By Patrick Calhoun
Introduction
On October 12, 2019, voters from the southeast corner of East Baton Rouge Parish approved a proposal to incorporate the newest and most controversial city in Louisiana.[1] St. George, Louisiana, is the culmination of at least four failed attempts by area residents to, among other things, create their own school district separate from East Baton Rouge Parish.[2] Proponents for the creation of St. George saw incorporation as a tool to gain more control over their locality and government services and escape what some residents saw as a free rider problem: the St. George area accounted for two-thirds of East Baton Rouge Parish’s tax revenue but received only one-third of the services.[3] They were also inspired by other school-district-motivated incorporations like that of nearby Central, Louisiana, in 2005.[4] As facially innocuous as that motivation may seem, opponents saw the move to incorporate St. George as “white flight” that evolved into a flat-out resegregation of schools.[5] This blog post will discuss the Louisiana First Circuit’s and the Louisiana Supreme Court’s legal reasoning in Broome v. Rials, the case surrounding St. George’s controversial incorporation.[6]
As many Louisianians are probably aware, the Louisiana Supreme Court’s contentious 4–3 decision allowed St. George to incorporate.[7] What the future holds for the territory remaining in East Baton Rouge and for the newly incorporated City of St. George is uncertain. What is probable, however, is that the City’s transition will be watched closely—not just by the Capitol City locals— but by other suburban communities in the state and the country who feel increasingly alienated by local governments, which they feel are not representative of their values.[8] Since 2000, 128 communities have attempted to split from their school districts, and 73 have been successful.[9] The question remains as to whether those left behind will suffer disparately because of such an incorporation, and if so, what a reasonable solution is.
I. The History of East Baton Rouge Parish
In 1947, the City of Baton Rouge and East Baton Rouge Parish created a consolidated government that would serve both the residents within the City limits and the rural unincorporated residents of the remainder of the Parish.[10] At the outset, the consolidation stood to significantly benefit the Parish’s rural areas because it allowed more remote residents to use City services.[11] Much has changed since 1947, and the administrative efficiencies of consolidation placed the horse before the cart in the eyes of St. George residents, specifically as it related to schooling.[12] St. George is now the fifth-largest city in the State, hardly a distant rurality, and the residents of the area felt that they were no longer the beneficiaries of a consolidated government, but the benefactors.[13]
This desire for change spurred action in 2013 when the first legislative attempt to create a new school district in St. George passed the Louisiana House of Representatives but did not pass the two‑thirds majority required to receive state funding.[14] Legislators told the leaders of the new school-district efforts, Chris Rials and Norman Browning (“Incorporators”), that the ultimate failure to receive funding for a school district was because St. George was not incorporated as a city.[15] Figuring out how to use incorporation as a means to did not require the Incorporators to conduct a nationwide search for a playbook. Central, a recently incorporated city north of Baton Rouge, received legislative support for a school district only after it became a new city.[16]
Incorporating a new city was no small feat, especially when the effort garnered more and more pushback from residents of the remaining unincorporated East Baton Rouge Parish.[17] To incorporate, Louisiana law requires the signatures of 25% of the electorate of the proposed area of incorporation in support of the petition.[18] The law then requires the East Baton Rouge Parish Registrar to validate the petition’s accuracy, which is subsequently sent to the governor who calls a special election.[19] Finally—well, not always finally—the residents of the area to be incorporated vote to determine whether they will incorporate the new city.[20] The petition is then sent to the governor who authorizes its placement on a ballot for a special election.[21] A majority of votes for incorporation creates a new city, and the Governor then appoints an interim mayor and metro council to govern.[22]
In 2015, the Incorporators canvassed for signatures to place the petition on the ballot for a special election.[23] The petition did not meet the signature requirement by a mere 71 votes.[24] This defeat resulted from the Registrar of Voters invalidating many signatures, as well as significant counter‑canvassing by those opposing incorporation.[25] The state court, interestingly, dismissed the legal challenge to the Registrar of Voters’ decision concerning the insufficiency of signatures for the petition on the grounds that the Incorporators did not have the standing to sue.[26] The petition’s failure to make the ballot also meant that the Incorporators could not try again to incorporate for another two years.[27]
