Louisiana Cases September 16, 2022: Singleton v. E. Baton Rouge Par. Sch. Bd.

Case Description

1

Application for Supervisory Writ and Appeal from The Nineteenth Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Docket Number C- 719057 Division 30 The Honorable Tarvald A. Smith, Presiding Judge

Alejandro R. Perkins Evan M. Alvarez Ashley U. Johnson Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Appellant/Relator Defendant- The East Baton Rouge Parish School Board

Brian F. Blackwell James R. Bullman Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Appellees/Respondents Plaintiffs- Adeline Rene Singleton; Christopher Kees, Sr.; Tania Nyman; and Dr. James C. Finney

John C. Walsh Jeffrey K. Cody Drew D. Lyons Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Appellee/Respondent Defendant- Doug Welborn, East Baton Rouge Parish Clerk of Court

Celia R. Cangelosi Connor Junkin Baton Rouge, Louisiana Counsel for Appellee/Respondent Defendant- R. Kyle Ardoin, Louisiana Secretary of State

BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.

2

WELCH, J.

In this school board district reapportionment case, the defendant-the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board (the "School Board")-challenges the trial court's ruling that denied its peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action; issued a preliminary injunction; issued a mandatory injunction; and granted declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion with this Court to dismiss a portion of the School Board's appeal. We deny the motion to dismiss as moot. We affirm the denial of the exception. We reverse the preliminary injunction, the mandatory injunction, and the declaratory judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The plaintiffs are registered voters and taxpayers in East Baton Rouge Parish (the "Parish") and residents of the geographic portions of the Parish governed by the School Board. The defendants in this action include the School Board, Doug Welborn, in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Clerk of Court, and R. Kyle Ardoin, in his official capacity as Louisiana Secretary of State.

The School Board is required by law to reapportion itself following each Federal Decennial Census "so that each member of said board represents as nearly as possible the same number of persons." See La. R.S. 17:71.1; La. R.S. 17:71.3(A); La. R.S. 17:71.5(A); and La. R.S. 18:1922(A). Pursuant to the 2010

3

Census, the School Board adopted a reapportionment plan reducing its membership from eleven (11) members to nine (9) members, with each member elected from one of nine (9) single-member election districts (the "2014 Plan"). See La. R.S. 17:58.2(A). The 2014 Plan is currently in effect and governs the School Board's upcoming elections.

Following the 2020 Census, the School Board began the reapportionment process in Fall 2021, even though the School Board is not required to complete the reapportionment process until the end of 2023. See La. R.S. 17:71.5(A). The Board hired an expert demographic and redistricting firm, Geographic Planning &Demographic Services, LLC ("GPDS"), to assist in the reapportionment process. See La. R.S. 17:71.3(A). Based on the demographic information obtained from the 2020 Census, GPDS determined that the School Board was malapportioned pursuant to the 2014 Plan and was required to reapportion itself. GPDS discovered that under the 2014 Plan and the current population of the nine (9) election districts, "several districts are outside the desired +/-5% population deviation[,] which means that the district boundaries will need to be adjusted to either add population to a district or reduce the population to balance the totals." GPDS further stated, "[t]he adjustments

4

will need to be made that will also be responsive to the minority representation in the District."

During the reapportionment and redistricting process, nineteen (19) plans were submitted for consideration by the School Board. One of the plans submitted for consideration is known as "Plan 22," which maintains the nine (9) member School Board, but redraws the nine (9) election districts to include divided precincts. Another plan submitted for consideration, known as the "Ware/Collins Plan 1-11," provides for an eleven (11) member School Board, with none of the eleven (11) election districts providing for divided precincts.

To streamline reapportionment and redistricting, the School Board approved a process at its March 17, 2022 regular meeting to adopt and publish a proposed reapportionment plan. This process permitted any School Board member to nominate any of the nineteen (19) submitted plans; no second was needed, nor was any vote required to accept a member's nomination.

