Background
Orleans Parish has long been unique among Louisiana parishes in maintaining separate clerks of court for the Civil District Court and the Criminal District Court. On November 15, 2025, voters reelected Chelsey Richard Napoleon as clerk of the Civil District Court and elected Calvin Duncan as clerk of the Criminal District Court, both for terms beginning May 4, 2026.
On April 30, 2026, Governor Landry signed Act 15 of the 2026 Regular Session into law, effective immediately. Act 15 abolished the office of clerk of criminal district court for Orleans Parish at the end of May 3, 2026—one day before the newly elected criminal clerk was to take office—and transferred all authority, duties, and property of that office to the clerk of the civil district court, who would thereafter be known simply as the “clerk of court for the parish of Orleans.”
Two consolidated lawsuits followed. Gary Crockett, an Orleans Parish voter, challenged Act 15 as unconstitutional. Separately, the New Orleans City Council declared a vacancy in the newly consolidated clerk’s office, appointed retired Judge Calvin Johnson as interim clerk, and called a special election. The Supreme Court of Louisiana exercised its plenary supervisory authority under La. Const. Art. V, § 5(a) to resolve both cases directly, citing the extraordinary nature, time-sensitivity, and significant public interest of the dispute.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court held, per curiam, that Act 15 is a valid exercise of legislative power under Louisiana Constitution Article V, Section 32. That provision expressly continues certain Orleans Parish courts and offices—including the clerks of the civil and criminal district courts—”subject to change by law.” The Court emphasized that the 1974 Constitutional Convention deliberately chose this language, rejecting proposals that would have required supermajority votes or local referenda before changes could be made. Citing Davenport v. Hardy, 349 So. 2d 859 (La. 1977), and State v. Francois, 445 So. 2d 416 (La. 1983), the Court reaffirmed that the Legislature’s authority over these offices is plenary: it “imposes no limitations or restrictions on the exercise of that power.”
The Court further held that Act 15 did not create a new office or a vacancy. Instead, the Act expanded the duties of the existing civil clerk’s office and renamed it. Because no vacancy existed, the City Council’s appointment of an interim clerk and its call for a special election were without legal authority. The Court reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction, imposed a permanent injunction barring the purported interim clerk from exercising any duties, and permanently enjoined the special election.
Chief Justice Weimer authored a vigorous dissent, arguing the Legislature’s timing—abolishing the criminal clerk’s office the day before a duly elected official was to assume the position—effectively nullified the votes of Orleans Parish citizens. The dissent contended that while the Legislature has authority to abolish offices under Section 32, it must act prospectively to respect the fundamental right to vote. Justices Griffin and Guidry also dissented, while Justices Hughes and Cole additionally concurred.
Key Takeaways
- Under La. Const. Art. V, § 32, the Louisiana Legislature holds unfettered authority to abolish, merge, or restructure Orleans Parish judicial offices—including clerk positions—by ordinary majority vote, notwithstanding other constitutional provisions.
- The consolidation of legislative offices under § 32 does not create a vacancy where the statute transfers duties to an existing officeholder, even when it effectively prevents a newly elected official from taking office.
- The decision clarifies the boundary between legislative power over Orleans Parish’s unique judicial structure and the constitutional right to vote, with the majority holding that elected officials under § 32 take office “subject to” the Legislature’s plenary change authority.
Why It Matters
This decision has immediate practical consequences for Orleans Parish governance and broader implications for Louisiana constitutional law. It confirms that the Legislature’s power to restructure Orleans Parish’s anomalous judicial offices under Article V, Section 32 is essentially unlimited in scope and timing—a principle that could apply to any of the other offices enumerated in that provision, including the civil and criminal district courts themselves. Practitioners handling Orleans Parish matters should note that the consolidated clerk’s office now operates under a single officeholder.
The sharp 4-3 split on the Court also signals that the tension between legislative authority and voting rights in the context of office abolition remains a live issue. The Chief Justice’s dissent—arguing that the Legislature must act prospectively when abolishing an office to which someone has already been elected—provides a framework that could resurface in future challenges. Louisiana practitioners should be attentive to any legislative efforts to restructure other § 32 offices, as similar constitutional disputes may follow.