On March 2, 2018, predictably, St. George incorporators filed the fourth petition for incorporating the City of St. George.[28] The petition therefore needed 12,996 signatures to meet the 25% minimum, and ultimately 14,585 people signed it.[29] On March 29, 2019, Governor John Bel Edwards authorized the petition’s placement on the ballot for residents to vote on in October.[30] Garnering a 60% voter turnout, 54% of residents voted in favor of incorporating St. George, passing statutory muster.[31] Before Governor Edwards could even appoint an interim mayor after the incorporation succeeded in the special election, the Mayor–President of East Baton Rouge Parish, Sharon Weston Broome, and others[32] (“Challengers”) brought a lawsuit to challenge the incorporation of St. George.[33]
II. Pre-Trial, Trial, and the First Circuit
The Challengers initially filed their action against the Incorporators in the 19th Judicial District Court on November 4, 2019, pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:4.[34] The Challengers alleged that:
(1) the petition for incorporation is “fatally defective” because it failed to comply with La. R.S. 33:1(A)(4), which requires that a petition for incorporation include a listing of the public services that the municipal incorporation proposes to render to the area and a plan for the provision of those services; (2) the incorporation was unreasonable because it would have an adverse impact on the City of Baton Rouge, the proposed municipality and its organizers would be unable to provide the proposed public services within a reasonable period of time, and the proposed plan fails to comply with the Louisiana Constitution, which requires a regularly paid and full-time police and fire department in cities with more than 13,000 residents, and the police and fire departments must be Civil Service classified; (3) the incorporation was unreasonable because the organizers demonstrated “a clear intent to impermissibly dilute minority voting power” in drawing the boundaries of the proposed city; and (4) the incorporation would violate Section 1.05 of the Plan of Government for the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge (“City-Parish”), which prohibits any additional cities, towns, or villages from being incorporated in EBRP.[35]
By the time the court set the matter for trial, the only plaintiffs remaining were Sharon Weston Broome and LaMont Cole, a Metropolitan Councilman for East Baton Rouge Parish.[36] The Louisiana Supreme Court noted early in its opinion that neither Weston Broome nor Cole owned property in the proposed area of incorporation at the time.[37]
Proponents for St. George called the claims “frivolous” and alleged that they undermined the democratic process.[38] The Challengers’ economic expert, Louisiana State University economics professor emeritus James Richardson, testified that the departure of St. George and the tax income Baton Rouge will consequently lose will cause East Baton Rouge Parish to lose $52 million in expected revenue.[39]
In response to the lawsuit, the Incorporators filed exceptions for no cause of action, no right of action, and alternative exceptions of improper cumulation of actions and failure to join parties needed for adjudication.[40] At the exception hearing, the trial court sustained the exception of no right of action as to one of the other plaintiffs but overruled the exception as to Weston Broome and Cole.[41] The trial court also essentially overruled the remaining exceptions filed, after which the Incorporators asserted general denials and defenses to the Challengers’ petition.[42]
After several hearings on discovery issues, motions for summary judgment, and motions in limine, the court set the dispute for trial.[43] An eight‑day bench trial began on May 2, 2022, after which the court took the matter under advisement.[44] The trial court found the incorporation of St. George unreasonable and potentially adverse to East Baton Rouge Parish in violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:4.[45] Specifically, the trial court ruled that: (1) Cole failed to prove that the organizers for incorporation intentionally drew the map of the city to exclude minorities; (2) the petition placed citizens on notice of what services the new city would provide and what it may provide; (3) the proposed city could “in all probability” provide some of the proposed public services within a reasonable period of time; (4) it is doubtful that the city would be able to provide certain services enumerated in the petition for incorporation without increasing taxes; (5) the proposed city would run a deficit from the first day of its existence, without even considering the additional cost of the Sheriff’s services; and (6) the reduction in revenue because of incorporating the proposed city would clearly have a substantial adverse effect on neighboring areas, namely the remainder of East Baton Rouge Parish.[46] The Incorporators appealed to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal.[47]
