all it says. But it’s not, you willfully ignore the fact that it was expressly “ continued, subject to change by law”

quote:

---

Won’t concede what point? Do you mean my disagreement with your position that it w

---

That the office of OP Criminal Clerk of Court was established by the 1879 state constitution.

quote:

---

But it’s not, you willfully ignore the fact that it was expressly “ continued, subject to change by law”

---

I acknowledged the legislature positioned itself for a power grab at its discretion.

quote:

---

That the office of OP Criminal Clerk of Court was established by the 1879 state constitution.

---

I never denied that. But the 1879 Constitution was repealed a long time ago and there have been two or three Constitutiins since then. In other words, so what?

quote:

---

acknowledged the legislature positioned itself for a power grab at its discretion.

---

Then how is this “explicitly unconstitutional” and why does it justify federal court intervention in state affairs…. Which is where you started.

quote:

---

and why does it justify federal court intervention in state affairs

---

The state is intervening in a local election here. Don’t clutch your pearls at the federal gov involving itself in this while kowtowing to a group of people 50 years ago who left themselves wiggle room to potentially change something someday.

quote:

---

local election

---

New Orleans doesn’t have a functioning government. Who cares.

I’ll admit that I came on too strong early in the thread. I care a lot about the broader implications of this issue, and I do admire the measured engagement from posters like RSR.
I suspect some of my more substantive points got lost in my hyperbole and enthusiasm, so I want to restate them more clearly in hopes of eliciting more thoughtful engagement:

I think historical context matters and lends legitimacy to preserving the separate offices.

The logical consequence of eliminating judgeships is prolonged pretrial detention and increased court backlogs, both of which are costly and undermine the stated “efficiency” rationale for eliminating those judgeships.

Likewise, although the Clerk of Criminal Court is being merged with the Civil Clerk position, no other major aspects of the courts or their resources are meaningfully consolidating, which weakens the broader “efficiency” justification for merging the positions.

Additionally, we just elected a person to this office. Holding an election and then immediately restructuring the office in a way that prevents the elected official from assuming that office may be technically permissible, but it understandably strikes many people as politically cynical.

Ultimately, my concern is that the state used broad discretionary authority contained in decades-old constitutional language to override a legitimate local electoral outcome and diminish local democratic governance.