At an April 7, 2022 special meeting of the School Board, one member nominated Plan 22; another member nominated Ware/Collins Plan 1-11. After the

5

nominations of the two plans, a majority of the School Board-in a 5 to 4 vote- selected Plan 22 as the proposed reapportionment plan to present to the public.

The School Board published official notice of the upcoming public hearings to discuss the proposed reapportionment Plan 22. See La. R.S. 17:58.2. At the conclusion of a May 5,2022 public hearing, the School Board held a special meeting to adopt a reapportionment plan. A majority of the School Board-in a 5 to 3 vote- adopted a resolution selecting Plan 22 as the School Board's chosen reapportionment plan. See La. R.S. 17:71.4.

On May 16, 2022, the plaintiffs filed suit in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court (the "19th JDC") against the defendants, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment against the School

6

Board that reapportionment Plan 22 adopted by the School Board was null and void, and that the Ware/Collins Plan 1-11 was the sole reapportionment plan that may be considered by the School Board. The plaintiffs also sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, to enjoin the defendants from permitting any persons to qualify for an election, prepare any ballots, and/or conduct any election based on Plan 22.

In response, the School Board filed a dilatory exception raising the objection of improper cumulation of actions, arguing that the plaintiffs improperly cumulated actions (preliminary injunction versus declaratory judgment) that employ different forms of procedure (summary versus ordinary proceedings) in contravention of La. C.C.P. art. 461. The School Board also filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, arguing that the plaintiffs' allegations were "pure legal argument." As "conclusions of law," the School Board contended that plaintiffs' legal arguments could not be considered to be well-pled allegations of fact sufficient to determine whether the law affords the plaintiffs a remedy. At a status conference and later memorialized by court order, the parties agreed that only the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction would be before the trial court at a June 13, 2022 hearing, thus mooting the School Board's dilatory exception of improper cumulation of actions.

The trial court convened on June 13, 2022, for the hearing on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. At the outset of the hearing, however, the trial court heard argument on the School Board's peremptory exception of no cause of action. The trial court denied the School Board's peremptory exception of no cause of action in open court. Thereafter, the trial court heard arguments on the plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief, enjoining the implementation of Plan 22. At the conclusion of argument, the trial court took the matter under advisement and invited the parties to submit post-hearing briefs.

7

On June 17, 2022, the trial court signed a judgment, which declared that Plan 22 was "null and void" (the declaratory judgment); enjoined the Secretary of State and Clerk of Court "from using any ballots or any election information (including but not limited to maps, precincts, or election districts) that uses SB Public Plan 22 as a map of election districts for the upcoming November 8, 2022 election" (the preliminary injunction); and ordered the School Board to implement the Ware/Collins Plan 1-11 in the upcoming November 8, 2022 election (the mandatory injunction). (Emphasis removed).

The School Board filed a supervisory writ application with this Court (2022 CW 0679). The School Board also filed a devolutive appeal of the trial court's June 17, 2022 judgment (2022 CA 0667). In conjunction with both its writ application and the appeal, the School Board filed motions to stay the trial court's June 17, 2022 judgment and requested expedited consideration. This Court granted the

8

School Board's motion to stay in part and denied the motion to stay in part; specifically:

We hereby deny the motion to stay to the extent it seeks to stay the preliminary injunction ruling issued by the district court in its June 17, 2022 ruling. However, we hereby stay the June 17, 2022 ruling in all other aspects pending further orders of this court, including the district court's order requiring the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board to "implement the nominated plan known as Ware/Collins 1-11" and submit the nominated plan to the Louisiana Secretary of State.

Singleton v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 2022-0667 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/30/22) (unpublished action).

After the lodging of this appeal and oral arguments were heard in this matter, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the School's Board appeal to the extent the appeal challenged the portion of the June 17, 2022 judgment that granted a preliminary injunction. The School Board opposes the motion. We deny the motion to dismiss as moot.