A. First Circuit—No Right of Action
On appeal, Incorporators re‑raised the exception of no right of action pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:4(A)(3), as well as the exception of no cause of action challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana Revised Statutes sections 33:4(A)(3), (B), (D), and (E)(2)(a).[48] Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:4(A)(3) provides the standing requirements for challenging an incorporation petition.[49] Louisiana law limits those able to challenge an incorporation effort to: (1) any elector residing in the area proposed for incorporation; (2) any person owning land in such area; or (3) any municipality that might be adversely affected or an elected official of the governing authority of such a municipality.[50]
At the First Circuit, the Incorporators re-urged that the remaining Challengers, Weston Broome and Cole, lacked standing because Weston Broome is not an elected official of the City of Baton Rouge and Cole did not act with the Metropolitan Council’s approval.[51] As to Weston Broome, the Incorporators argued that the “governing authority” of Baton Rouge was the Metropolitan Council, not the Mayor, because Louisiana Constitution article VI section 44(4) defines a governing authority as “the body which exercises the legislative functions of the political subdivision.”[52] The First Circuit, citing to the East Baton Rouge Parish and the City of Baton Rouge’s Plan of Government, ruled that the Mayor–President is the Chief Executive Officer, but is not the “governing body” or “governing authority” of the City-Parish.[53] As a result, Weston Broome did not have a right of action, and the First Circuit dismissed her as a plaintiff.[54]
The First Circuit pointed out that the “governing authority” was therefore the Metropolitan Council.[55] The First Circuit found that Cole was “an elected official of the governing authority” as Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:4(A)(3) requires.[56] Because the Council, as a juridical person, can act only through its members, the court held Cole had a right of action and therefore had standing to challenge the petition for incorporation.[57]
B. First Circuit—No Cause of Action
Next, the First Circuit examined the Incorporators’ exception for no cause of action that contended that Act 536, which enacted La. R.S.section 33:4(A)(3) and amended subsections (B), (D), and (E)(2)(a), violates: (1) voting rights under Louisiana Constitution article I, section 10 and the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the prohibition set forth in Louisiana Constitution article III, section 12(A)(1) against special laws for holding and conducting elections; (3) the prohibition set forth in Louisiana Constitution article VI, section 8 because the article allows elected officials of a municipality to challenge an incorporation; and (4) the mandate set forth in Louisiana Constitution article XI, section 1, providing that the legislature adopt an election code that shall provide for the conduct of all elections.[58] The First Circuit disposed of these challenges without extensive discussion on the arguments because litigants must raise constitutional attacks at the trial court level to ensure interested parties have sufficient time to brief and prepare arguments in defense.[59] Incorporators did not raise their constitutional challenge at trial which therefore precluded them from raising these issues on appeal.[60]
C. First Circuit—Substantive Arguments
With the review of exceptions disposed of, and with LaMont Cole, the only remaining Challenger, the First Circuit discussed disputing incorporation under Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:4.[61] The First Circuit listed the requirements to incorporate as follows: (1) whether there was full compliance with the incorporation procedural provisions; (2) whether the municipality can “in all probability” provide the proposed public services within a reasonable period of time; and (3) whether the incorporation was reasonable.[62] In determining if an incorporation is reasonable, the court must consider the negative effects to the surrounding municipalities.[63] The First Circuit, after much discussion about the legislative history of Louisiana Revised Statutes sections 33:1–7, determined that the petition’s terse descriptions for incorporation were insufficient to comply with the requirements in Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:1 because they did not include a plan for providing services.[64] Thus, the Challengers succeeded yet again and defeated the incorporation with one plaintiff, LaMont Cole, remaining.
