0
- 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 10/6/26 at 4:34 pm to 4cubbies
Posted on 10/6/26 at 4:34 pm to 4cubbies
quote:they abolish appeals courts?
Elections are such trivial matters. Maybe you would think the claim had merit if we framed this as a STOLEN ELECTION?
Posted on 10/6/26 at 4:40 pm to Red Stick Rambler
quote:
what I haven't seen is ANY explanation of why abolishing this position before Duncan assumed office was illegal.
The argument is that the right to vote protected by the Fourteenth Amendment isn't merely the right to cast a ballot. The vote has to be given meaningful effect.
The State held the election, certified the result, and then passed a law abolishing the office before the person voters elected could assume it. The argument is that nullifying the practical effect of those votes implicates Due Process and Equal Protection.
The Louisiana Supreme Court majority rejected that argument. Multiple justices dissented on essentially those grounds. Now the City is asking SCOTUS to decide whether the majority got the federal constitutional question wrong.
Posted on 10/6/26 at 4:45 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I’m disappointed that a few posters who I view as reasonable are feigning ignorance of the obvious democratic governance issue here.
Agree
Posted on 10/6/26 at 5:02 pm to 4cubbies
I am all about smaller government, but you are right. The state has nullified a certified election. That is a slippery slope. He should be allowed to serve his term, then the position should be abolished.
This seems targeted against Mr. Duncan. Some people must not have wanted him to have access to records in the Orleans Parish Criminal Clerk's office. I wonder why?!?
This seems targeted against Mr. Duncan. Some people must not have wanted him to have access to records in the Orleans Parish Criminal Clerk's office. I wonder why?!?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 11:34 am to 4cubbies
quote:
The argument is that the right to vote protected by the Fourteenth Amendment isn't merely the right to cast a ballot. The vote has to be given meaningful effect.
The State held the election, certified the result, and then passed a law abolishing the office before the person voters elected could assume it. The argument is that nullifying the practical effect of those votes implicates Due Process and Equal Protection.
The Louisiana Supreme Court majority rejected that argument. Multiple justices dissented on essentially those grounds. Now the City is asking SCOTUS to decide whether the majority got the federal constitutional question wrong.
I appreciate the clarification - I don't agree with the premise, but at least it's more than "this isn't fair," which is all I've heard until now.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:23 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The argument is that the right to vote protected by the Fourteenth Amendment isn't merely the right to cast a ballot. The vote has to be given meaningful effect.
The State held the election, certified the result, and then passed a law abolishing the office before the person voters elected could assume it. The argument is that nullifying the practical effect of those votes implicates Due Process and Equal Protection.
The Louisiana Supreme Court majority rejected that argument. Multiple justices dissented on essentially those grounds. Now the City is asking SCOTUS to decide whether the majority got the federal constitutional question wrong.
the state, whom created the elected position, also eliminated the elected position. doesent matter at all if it happened between the election and taking office or if mid office, or if before an election. position no longer exists. so no position for the "election" official to assume office.
Posted on 10/7/26 at 12:27 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
doesent matter at all if it happened between the election and taking office or if mid office, or if before an election. position no longer exists.
That’s the issue. If the outcome of elections don’t matter, why does voting matter?
Posted on 10/7/26 at 3:02 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Just because the State found a legal loophole to do this does not mean that the State acted appropriately.
The Louisiana Constitution gives the legislature the authority to do so. That is not a “loophole”
Posted on 10/7/26 at 4:01 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
That’s the issue. If the outcome of elections don’t matter, why does voting matter?
It did matter. However... the office the elected person.. who's election mattered... is not a thing anymore. An elimination of redundancy.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 11:38 am to CleverUserName
quote:
It did matter. However... the office the elected person.. who's election mattered... is not a thing anymore. An elimination of redundancy.
Eliminating the office before the elected holder of the office can take his office renders the outcome of the election irrelevant. I ask again, if the outcome of the election is only upheld if the governor likes the winner, why does voting matter? You can’t say voting matters because he allowed voters to elect to wrong candidate before abolishing the office. The outcome of the election was nullified by the governor.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 11:47 am to 4cubbies
quote:
4cubbies
Are you still crying about this??
