New Orleans Mayor Helena Moreno says the city will attempt to bring the case of elected Criminal Court Clerk Calvin Duncan to the United States Supreme Court.
Moreno made that statement after the Louisiana Supreme Court denied an oral rehearing in a lawsuit that sought to invalidate a Louisiana state law that abolished the Orleans Parish Criminal Clerk of Court's Office and consolidated its functions with the Orleans Parish Civil Clerk of Court's Office. Governor Jeff Landry signed that law, Act 15, into effect on April 30, four days before Duncan, who was elected to the criminal clerk's post in October 2025, was set to take office.
The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the rehearing by a 4-3 vote. In June, the court upheld Act 15 as constitutional by the same margin.
Moreno noted the concerns that the dissenting justices raised when announcing the city's intent to seek relief from the U. S. Supreme Court.
"Those concerns deserve careful consideration because confidence in our democracy begins with confidence that every vote matters," Morenot said in a statement. Accordingly, the City will seek review before the United States Supreme Court to ensure these important constitutional questions receive full consideration.”
The justices in the majority of Friday's ruling did not issue written opinion stating on what grounds they allowed Act 15 to stand.
In his dissent, Chief Justice John Weimer says the court should have held another round of oral arguments because the constitutional questions the plaintiffs raised are valid.
"Article V, § 32 of the Louisiana Constitution is not unconstitutional as written,and the legislature has full authority to enact legislation that would abolish the civil and criminal district clerk of court offices and create one office of Orleans Parish Clerk of Court," Weimer wrote. "That point is undisputed. The analysis does not end there, however. This court must additionally determine whether Act 15, in the manner it was implemented, interfered with the constitutional right to vote. That interference would have prevented the people’s votes from being counted and prevented the votes
from being given effect when the duly elected candidate was not allowed to serve in the office to which he was elected. The implementation of Act 15 also resulted in the appointment of Ms. Napoleon as the Orleans Parish Clerk of Court. She was not elected to that position. She was elected to be the clerk of Orleans Parish Civil District Court."
Weimer said the situation surrounding the implementation of Act 15 goes "far beyond being a mere 'unfortunate' effect."
"The City of New Orleans rightly states in its application for rehearing that this is not a case about merely preserving Calvin Duncan’s right to hold office," Weimer wrote. "This case addresses the more fundamental and critical issue of the people of Orleans Parish having their votes ignored and nullified. To simply state that the legislature had the constitutional authority to abolish the bifurcated clerk of court system is not sufficient. There was absolutely no justification for abolishing Mr. Duncan’s position after he was elected to that office. There was absolutely no justification for appointing Ms. Napoleon as Orleans Parish Clerk of Court."
Weimer closed by saying that the Louisiana Supreme Court has all the time it needs to hold oral arguments, adding that the court needs to "invest the time" to determine of the state violated Orleans Parish's residents' right to vote.
"The question of whether Act 15 stripped citizens of the right to vote presents a question that demands more than a brief discussion in a per curiam opinion," Weimer wrote. "Although it may not be a court’s role to question the legislative wisdom or intent behind the adoption of a statute, it is certainly this court’s role to determine whether or not the statute is unconstitutionally applied. Since Act 15 created the absurd result where three people were simultaneously claiming to hold one office, this court owes it to the voters of Orleans Parish and voters statewide to determine whether the legislative act stripped citizens of their right to vote. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to the voters to do our jobs thoroughly, effectively, and with transparency."
Louisiana Supreme Court denied rehearing in case challenging Act 15
Louisiana Supreme Court denied rehearing in case challenging Act 15