III. Louisiana Supreme Court
Predictably, the Incorporators and filed an appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court.[65] The Incorporators once again appealed the lower courts’ denials of the exception of no right of action as to LaMont Cole.[66] The Louisiana Supreme Court accepted the First Circuit’s ruling that Cole fell within the category Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:4(A)(3) provided.[67] However, the Supreme Court’s inquiry did not end there because Cole also required a “real and actual interest” in the claims asserted.[68] If a person with standing does not challenge the incorporation, the electorate’s affirmative vote in the special election is valid and final.[69]
A. Louisiana Supreme Court—No Right of Action
The Incorporators argued that Cole could challenge only whether the incorporation was unreasonable as it relates to the adverse effect on his municipality.[70] The Challengers argued that once they contest the incorporation generally, the Court determines the fulfillment of all the requirements for incorporation.[71] The Court sided with the Incorporators, finding the Challengers could only dispute the incorporation’s validity as to issues they had a real and actual interest in.[72]
Regarding the first issue, the petition’s sufficiency, the only people who have a real and actual interest are “elector[s] residing or owning land” in the area to be incorporated.[73] Cole did not reside or own land in St. George.[74] Therefore, he did not have a real or actual interest in the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for incorporation.[75]
The Supreme Court went on to state that Cole certainly had standing to challenge incorporation as unreasonable because of its adverse effects on Baton Rouge as a municipality in the vicinity.[76] The Court resolved this issue without much discussion because the Incorporators acknowledged Cole’s standing.[77] The Incorporators’ own contention on appeal was that the adverse effects on his municipality was, in fact, the only issue Cole could permissibly challenge.[78]
The Supreme Court finally discussed whether Cole had a real and actual interest sufficient to challenge St. George’s ability to provide services to its residents within a reasonable period of time.[79] The Court reasoned that should St. George fail to provide services to its citizens, the City-Parish would bear that responsibility.[80] The Court considered this a real and actual interest as to Cole because he is an elected official of the municipal-juridical person to be adversely affected, the City of Baton Rouge.[81]
B. Adverse Effects
The Louisiana Supreme Court went on to evaluate whether St. George could provide services within a reasonable time.[82] The testimony of Challengers’ expert economist, Dr. James Richardson, reflected that St. George would run a deficit the first day after its incorporation; the trial court ruled that it is therefore doubtful that St. George could timely provide all proposed services.[83] The Court disagreed with Dr. Richardson’s estimation, finding that he did not follow the methodology for calculating pension liability, which brought the annual operating cost down to “$47.81 million, well within its undisputed $48 million revenue estimate.”[84] The Court did not give more details into Dr. Richardson’s calculation’s flaws because the fact that a balanced budget likely existed meant St. George could, in all probability, provide the proposed public services.
The incorporation’s “reasonableness” was the Supreme Court’s final inquiry.[85] The trial court found an unreasonable adverse effect on Baton Rouge that required denial of incorporation.[86] The Supreme Court especially took issue with the trial court considering only Baton Rouge’s lost revenue in its judgment and ignoring the amount of cost the City will save as a result.[87] The Court found Louisiana laws favor incorporation, and a successful vote to incorporate is presumed valid unless overcome by a showing of unreasonableness.[88]
The Louisiana Supreme Court, trying to encourage consideration of many more issues, adopted a 14‑factor list of useful inquiries to determine reasonableness that the Mississippi Supreme Court invented.[89] The Mississippi Supreme Court provided the following non‑exclusive factors:
[1] whether a proposed area has definite characteristics of a village; [2] whether the residents of the proposed area for incorporation have taken initial steps toward incorporation; [3] whether a nearby city has initiated preliminary proceedings toward annexation; [4] whether there has been any financial commitments toward incorporation or annexation proceedings; [5] whether a neighboring city has the prerogative to contest incorporation, although consent of nearby city not required; [6] whether incorporation [a]ffects an existing city within three miles; [7] whether population of area shows an increase and continuity of settlement; [8] whether a community has a separate identity; [9] whether natural geographical boundaries separate an area from other municipalities; [10] whether transportation is affected; [11] whether incorporation will affect the interest of landowners in the affected area; [12] whether cost of operating the municipality is prohibitive; [13] whether an estimated tax base of proposed area will support incorporation; [14] whether the overall welfare of residents of affected area is improved by incorporation.[90]
The Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether each factor favored or disfavored incorporation.[91] The Court found twelve factors for incorporation and the remaining two as neutral to incorporation.[92] Considering this factual determination, the Court found incorporation reasonable.[93]