In light of the trial court's June 17, 2022 judgment enjoining the use of Plan 22, and this Court's stay of the trial court's order to implement the Ware/Collins Plan 1-11, we note that the November 8, 2022 School Board election is underway pursuant to the 2014 Plan.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Declaratory Judgment and Mandatory Injunction

The School Board argues that the June 13, 2022 hearing was limited to the plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunctive relief. The School Board contends the trial court erroneously granted declaratory judgment at a summary hearing on a preliminary injunction, improperly cumulating the actions. Similarly, the School Board argues that the trial court erroneously granted a mandatory injunction ordering the implementation of Ware/Collins Plan 1-11.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 462 provides, in pertinent part:

9

A plaintiff may cumulate against the same defendant two or more actions even though based on different grounds, if:

(1) Each of the actions cumulated is within the jurisdiction of the court and is brought in the proper venue; and

(2) All of the actions cumulated are mutually consistent and employ the same form of procedure.

The requirement that all of the actions employ the same form of procedure refers to whether each of the cumulative actions employ ordinary, executory, or summary procedure. Abadie v. Cassidy, 581 So.2d 657 (La. 1991).

The Code of Civil Procedure contemplates the use of summary proceedings for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See also La. C.C.P. arts. 3601-3602 and 2592(1); Norton v. Lay, 360 So.2d 239, 241 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1978). Summary proceedings are those which are conducted with rapidity, within the delays allowed by the court, and without citation and the observance of all the formalities required in ordinary proceedings. La. C.C.P. art. 2591.

Plaintiffs herein utilized a summary proceeding to seek preliminary injunctive relief. However, in addition to seeking a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs' petition also requested permanent injunctive relief and declaratory judgment. A suit for

10

declaratory judgment is an ordinary proceeding. Frierson v. Sheridan, 593 So.2d 655, 657 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1991). Similarly, the principal demand of the permanent injunction is determined on its merits only after a full trial under ordinary process. Dalke v. Armantono, 2009-1954 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/7/10), 40 So.3d 981, 987. And although not requested by the plaintiffs in their petition, the trial court's June 17, 2022 judgment granted a mandatory injunction, ordering the School Board to implement Ware/Collins Plan 1-11 prior to the Fall 2022 elections. A mandatory injunction employs an ordinary proceeding. Hyman v. Puckett, 2015-0930 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/4/16), 193 So.3d 1184, 1191.

The parties agreed that at the June 13, 2022 hearing, the trial court would only decide the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. Because an action for a declaratory judgment and a mandatory injunction employ different forms of procedure, the trial court erred in cumulating the three actions in the same proceeding. The plaintiffs acknowledge in their appellees' brief that "the declaratory relief granted by the trial court at the preliminary injunction stage of the proceedings should be reversed." The plaintiffs did not address the mandatory injunction.

11

Accordingly, we reverse the portions of the trial court's June 17,2022 judgment that granted declaratory judgment and a mandatory injunction in the plaintiffs' favor.

No Cause of Action

The School Board argued "the Plaintiffs' entire case is based upon a pure legal argument... that the School Board was legally prohibited from maintaining a nine-member [board] after reapportionment." The School Board further contended that "even if the factual allegations (as opposed to the legal conclusions) of Plaintiffs' [p] etition are accepted as true, such facts do not support the legal argument or remedy advanced by Plaintiffs." The record on appeal contains no opposition from the plaintiffs to the School board's objection of no cause of action.

As pointed out by the plaintiffs, the School Board's two exceptions were not accompanied by a memorandum nor a proposed order requesting that the exceptions be set for hearing. See La. Dist. Court Rules 9.8(a) and 9.9(b). Nevertheless, the trial court proceeded to hear arguments from the parties on the no cause of action exception and made an oral ruling denying same. Despite these procedural errors, we discuss the no cause of action exception since in both its writ application and the devolutive appeal, the School Board argues the trial court erred in its denial of the exception.

12

As used in the context of the peremptory exception, a "cause of action" refers to the operative facts which give rise to the plaintiffs right to judicially assert the action against the defendant. Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP, 2006-1774 (La. 2/22/07), 950 So.2d 641, 646. The purpose of the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the petition. Scheffler, 950 So.2d at 646. The purpose of the exception of no cause of action is not to determine whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail at trial, but to only ascertain if a cause of action exists. Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. Louisiana State Legislature, 2012-0353 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/26/13), 117 So.3d 532, 537.

