Did Terrebonne Parish still need an initiative election after voters approved a smaller school board?

Plain-English summary

Terrebonne Parish School Board asked who could withdraw an initiative petition to reduce board membership and what would happen if two reduction measures passed at different elections. Before the opinion issued, voters approved the board's own membership-reduction ordinance in the November 2000 election, and the initiative sponsors submitted a withdrawal letter. In 2000, the attorney general's office treated the remaining initiative question as moot.

The office said a later referendum on substantially the same reduction would accomplish nothing useful. It also concluded that the right to seek mandamus to put the initiative on a later ballot had ceased after the voters approved the board's proposal. It did not answer the hypothetical comparison between two successful elections.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Terrebonne school board at the time

The opinion said voter approval of its own reduction ordinance made further action on the similar initiative unnecessary.

Initiative sponsors at the time

The Chamber of Commerce and local NAACP branch had submitted a withdrawal letter after the board's measure passed. The office did not decide a general rule on who could withdraw petitions; it disposed of the matter as moot.

Common questions

Q: Was a second election on the initiative still required?
A: The office said no useful purpose would be served because voters had approved the board's reduction measure.

Q: Did the opinion decide who had legal authority to withdraw the petition?
A: No. It treated the issue as moot after the voter approval and withdrawal letter.

Q: Did it choose between conflicting results in two elections?
A: No. The hypothetical second election had not occurred, and the opinion said the initiative process had become moot.

Background and statutory framework

The request invoked R.S. 17:71.5's initiative procedure. The office considered the November 7 approval of the school board's ordinance, the later withdrawal letter, and case law stating that courts would not compel useless acts.

Citations and references

• R.S. 17:71.5 (initiative procedure identified in the request)
• Connick v. City of New Orleans, 543 So.2d 66 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989)
• State ex. Re. Hutton v. City of Baton Rouge, 47 so.2d 665 (La.1950)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/00-0474

Original opinion text

December 21, 2000
OPINION NUMBER 00-474

33 - ELECTIONS - Special Elections - Tax Bonds
Clayton E. Lovell, Esq.
Voter approval of school board's proposed ordinance on reduction of
the size of the school board moots the initiative process.
P. O. Box 3017
Houma, Louisiana 70361

Dear Mr. Lovell:

Your request for an Attorney General’s Opinion on behalf of the Terrebonne Parish School Board has been assigned to me for research and reply. You seek an opinion on the following matters:

1. Who has the authority to withdraw the petition for reduction of the Terrebonne Parish School Board and to establish the School Board districts the same as the councilmanic districts that was submitted to the Terrebonne Parish School Board by letter dated April 27, 2000 from the Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce and the Terrebonne Parish Branch, NAACP pursuant to the authority and the procedure set forth in the recently amended R.S. 17:71.5?

2. When can the petition for reduction of the Terrebonne Parish School Board be withdrawn and terminated?

3. If the reduction issue that is presently placed on the ballot on November 7, 2000 passes and the petition for reduction of the School Board and to establish the School Board districts the same as the councilmanic districts is not withdrawn and is placed on a ballot in 2001 and also passes, which election would prevail?

The school board’s proposed ordinance to reduce its membership passed by majority vote at the November 7, 2000 election. The initiative petition proposed by the Chamber of Commerce and the NAACP was set for public hearing on November 14, 2000, where the chamber and the NAACP submitted a letter withdrawing the initiative petition. Thus, the issue herein is whether any action by the school board is necessary in this matter.

It is our opinion that this matter is moot due to the majority vote approval on November 7, 2000 of the school board’s proposed ordinance to reduce its membership. The only possible action that could be taken at this point is a

Page 2

Clayton E. Lovell, Esq.
Opinion No. 00-474
Page -2-

mandamus action to require the school board to place the initiative petition on the election ballot in 2001. However, the right of any interested party to sue the school board in a mandamus action ceased, in our opinion, when the voters adopted the school board’s proposed ordinance to reduce its membership on November 7, 2000. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that nothing could be accomplished by holding a referendum election for the approval or disapproval of that which has already been approved by the voters on November 7, 2000. If the voters wanted to pursue the initiative petition, they should have rejected the school board’s proposed ordinance at the November 7, 2000 election, because for the most part, the purpose of the initiative petition was attained when the majority of the voters voted in favor of the school board’s proposal on November 7, 2000. Under these circumstances, it is our opinion that no useful purpose will now be served by requiring [by way of mandamus action] the school board to set the initiative petition for an election in 2001. Courts will not require a useless act. See, for example, Connick v. City of New Orleans, 543 So.2d 66 (La.App. 4 Cir.1989), and State ex. Re. Hutton v. City of Baton Rouge, 47 so.2d 665 (La.1950).

Trusting this opinion addresses your concerns herein, we remain

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
ATTORNEY GENERAL

ANGIE ROGERS LAPLACE
Assistant Attorney General

RPI/ARL;mjb

Page 3

Clayton E. Lovell, Esq.
Opinion No. 00-474
Page -3-

SYLLABUS

#00-474
33 - ELECTIONS - Special Elections - Tax Bonds

Voter approval of school board's proposed ordinance on reduction of the size of the school board moots the initiative process.

Clayton E. Lovell, Esq.
P. O. Box 3017
Houma, Louisiana 70361

Date Received:
Date Released: December 21, 2000

ANGIE ROGERS LAPLACE
Assistant Attorney General