C. Chief Justice Weimer’s Dissent
Chief Justice Weimer wrote a critical dissent of the majority’s opinion, calling it a “result masquerading as an opinion.”[94] He disagreed with the majority’s finding that LaMont Cole had no right of action to contest the petition’s sufficiency.[95] Chief Justice Weimer emphasized that having standing and having a right of action are not synonymous and that Louisiana Revised Statutes section 33:4 grants Cole the right of action even if he lacks a “real and actual interest.”[96] The statutory language provides who may challenge a petition for incorporation, and Chief Justice Weimer stated that using the words “shall determine” infers that a plaintiff is unlimited in what he or she may challenge.[97]
Therefore, Chief Justice Weimer posited that Cole has a right to challenge all requirements for incorporation under the statute, not merely those that he has a real and actual interest in.[98] He agreed with the First Circuit that because the petition did not contain a plan for providing services, it was insufficient because it did not fully comply with the statutory requirements of incorporation.[99]
IV. Takeaways
In sum, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that none of the Challengers had standing to challenge the sufficiency of the petition for incorporation.[100] The majority concluded that St. George will likely have a balanced budget and could therefore likely provide the services in the petition.[101] After discussing the factors the Mississippi Supreme Court created to determine reasonableness of incorporation, the majority finally found that the negative impact on the remainder of East Baton Rouge Parish was merely one of many factors and not alone adequate to overcome an incorporation’s presumed validity. [102]
The question is this: would a crystal ball have helped the Challengers, or was their case doomed from the outset? Or was this, as the Chief Justice said, “a result masquerading as an opinion”?[103] For starters, none of the Challengers resided or owned property in St. George.[104] By the Supreme Court’s own rule in this case, that would have at least created standing to challenge the petition’s sufficiency.[105] The Court nevertheless found that the petition “minimally satisfie[d]” the statute’s requirement.[106] However, Chief Justice Weimer’s and the Challengers’ arguments alleging the petition inadequate may have been taken more seriously by the majority had someone with standing challenged it.[107] It certainly would have required more extensive written reasons to prove why the petition was not inadequate.
As for providing services in a reasonable time, the Court took issue with the calculation methods the Challengers’ expert used. It is therefore unlikely that the Challengers could have benefitted from hindsight on this issue.[108] The Court based its decision of this issue on a highly fact-specific inquiry, and different methodologies could certainly produce different results. Absent some showing of true financial deficiency, challengers of incorporation would have had a hard time changing an outcome with an expert’s testimony. For future challengers this will likely not be a winning issue, as the incorporating area is usually wealthier than the populous that they are leaving.[109]
Finally, as the Louisiana Supreme Court made clear, the law favors incorporation unless a challenger can prove it is, without doubt, unreasonable.[110] In determining “reasonableness,” the Court employed a 14-factor test that it will likely treat as “controlling” for future challengers and incorporators alike.[111] The Court favored the Incorporators on 12 of 14 factors and did not find for the Challengers on a single one.[112] Is this issue a remotely winnable one for future challengers based on these factors? The factors are non‑exhaustive, so the door remains ajar for a ruling against incorporation should an incorporation destroy what remains of the surrounding community. Absent gross inequity to include the haves and exclude the have-nots, arbitrary boundaries would not seem to move the Louisiana Supreme Court to block an incorporation as unreasonable. Notably, the Court sided with Jean-Paul Tujague, the Incorporators’ economic expert, finding no fiscal impact on Baton Rouge because of a complete cost offset.[113]
V. Conclusion
Looking forward, there is little an opposition can do to stop an incorporation once a majority vote “yes” in a special election. The Louisiana Supreme Court resolved Broome v. Rials, generally based on a standing issue, but the Court went even further to emphasize that the bar to overcome a challenge to incorporation is extremely high.[114] The bar is higher still for someone who does not reside within the proposed city’s limits because he or she will be unable to challenge the sufficiency of the petition.[115]
Unless there is a change in the Court’s composition, it is reasonable to expect that challengers can do little to stop the creation of a new city like St. George in the future based on the decision in Broome v. Rials. The Court did not find that what remained of the post-incorporation East Baton Rouge Parish would suffer disparately as some say, but as time goes on, the narrative can shift from speculative to empirical. Should East Baton Rouge Parish flounder because of St. George incorporating, the legislature could change the law, or the Court could create a new test. Until then, the best hope for challengers to these new cities is to sow favor in the court of public opinion to influence future voters.