No evidence may be introduced to support or controvert the exception of no cause of action. La. C.C.P. art 931. The exception is triable on the face of the pleadings, and, for purposes of resolving the issues raised by the exception, the well-pled facts in the petition must be accepted as true. The issue at the trial of the exception is whether, on the face of the petition, the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. Scheffler, 950 So.2d at 646. Louisiana retains a system of fact pleading, and mere conclusions of the plaintiff unsupported by facts will not set forth a cause or right of action. The burden of demonstrating that a petition fails to state a cause of action is upon the mover. Scheffler, 950 So.2d at 646-47.

Because the exception of no cause of action raises a question of law and the trial court's decision is based solely on the sufficiency of the petition, review of the trial court's ruling on an exception of no cause of action is de novo. The pertinent inquiry is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and with every doubt resolved in the plaintiffs favor, the petition states any valid cause of action for relief. Scheffler, 950 So.2d at 647.

13

Our de novo examination of the petition shows the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief on the basis that the resolution adopted by the School Board selecting Plan 22 as the School Board's chosen reapportionment plan is null and void. Plaintiffs alleged that the School Board was required to reapportion itself after the 2020 Census. Plaintiffs also alleged that the School Board adopted a resolution that ratified Plan 22 as its new reapportionment plan. Plaintiffs further alleged that Plan 22 is comprised of nine (9) election districts, which contain several divided precincts. Plaintiffs alleged that Plan 22 fails to comply with La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(1), which requires that a reapportionment plan contain whole precincts. The plaintiffs acknowledged the exception contained in La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(a)- that should the School Board be unable to create a reapportionment plan containing whole precincts, it could use a plan containing divided precincts (but not divided into more than two districts, and no district could contain more than three divided precincts). The plaintiffs alleged, however, that the exception set forth in La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(a) is inapplicable to this instant matter because the School Board was able to create reapportionment plans that contained whole precincts, as evidenced by other plans submitted for consideration, such as the Ware/Collins Plan 1-11. Accordingly, the plaintiffs alleged that Plan 22 is null and void under La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(b).

In reviewing these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, with every doubt resolved in the plaintiffs' favor, and accepting all allegations as true, we find that the plaintiffs' petition states a valid cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. See Scheffler, 950 So.2d at 647. We are not required to determine whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail at a trial on the merits of their request for declaratory or permanent injunctive relief. See Louisiana Public Service Comm'n, 117 So.3d at 537. Thus, the trial court properly denied the School Board's peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action.

14

Preliminary Injunction

The School Board seeks reversal of the preliminary injunction issued by the trial court on June 17, 2022, enjoining the implementation of Plan 22. The Secretary of State and Clerk of Court for East Baton Rouge Parish have filed briefs with this Court requesting that we maintain the stay issued on June 30, 2022, and affirm the preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of Plan 22. The officials argue that candidates have already qualified for the November 8, 2022 School Board election under the 2014 Plan and that it would be impossible to make any changes to the election this late in the process.

A preliminary injunction is an interlocutory procedural device designed to preserve the status quo between the parties, pending a determination on the merits of the controversy. Tobin v. Jindal, 2011-0838 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/10/12), 91 So.3d 317, 320; Concerned Citizens for Proper Planning, LLC v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 2004-0270,2004-0249 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/24/05), 906 So.2d 660,664. The preliminary injunction is issued in summary proceedings incidental to the main demand for permanent injunctive relief. Byron E. Talbot Contractor, Inc. v. Lafourche Parish Sch. Bd., 2021-0181 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/1/21), 332 So.3d 699, 702. A plaintiff seeking issuance of a preliminary injunction bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie showing that he will prevail on the merits and that irreparable injury or loss will result without the preliminary injunction. La. C.C.P. art. 3601; Byron E. Talbot Contractor, Inc., 332 So.3d at 702.

