Louisiana House Bill HR13

Louisiana 2011 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/25/11
• Refer: 4/26/11
• Report Pass: 6/8/11
• Passed: 6/15/11

Caption

Requests the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs to review the issue of the redistricting of courts particularly as it relates to the domicile and residency requirements of judges and judicial candidates

Impact

The implications of HR13 may profoundly affect the qualifications and election processes for judges in Louisiana. By scrutinizing the current domicile and residency requirements, the resolution suggests potential changes that could alter who is eligible to serve as a judge, thereby influencing the composition of the judiciary. A detailed review by the committee will also address specific cases such as that in Clark v. Roemer, which previously established guidelines affecting the subdistricts for judicial elections. This can lead to adjustments in how judges are elected, potentially aligning qualifications more closely with voter expectations.

Summary

House Resolution 13 (HR13) is a request from the House of Representatives of Louisiana to the House Committee on House and Governmental Affairs to conduct a comprehensive review of the redistricting of courts, specifically focusing on the domicile and residency requirements for judges and judicial candidates. This initiative stems from concerns raised following the 2010 federal decennial census, which necessitated the re-examination of how these requirements are structured in the context of judicial subdistricts and election sections. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that judicial candidates meet appropriate residency standards as set by state law.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HR13 appears to be one of cautious support, as it seeks to clarify and possibly strengthen the rules governing judicial elections. However, the discussion may evoke varied perspectives from different stakeholders, particularly regarding how stringent the domicile requirements should be. The resolution serves as a recognition of the importance of residency in preserving the integrity of the judiciary and ensuring that judicial candidates are closely connected to the communities they serve, which could lead to support for the bill across party lines.

Contention

Notable points of contention may arise around the interpretation of what constitutes adequate residency. Advocates for more stringent requirements may argue that only candidates truly embedded in their communities should be allowed to serve as judges, while opponents might caution against overly restrictive measures that could disqualify qualified candidates. Additionally, the potential for debate regarding the balance between legal standards and practical community ties illustrates the complexities involved in adjusting such fundamental election laws.