[1] About Us, The City of St. George La., http://stgeorgelouisiana.com/about-us/ [https://perma.cc/57J4-V348].
[2] The City of St. George La., http://stgeorgelouisiana.com [https://perma.cc/9DK8-NMEW].
[3] About Us, supra note 1.
[4] Broome v. Rials, 383 So. 3d 578, 589 n.16 (La. 2024).
[5] Adam Harris, The New Secession, Atlantic (May 20, 2019), https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/05/resegregation-baton-rouge-public-schools/589381/ [https://perma.cc/N84N-2LCN]; NAACP Releases Statement About Incorporation of City of St. George, WAFB (Apr. 29, 2024), https://www.wafb.com/2024/04/29/naacp-releases-statement-about-incorporation-city-st-george/ [https://perma.cc/R2JU-D8CZ].
[6] Broome, 383 So. 3d 578.
[7] Id.
[8] See Greater Baton Rouge Civic Association, Supporting Data 31 (Sept. 12, 2019), http://stgeorgelouisiana.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/GreaterBRCivicAssn-SupportingData.pdf [https://perma.cc/8REQ-G5AW]; About Us, supra note 1.
[9] Fractured: The Breakdown of America’s School Districts, EdBuild, https://edbuild.org/content/fractured#intro [https://perma.cc/V2JP-EWEC].
[10] Our Government, City of Baton Rouge, https://www.brla.gov/1062/Our-Government [https://perma.cc/8NHB-R9W6]. Early local governments viewed consolidation as an efficient move for metropolitan areas because it removes many redundancies in operating two distinct local governing bodies. Id. Consolidating East Baton Rouge Parish’s local government is the reason Sharon Weston Broome holds the title of “Mayor–President,” as she is both the Mayor of the City of Baton Rouge and the President of East Baton Rouge Parish. Id.
[11] Id. The consolidated City–Parish provides a number of services for residents beyond Baton Rouge’s city limits. See Services, City of Baton Rouge, https://www.brla.gov/101/Services [https://perma.cc/G5WK-Q7HL].
[12] See Greater Baton Rouge Civic Association, supra note 8, at 31.
[13] See About Us, supra note 1.
[14] See Act No. 295, 2013 La. Acts 1853 (codified at La. Rev. Stat. §§ 17:58.2(I), 17:67, 17:67.1–67.4). But see S.B. 73, 2013 Leg., Reg. Sess. (La. 2013).
[15] Frequently Asked Questions, The City of St. George La., http://stgeorgelouisiana.com/faq/ [https://perma.cc/G4F7-HKR8].
[16] Harris, supra note 5. Central, Louisiana, is demographically like St. George and were also told they would need to incorporate as its own city to receive legislative support to receive funds for its own school district. See Ronny Reyes, Wealthy White Louisiana Residents Win Right To Split From Baton Rouge And Form Their Own City, New York Post (Apr. 29, 2024, 7:34 PM), https://nypost.com/2024/04/29/us-news/wealthy-white-louisiana-residents-split-from-baton-rouge-to-form-their-own-city/ [https://perma.cc/GYQ4-65E8].