The facts were laid out plenty (no 4chubby pun intended) in this thread in an exhaustive manner.
You are on a loop argument.
It is time for you to be quiet and await the outcome of the Supreme Court disposition on this matter like everyone else is doing except your buddy-group you brought here to repeat everything ten times.
Go make a homeless person a sammich and ride your bike to them and deliver door-dash style. He may need a hummer too.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 11:57 am to Godfather1
quote:
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.
Correct.
Even if they were being petty, they were fully within their rights to merge the offices.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 12:15 pm to 4cubbies
The Equal Protection Argument suffers from the fact that all voters outside of Orleans Parish have on clerk an only Orleans Parish voters get to vote for two.
For Orleans Parish to win it needs to show animus, and that has to go beyond mere political animus. I don't know the facts, but if the Legislature was not even considering abolishing the position until Duncan won then that might go to something beyond mere political animus, something singling out Orleans Parish voters precisely because of who they voted for.
And the biggest problem with the Due Process Claim has already been mentioned: every time the State exercises its proper authority in this regard it is going to remove an elected official from his/her elected role.
For Orleans Parish to win it needs to show animus, and that has to go beyond mere political animus. I don't know the facts, but if the Legislature was not even considering abolishing the position until Duncan won then that might go to something beyond mere political animus, something singling out Orleans Parish voters precisely because of who they voted for.
And the biggest problem with the Due Process Claim has already been mentioned: every time the State exercises its proper authority in this regard it is going to remove an elected official from his/her elected role.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 1:38 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The Equal Protection Argument suffers from the fact that all voters outside of Orleans Parish have on clerk an only Orleans Parish voters get to vote for two.
The Equal Protections violation isn’t contingent on or related to the number of clerks in OP. Orleans parish voters were singled out and disenfranchised for all practical purposes. Have voters in the other 63 parishes faced similar treatment?
quote:I respectfully disagree. Although it is apparent there is an abundance of animus, that’s isn’t necessary for an action to violate the Constitution.
For Orleans Parish to win it needs to show animus,
Posted on 10/10/26 at 3:00 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The Equal Protections violation isn’t contingent on or related to the number of clerks in OP. Orleans parish voters were singled out and disenfranchised for all practical purposes. Have voters in the other 63 parishes faced similar treatment?
To say that Orleans Parish voters were singled out can mean different things. That is my point. It is a compelling argument on an equal protection front to say that the "singling out" was to finally treat them equal to every other parish in the State. What is your counter to that?
quote:
Although it is apparent there is an abundance of animus, that’s isn’t necessary for an action to violate the Constitution.
True, it is not required, but in this instance given that the State action actually made Orleans Parish voters equal to all other voters in the State strikes me as a very weak argument. What would strengthen it is if there was evidence of actual (non-political) animus. I do not see a way to possibly win an equal protection claim in this instance without such evidence.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 3:15 pm to JimEverett
quote:
is a compelling argument on an equal protection front to say that the "singling out" was to finally treat them equal to every other parish in the State. What is your counter to that?
Voters weren’t treated like voters everywhere else. Where else has the governor launched a campaign to nullify the effects of an election immediately after the election?
The legislature could have abolished the office starting at the end of the office holder’s term. That would have made too much sense for Landry and his lackeys though.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 3:19 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
The legislature could have abolished the office starting at the end of the office holder’s term.
Why?
Didn’t the state inform New Orleans that this was going to happen before the election happened.
It seems as though New Orleans chose poorly. New Orleans is simply wasting more taxpayer money. Go figure.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 3:25 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
we don't like the choice Orleans Parish voters made
Orleans Parish is run by people with the minds of 5 year old children.
Posted on 10/10/26 at 3:46 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Why?
Why didn’t they abolish the office any time in the last 150 years? Why wait until immediately after voters elect a critic of Landry?
Posted on 10/10/26 at 3:47 pm to jimmy the leg
quote:
Didn’t the state inform New Orleans that this was going to happen before the election happened.
No. Do you have a source for this?
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News