Although the judgment on the preliminary injunction is interlocutory, an appeal may be taken as a matter of right from an order or judgment relating to a

15

preliminary or final injunction. La. C.C.P. art. 3612(B); Byron E. Talbot Contractor, Inc., 332 So.3d at 702. Whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Byron E. Talbot Contractor, Inc., 332 So.3d at 702. A trial court enjoys considerable discretion in determining whether injunctive relief is warranted, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. See Vartech Systems, Inc. v. Hayden, 2005-2499 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/06), 951 So.2d 247, 256. This standard is based upon a conclusion that the trial court committed no error of law and was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in making a factual finding necessary to the proper exercise of its discretion. Byron E. Talbot Contractor, Inc., 332 So.3d at 702. If a trial court's decision was based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law, rather than a valid exercise of discretion, such an incorrect decision is not entitled to deference. Bernhard Meeh. Contractors, Inc. v. Spinosa, 2010-1461 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/11/11), 2011 WL 856899, at *4 (unpublished) (citing Kern Search, Inc. v. Sheffield, 434 So.2d 1067, 1071-72 (La. 1983)).

Any local reapportionment plan must comply with the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. See Pub. L. 89-110; 79 Stat. 437 (1965); 52 U.S.C.A. §§ 10101-02, 10301-14. The Louisiana Revised Statutes set forth the state requirements for the reapportionment process of local school boards.

16

See generally La. R.S. 17:71.1, et seq. A school board decides how many members will serve on its board. La. R.S. 17:71.3(B). A school board is free to reapportion itself with as few as five (5) elected members, or as many as fifteen (15) members. La. R.S. 17:71.2(A).

Election district boundaries are set forth based on the desired number of members. La. R.S. 17:71.3(B). Election district boundaries must be created so that each board member will represent, as nearly as possible, the same number of persons. La. R.S. 17:71.1 and La. R.S. 17:71.6. Each election district must be compact and contiguous; however, the election districts do not have to be coterminous with other election districts that may be created by the parish governing authority. La. R.S. 17:71.3(B).

Regarding election districts, La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(1) states: "The boundaries of any election district for a new apportionment plan from which members of a school board are elected shall contain whole precincts established by the parish governing authority under R.S. 18:532 or 532.1." (Emphasis added). An exception to the "whole precincts" rule is set forth in La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(a), which provides, in pertinent part:

Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 17:71.3(E)(1)... if a school board is unable to comply with applicable law regarding redistricting and reapportionment ... in the creation of its redistricting or reapportionment plan through the use of whole precincts, the school board may,

17

in the creation of its ... plan, divide a precinct into portions which are bounded by visible features which are census tabulation boundaries.

(Emphasis added). The "divided precincts" exception disallows a divided precinct from being divided into more than two school board districts. Furthermore, no election district may contain more than three divided precincts. La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(a).

After determining its makeup as reapportioned, the School Board shall adopt a resolution establishing the number of members, boundaries of election districts, members' terms of office, date of election, and the effective date of reapportionment. La. R.S. 17:71.4. Prior to adoption of a resolution, the School Board must advertise and hold at least one public hearing on the proposed reapportionment plan. La. R.S. 17:58.2(C). Following adoption, the School Board must submit a copy of its resolution to the United States Department of Justice and the Louisiana Secretary of State. La. R.S. 17:71.5(A). The School Board must also publish its resolution as adopted. La. R.S. 17:71.4.

In seeking a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs argued the School Board's resolution adopting Plan 22, which contained divided precincts, violates the "whole precincts" rule set forth in La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(1). The plaintiffs further argued that the "divided precincts" exception contained in La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(a) is inapplicable here because the School Board was able to create several

18

reapportionment plans with election districts containing whole precincts, as evidenced by the Ware/Collins Plan 1-11. The plaintiffs alleged "the School Board had the ability to select a reapportionment plan that complied with applicable law regarding the use of whole precincts[,] but made the choice not to do so." The plaintiffs argued that according to La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(b), any reapportionment plan in contravention of La. R.S. 17:71.3(E) "shall be null and void, and no election shall be conducted using any ballot based on such a null and void plan." Thus, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of Plan 22 as the School Board's reapportionment plan.

