1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Orleans asks Supreme Court to reject removal of Calvin Duncan’s seat as Orleans Clerk
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:18 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:18 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
This is a question of should a state government have the ability to nullify certified election results (of an election the State oversaw) depending on the outcome?
Per our state constitution, they can eliminate that office as they see fit. If you contend it was because they didn’t like the outcome, I don’t really see how it makes a difference, but the burden is on you to prove it.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:21 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
When the latest Constitution was adopted 50+ years ago, it contained a provision allowing for the separate offices in Orleans Parish to be altered by state legislation.
And this is the beginning and end of the conversation. The leglislature may well have been petty, they may well have been bullied by Landry, but the state constitution very clearly places this decision in their hands.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:22 pm to Godfather1
The office was abolished after the election, rendering the election obsolete. The state certified election results, then nullified the election results it certified in the name of "efficiency."
Just because the State found a legal loophole to do this does not mean that the State acted appropriately.
Just because the State found a legal loophole to do this does not mean that the State acted appropriately.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:25 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The office was abolished after the election, rendering the election obsolete. The state certified election results, then nullified the election results it certified in the name of "efficiency."
Just because the State found a legal loophole to do this does not mean that the State acted appropriately.
Again, explained to you in the other thread.
quote:
To get to that answer, I'll need to catch you up on the recent history leading up to this point.
Back near the end of the 19th Century (1879, to be exact) Orleans parish decided to split their Clerk of Court office into two separate offices: Criminal Clerk of Court and Civil Clerk of Court. Under the state constitution each parish must have a Clerk of Court, but because Orleans was by far the most populous area of the state the extra office (and employees) was grandfathered in.
Since that time, Orleans parish has fallen to be the 3rd most populated parish and is continuing to lose population. Along with that, no other parish in the state has had two Clerk positions except for Orleans.
Flash forward to the 2025 legislative session where Act 15 was passed, it was then signed into law in August 2025 (with some provisions not taking place until January 2026). The Act dissolved the Criminal position and folded all the offices under it to what was formerly the Civil Clerk (now the only Clerk position for the parish).
Calvin Duncan was elected to the Criminal Clerk of Court position in November 2025.
The Act was enforced by AG Murrill, dissolving the position. Then Moreno and the City Council attempted to appoint Duncan into the position even though it legally didn't exist any longer.
Murrill sent Morena, the DA and members of the City Council a letter warning that if they continued to try to do this they could face legal penalties, including removal from office (this is akin to a state trooper warning you that if you continue to speed, you're going to get a ticket). The DA and some "special prosecutor" (still murky on that one) empaneled a grand jury to charge Murrill on 16 felony counts, including public intimidation and malfeasance (yes, that's how they viewed the letter). The indictments went out right at the beginning of the 4th of July weekend. The state supreme court quickly jumped in and stayed the indictments.
A New Orleans judge then used the indictments as grounds to issue an arrest warrant for Murrill during the July 4th weekend. The state supreme court then jumped in again and stayed the warrant.
Oh yeah, and Duncan is black so some of the pro-Criminal Clerk folks are crying "racism" because they're desperate to prove the city/parish has primacy over the state.
And now you're caught up.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:25 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
Can someone explain this situation like I’m 5
In every Parish except for New Orleans, there is a single “clerk of court” for said Parish. This is an elected position. However, New Orleans had a unique system where its civil court and criminal court was entirely separate with two distinct elected clerks of court to run them.
The state legislature decided to, by a legislative act, consolidate the two positions into one. However, between passing the law and the law going into effect, there were elections for the clerks of court. Because it was already known that the criminal clerk of court position was scheduled to be eliminated, almost no one bothered to run for it. However, one man, Calvin Duncan, did and won the election with over 60% of the votes cast.
When the law went into effect and consolidated the courts under one clerk, the governor appointed the winner of the civil clerk election to be the “new” clerk over all the courts. The criminal court clerk sued, claiming institutional racism and state level corruption. Meanwhile, the sitting Civil Clerk of court (a black woman) has not faced an election since 2018 (and has won unopposed in every election since).
Calvin has repeatedly lost in court as the legislature clearly has the power to both create and eliminate his position. With that said, personally, I think the most just outcome would be for Calvin Duncan and the civil clerk Chelsey Napoleon to have to run against her in a special election to decide who gets the top job. However, per the state constitution and the laws already passed, this step would be unnecessary.
This post was edited on 10/5/26 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:27 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Just because the State found a legal loophole to do this does not mean that the State acted appropriately.
