Louisiana House Bill HB86

Louisiana 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/17/22
• Refer: 2/17/22
• Refer: 3/14/22

Caption

Appropriates funds for payment of the consent judgment against the state through the Dept. of Transportation and Development in the suit entitled "Alexandra Broussard vs. The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transporation and Development, et al"

Impact

The enactment of HB 86 is significant as it directly addresses a specific legal judgment, which otherwise could have financial implications for the state's budgetary allocations. By appropriating the funds, the state can ensure compliance with the court's ruling and prevent further legal actions or accruing interests that could arise from delayed payments. This bill not only intends to resolve the financial aspect but also signifies the state's commitment to adhering to judicial rulings, thereby potentially reinforcing public trust in state governance.

Summary

House Bill 86 is a legislative appropriation aimed at resolving a financial obligation resulting from a consent judgment against the State of Louisiana, specifically through its Department of Transportation and Development. The bill allocates $87,500 from the State General Fund for the fiscal year 2022-2023 to pay the judgment related to the case 'Alexandra Broussard vs. The State of Louisiana'. This funding is intended to cover the principal, interest, court costs, and expert fees associated with the judgment, thereby fulfilling a legal obligation recognized by the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the bill appears to be largely practical, focusing on the necessity of complying with a court decision rather than encompassing broader political controversies. Since the bill pertains to a financial obligation rather than a legislative policy or social issue, discussions are more centered around fiscal responsibility and governance rather than emotional or partisan viewpoints. Stakeholders likely view the bill as a procedural step that highlights the state’s accountability in financial commitments.

Contention

While HB 86 is primarily a matter of financial appropriation with limited contentious points, some could argue about the implications of using state funds for legal judgments. Decisions about where to allocate state funds can lead to discussions about priorities within the budget, potentially inciting arguments about funding for other essential services or programs. However, given the binding nature of the court's ruling, the necessity for the appropriations appears to overshadow these debates, compelling adherence to the judgment as a matter of legal requirement.