The School Board argues the trial court erred in enjoining the implementation of Plan 22. The trial court's ruling appears to be based on a requirement that a School Board must first declare the number of its chosen membership prior to the start of the reapportionment process and the drawing of election district boundaries, which the School Board contends is a requirement that does not exist in law.

In its reasons for granting preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs, the trial court ruled:

In reviewing the redistricting and reapportionment procedure used by the [School Board], the Court looks to guidance from the evidence presented at the June 13, 2022 hearing .... Exhibit P-3, a memorandum dated March 16, 2022 [,] set forth the nominating process by board members for the adoption of single member maps. Nowhere in the memorandum did it call for members to first select, establish[,] or even nominate the number of members it wished to maintain, increase[,] or decrease prior to adopting single member maps. From testimony in court, it was established that there were numerous maps the [S]chool [B]oard could have nominated containing anywhere from 9 single member districts to as high as the limit allowed by law of 15 single member districts.

19

In determining whether the [plaintiffs'] allegation[s] have merit and whether [Plan 22] is contrary to Louisiana law, the Court must look to and review all actions or inactions by [the School Board], and all applicable redistricting and reapportionment laws of Louisiana that apply. Louisiana Revised Statute[s] 17:71 et seq[.] governs the process by which each of the parish and city school boards are authorized to reapportionment itself. In review of the statute in its entirety and in order, the [School] Board must first, "by majority vote of said board as presently constituted, reestablish itself with not less than five nor more than fifteen members or the number presently authorized for the school board..." [La.] R.S. 17:71(2)(A). There is no evidence, nor was there any testimony that [the School Board] took any vote or had any discussion as to the number it wished to maintain, reduce[,] or increase itself in membership. To the contrary, by the [School] Board's adoption of a procedure[,] to considering plans varying from 9 single member districts to 15 single members districts, it is clear that the [School] Board considered increasing its membership. This is further evident by the fact that Ware/Collins [P]lan 1-11 was nominated .... Had the [School] Board first adopted a 9 single member board prior to the consideration of several numbered single member maps, it would have been clearly established that the intent of the [School] Board was to have and remain a 9 member body. This would have given more weight to [the School Board's] argument that [it] complied with the requirements of [La.] R.S. 17:71.2(A). The [School] Board, by its action or inaction[,] gave rise to the legal requirement and review under [La.] R.S. 17:71.3 [et] seq. [Emphasis in original.]

The [School] Board in adopting a procedure for redistricting and reapportionment that did not first establish a definite number of members, failed to follow the procedure set forth in [La.] R.S. 17:71 [et seq.] The contention that there [szc] are not required to first establish a number of members prior to considering various single member district maps, is in contravention to the procedure Louisiana [l]aw lays out for parish and city school boards to follow when they engage in any redistricting and reapportionment.

The testimony and evidence introduced at the June 13, 2022 hearing on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction show that during a special meeting of the School Board held on May 5, 2022-following an advertised, public hearing- a majority of the School Board adopted a resolution reapportioning the School Board

20

pursuant to Plan 22, which established a nine (9) member school board and set forth the boundary lines of the election districts. The School Board sent the resolution to the Secretary of State, who upon receipt and review of the resolution, confirmed the School Board's reapportionment plan's use of split precincts did not violate La. R.S. 17:71.3(E).

Louisiana Revised Statutes 17:71.4 and 17:71.5 provide that reapportionment of local school boards is effectuated through the adoption of a resolution. As La. R.S. 17:71.4 makes clear, it is a resolution adopted by the School Board that establishes the number of board members and sets forth the election district boundaries. Nothing in 17:71.4 or 17:71.5 prohibits a School Board from considering multiple reapportionment plans with differing numbers of members and differing election boundaries prior to officially adopting a reapportionment plan through a resolution. The School Board was not required to take a vote and issue a declaration or first pass a resolution determining the number of its membership, and then take another vote and issue a declaration or pass another resolution setting forth the election district boundaries. The law requires only one resolution to effectuate the reapportionment process. There is simply no legal authority in the reapportionment statutes for the trial court's reasoning that the School Board was required to "first establish a number of members prior to considering various single member district maps ... ."