[17] See Rebekah Allen, Better Together Staying Focused on Stopping St. George, Advocate (Apr. 13, 2015) https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/article_cae2316b-9273-527f-af6c-4d3d49184fab.html [https://perma.cc/B6JB-56XL].
[18] La. Rev. Stat. § 33:1.
[19] Id. at §§ 33:2–3.
[20] Id. at § 33:3. As discussed later in this Part, St. George’s petition was eventually challenged which delayed the incorporation efforts until after a court’s approval. Id. at § 33:4.
[21] La. Rev. Stat. § 33:3.
[22] Id.
[23] Harris, supra note 5.
[24] Paul Cobler & Andrea Gallo, Appeals Court Shoots Down Proposed New City Of St. George; Supporters Vow To Appeal, Advocate (July 14, 2023), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/louisiana-appeals-court-denies-st-george-incorporation/article_482be934-2252-11ee-b298-1bf137eb3317.html [https://perma.cc/M7ZN-555M].
[25] See Allen, supra note 17. The spokesperson for the Registrar of Voters estimated that 17.5% of the signatures on the petition were invalidated, and 139 initial signatories submitted forms to have their names removed outright. See Rebekah Allen, Registrar Of Voters Says They Should Know By Wednesday Whether Enough Signatures Collected to put St. George to Vote, Advocate (Mar. 24, 2015) https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/registrar-of-voters-says-they-should-know-by-wednesday-whether-enough-signatures-collected-to-put/article_eb063d5f-1801-56c8-9d57-bf6475db56c1.html [https://perma.cc/JL39-UUFW].
[26] See Kiran Chawla, Judge Denies Request From St. George Petition Organizers For Re-Verifying Signatures On Technicality, WBRZ (July 6, 2015, 9:33 PM), https://www.wafb.com/story/29483207/judge-denies-request-from-st-george-petition-organizers-for-re-verifying-signatures-on-technicality/ [https://perma.cc/ZQ9J-LBUS].
[27] La. Rev. Stat. § 33:2.
[28] La. Rev. Stat. §§ 33:1–7; Broome v. Rials, 383 So.3d 578, 583 (La. 2024).
[29] La. Rev. Stat. § 33:1; Diana Samuels, Petition for New City of St. George in East Baton Rouge Parish Certified, NOLA.com (Jul. 22, 2019), https://www.nola.com/news/petition-for-new-city-of-st-george-in-east-baton-rouge-parish-certified/article_190a1a10-a476-509b-bad1-eb4090ac6420.html [https://perma.cc/7XJL-SNHC].
[30] Proclamation No. 48 JBE 2019 (La. Mar. 29, 2019).
[31] La. Rev. Stat. § 33:3.
[32] The other plaintiffs were Lewis Unglesby, M.E. Cormier, and LaMont Cole. Broome v. Rials, 383 So.3d 578, 583 n.4 (La. 2024).
[33] Broome, 383 So.3d at 583.
[34] Broome v. Rials, 375 So.3d 428, 432 (La. Ct. App. 2023), rev’d, Broome v. Rials, 383 So.3d 578 (La. 2024).
[35] Id. at 432–33. Municipality is defined as “any incorporated city, town or village.” La. Rev. Stat. § 33:101.
[36] See id. Unglesby voluntarily withdrew, and Cormier was dismissed on an exception of no right of action. See Broome, 383 So.3d at 583 n. 4.
[37] Broome, 383 So.3d at 586.
[38] Update: Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome Files Lawsuit Against the City of St. George, BRProud (Nov. 4, 2019, 8:37 PM), https://www.brproud.com/news/mayor-president-sharon-weston-broome-files-lawsuit-against-the-city-of-st-george/ [https://perma.cc/W5CK-AANC].
[39] Joe Gyan Jr., St. George Trial: Would New City Have Enough Money? Why Is Baton Rouge ‘Not Keeping Up?’, Advocate (May 5, 2022), https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/courts/st-george-trial-would-new-city-have-enough-money-why-is-baton-rouge-not-keeping/article_39e1801e-cc18-11ec-9910-7745c60e9bd8.html [https://perma.cc/MYU7-DZWU].