And just because you think they acted inappropriately, it doesn’t mean they acted illegally.
You call it a “legal loophole”. I call it our state constitution.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:31 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Per the Louisiana Constitution adopted 150 years ago, Orleans Parish has a separate criminal and civil clerk of court. They WERE two separate office with separate officials occupying them.
Fixed it for you!
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:33 pm to kingbob
quote:
I think the most just outcome would be for Calvin Duncan and the civil clerk Chelsey Napoleon to have to run against her in a special election to decide who gets the top job.
I guess they could also restore Duncan to the position until the expiration of the term, then just say ‘that’s it, no more’. Position’s eliminated.
But if the courts keep saying the state doesn’t have to, I fail to see the point. The people of Orleans Parish are not being irreparably harmed.
This post was edited on 10/5/26 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:35 pm to BugAC
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:35 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Just because the State found a legal loophole
The state constitution verbiage is in no sense of the term a "legal loophole". It's the constitution. A "legal loophole" would be if the verbiage in our constitution did not explicitly state the power of the state legislature, and the Governor used a city law or ordinance to assert it's power, and not the constitution.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 2:59 pm to kingbob
quote:The most just and logical action would be for the law to take effect after the term of the democratically elected official. Then there could be an election for the consolidated office.
I think the most just outcome would be for Calvin Duncan and the civil clerk Chelsey Napoleon to have to run against her in a special election to decide who gets the top job.
This post was edited on 10/5/26 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:04 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Orleans Parish is challenging this egregious abuse of power
It's own egregious abuse of power? You know, since it was the only system in the country that had separate clerks?
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:05 pm to BugAC
That explanation is factually incorrect.
That is false. The official Louisiana Legislature records identify SB 256 as a bill from the 2026 Regular Session. It became Act 15 when Gov. Landry signed it on April 30, 2026, with an effective date of April 30.
quote:
Flash forward to the 2025 legislative session where Act 15 was passed, it was then signed into law in August 2025 (with some provisions not taking place until January 2026). The Act dissolved the Criminal position and folded all the offices under it to what was formerly the Civil Clerk (now the only Clerk position for the parish).
That is false. The official Louisiana Legislature records identify SB 256 as a bill from the 2026 Regular Session. It became Act 15 when Gov. Landry signed it on April 30, 2026, with an effective date of April 30.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:05 pm to 4cubbies
You choose not to read the fricking State Constitution.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:08 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
deprives Orleans Parish voters of their rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.
What makes Orleans Parish voter’s rights superior to State voter’s rights?
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:14 pm to 4cubbies
Interesting. I had never heard of this fellow so I did a brief deep dive this afternoon. I was at LSU when the murder happened and his trial and usually bought the T-P at the Union (man, I miss that place on gameday) but just don't recall it.
What am I missing? Duncan sounds like a remarkable fellow. While he and and I are probably at odds on political and social events I admire his tenacity. Why would anyone want to take action to remove him from an elected office?
What am I missing? Duncan sounds like a remarkable fellow. While he and and I are probably at odds on political and social events I admire his tenacity. Why would anyone want to take action to remove him from an elected office?
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:24 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The office was abolished after the election
You dumb frick
It would always be abolished after some election. In 100 years, 12 years, yesterday...
There would always be an election preceding a legislative change to the office. That doesn't nullify the legislature's ability to make the change.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:32 pm to I-59 Tiger
quote:
Why would anyone want to take action to remove him from an elected office?
He is not the subject here. The office is no more. People that are injecting Duncan in here are using it to craft the typcial left "muh racism" narrative, which is hilarious considering the other clerk who's office this was merged with is a black woman. As stated earlier, NOLA was warned that the office was being resolved. New Orleans went ahead anyway and held an election. Then AG said, "if you continue with this, there could be consequences". Then the left does what it does and tried to indict the AG. That backfired spectacularly and you have cubbies still here pretending this is some great injustice to the city of New Orleans when it's a relatively straight forward and simple matter.
This post was edited on 10/5/26 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:34 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
This is a question of should a state government have the ability to nullify certified election results (of an election the State oversaw) depending on the outcome?
Not it isn't.
It's a question of whether the State government has the authority to do what it did. It doesn't matter what "should" happen. It sure as hell doesn't matter what you or New Orleans thinks "should" happen.
Certainly, you understand this when you look at the subject, right?
You don't really think the LASC is going to ask itself what the state should have the ability to do, right?
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:36 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Just because the State found a legal loophole
Legislation is what you consider a legal loophole?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News