The School Board further argues that the trial court erred by comparing a nine (9) member plan to an eleven (11) member plan. In its reasons for granting preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs, the trial court ruled:

Clearly, [La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(a)'s "divided precincts"] exception would give the [School Board] the ability to use split precincts if they were unable to use whole precincts in accomplishing redistricting and reapportionment. With the exception in mind, the Court must then examine if the

21

[School Board] was unable to use whole precincts in accomplishing its redistricting and reapportionment. It is the determination of the Court, that [the School Board] clearly could have and has done so by the consideration of maps that used whole precincts.

The nomination of Ware/Collins Plan 1-11 is sufficient proof that [the School Board] was able to meet the requirement of using whole precincts in its reapportionment and redistricting. No evidence was presented at the hearing on whether any of the non[-nine (9) member plans] used split precincts. The [School] Board's hired demographer, Michael Hefner, did testify that all 9 member plans he either reviewed or drafted did use split precincts. ... Mr. Hefner also testified that the Ware[/]Collins Plan 1-11 (an 11 single member plan) did not utilize split precincts. This admission by the [School] Board's hired demographer is further proof that [the School Board] was able to create election districts containing whole election precincts ....

There is no legal basis to compare the legality of a nine (9) member reapportionment plan to an eleven (11) member plan. We agree with the School Board that such reasoning is "an improper apples-to-oranges comparison." Based on the reapportionment statutes, Plan 22 would be in violation of the "whole precincts" rule set forth in La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(1) only if it was possible to create a reapportionment plan establishing a nine (9) member board and election districts composed entirely of whole precincts. At the June 13,2022 hearing on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, the School Board's demographer, Michael Hefner of GPDS, testified that it was not possible to create a reapportionment plan establishing a nine (9) member board and election districts composed entirely of whole precincts. Plaintiffs did not offer any evidence or expert testimony to contradict Mr. Hefner's expert testimony.

22

The mere existence of other plans, providing for a School Board whose election districts are comprised of whole precincts, did not automatically mandate that the School Board choose those plans. The record shows that while the School Board reviewed and considered many different plans, a majority of its members decided on a nine (9) member board with the selection of Plan 22 through the School Board's adoption of the resolution. The record further shows that because no nine (9) member plan could be created containing election districts composed of entirely whole precincts, Plan 22 's use of divided precincts falls into the "divided precincts" exception of La. R.S. 17:71.3(E)(2)(a).

On this basis, we conclude that the trial court's decision was based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the reapportionment statutes, rather than a valid exercise of discretion. As such, its decision is not entitled to deference. See Bernhard Meeh. Contractors, Inc., 2011 WL 856899 at *4. The trial court erred in granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of Plan 22.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the denial of the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action filed by the defendant/appellant/relator, the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board.

We deny the motion to dismiss the appeal that was filed with this Court by the plaintiffs/appellees/respondents-Adeline Rene Singleton; Christopher Kees, Sr.; Tania Nyman; and Dr. James C. Finney-as moot.

We reverse the trial court's June 17,2022 judgment that granted a preliminary injunction, mandatory injunction, and declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs/appellees/respondents. We lift the partial stay of the trial court's June 17, 2022 judgment that was issued by this Court on June 30, 2022. All costs associated

23

with this appeal and the supervisory writ application are assessed to the plaintiffs/appellees/respondents: Adeline Rene Singleton; Christopher Kees, Sr.; Tania Nyman; and Dr. James C. Finney.

2022 CA 0667: MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL DENIED AS MOOT; DENIAL OF EXCEPTION AFFIRMED; JUDGMENT REVERSED; PARTIAL STAY LIFTED.

2022 CW 0679: MOTION TO STAY AND MOTION TO EXPEDITE MOOT; WRIT DENIED.