[40] Broome, 375 So.3d at 433.
[41] Id.
[42] Id.
[43] Id.
[44] Id.
[45] Id.
[46] Id. at 442.
[47] Id.
[48] Id. at 434.
[49] La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4(A)(3).
[50] Id.
[51] Broome, 375 So.3d at 434.
[52] Id. at 434–35.
[53] Id. at 435; Baton Rouge, La., The Plan of Government of the Parish of East Baton Rouge and the City of Baton Rouge (Dec. 2, 2015), https://www.brla.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2967/PLAN?bidId= [https://perma.cc/JG8N-FJQA].
[54] Broome, 375 So.3d at 437.
[55] Id. at 436.
[56] Id.
[57] Id. at 437.
[58] Id. at 438. A home rule charter provides for the organization and assignment of powers and duties for the officials of a local governing authority. La. Const. art. VI, § 5.
[59] Broome, 375 So.3d at 439; see also Unwired Telecom Corp. v. Par. of Calcasieu, 903 So. 2d 392, 399 (La. 2005).
[60] Broome, 375 So.3d at 440.
[61] Id. at 442.
[62] Id.
[63] Id.
[64] Id. at 444. At trial, Rials testified that the petition contained a “summary of the plan,” but the court held that the plan did not contain enough information to place the citizens of the area on adequate notice of the plan for providing those services. Id.
[65] Broome v. Rials, 383 So. 3d 578, 582 (La. 2024).
[66] Id. at 584.
[67] Id. at 585; see also La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4(A)(3).
[68] Broome, 383 So. 3d at 585; see also La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 681.
[69] Id.
[70] Id.
[71] Id.
[72] Id.
[73] Id. at 586.
[74] Id.
[75] Id.
[76] Id. at 586–87; La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4(A), (D).
[77] Broome, 383 So.3d at 586–87.
[78] Id.
[79] Id. at 587.
[80] Id.
[81] Id.; La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4(A)(3).
[82] Broome, 383 So. 3d at 587.
[83] Id.
[84] Id. at 588.
[85] Id. at 589; La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4(D).
[86] Broome, 383 So. 3d at 589.
[87] Id.
[88] Id. at 590; see also La. Const. art. I, §§ 1, 24, 26; Id. art. VI, §§ 2, 8.
[89] Broome, 383 So.3d at 590–91.
[90] Id. (quoting City of Pascagoula v. Scheffler, 487 So. 2d 196, 201-02 (Miss. 1986)).
[91] Broome, 383 So. 3d at 591–95.
[92] Id.
[93] Id.
[94] Id. (Weimer, C.J., dissenting).
[95] Id.
[96] Id. at 596; see also La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 681 (providing that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, an action can be brought only by a person having a real and actual interest which he asserts”). Chief Justice Weimer contended that because the statutes list who has a cause of action, there is no need for Cole to have standing in the traditional sense. Broome, 383 So. 2d at 596 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting).
[97] Broome, 383 So. 3d at 598 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting); La. Rev. Stat. § 33:4.
[98] Broome, 383 So.3d at 598.
[99] Id.; La. Rev. Stat. § 33:1(A)(4).
[100] See Broome, 383 So. 3d 578.
[101] Id. at 588–89.
[102] Id. at 590–95; City of Pascagoula v. Scheffler, 487 So. 2d 196, 201–02 (Miss. 1986).
[103] Broome, 383 So. 3d at 595 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting).
[104] Id. at 583.
[105] See id. at 586.
[106] Id. at 600 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting).
[107] Id.
[108] Id. at 588.
[109] See id. at 598.
[110] Id. at 589–90.
[111] Id. at 590–91.
[112] See id. at 591–95.
[113] Id. at 592–93.
[114] See id. at 589–90.
[115] See id. at 585–86.