Could St. Martinville raise its maximum ordinance fine from $50 to $500?

Plain-English summary

St. Martinville proposed to amend its special legislative charter so that violations of city ordinances could draw a maximum fine of $500 instead of $50. The governor's office asked the Attorney General to review the amendment. In Opinion 03-0150, the AG found the higher ceiling consistent with state and federal law because the Lawrason Act then allowed ordinance fines up to $500.

The opinion recommended gubernatorial approval only if no protest was filed during the statutory thirty-day period. It was a legal review of the proposed charter language, not a statement that every violation would carry a $500 fine or that the governor had already approved the amendment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2003. 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.

What the opinion meant at issuance

St. Martinville officials

The AG said the proposed maximum matched the then-existing general municipal fine ceiling. The charter-amendment process still required gubernatorial approval and recordation after the statutory publication and protest steps.

City electors

The statute quoted in the letter allowed a protest by one-tenth of the electors within thirty days after publication. In that event the governor could not approve the protested amendment until it was submitted to voters and ratified by a majority.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG say St. Martinville could raise its fine ceiling to $500? A: Yes. He found the proposed change consistent with the Lawrason Act's then-existing $500 maximum for ordinance fines.

Q: Was the change already effective when the AG wrote the letter? A: The opinion recommended approval if the protest period passed without a qualifying protest. The quoted statute made the approved and recorded amendment effective as law; the letter did not itself complete those steps.

Q: Could voters stop approval of the amendment? A: A timely protest from one-tenth of city electors would require voter ratification before the governor could approve the protested amendment, under the statute quoted in the opinion.

Background and statutory framework

The city supplied Ordinance No. 03-1 and proof that it had been published in three March 2003 issues of the Teche News. R.S. 33:1181 prescribed the process for amending certain special municipal charters, including AG review, a protest period, and recordation. The AG compared the proposed $500 fine ceiling with R.S. 33:362(A)(1), (2)(b) and recommended approval if the protest condition was satisfied.

Citations and references

Statutes in the opinion: R.S. 33:1181 and R.S. 33:362(A)(1), (2)(b).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0150

Original opinion text

One American Place
301 Main Street, Suite 600
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
P.O. Box 9400~
CIVIL DIVISION
TEL.: (225) 342-7013

BATON ROUGE
FAX: (22.5) 342-2090

P~ICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL

APR 2, 8 Z0O3
OPINION NUMBER 03-0150

71-1 MUNICIPALITIES - Special Charters We find the proposed amendment to the special legisla~ve charter of the City of St.
Martinville to be consistent with state general law. as required by R.S. 33:1181.
Kimberly Wooten Rosenberg
Deputy Executive Counsel
Office of the Governor
P. O. Box 94004
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004

Dear Ms. Rosenberg:

We are in receipt of your request for our review and opinion of the proposed amendment to the charter of the City of St. Martinville. The proposed amendment increases the maximum allowable fine for violations of city ordinances from fifty dollars ($50) to five hundred dollars ($500).

The City of St. Martinville has presented the following documentation to your office for our review:

1. A copy of Ordinance No. 03-1.
2. An affidavit of publication of the ordinance, published in the Teche News, a weekly newspaper and the official journal of the parish of St. Martin. The ordinance was published in the March 3rd, 12th and 19th, 2003 issues.

R.S. 33:1181 provides, in pertinent part:

When a municipality existing prior to July 29, 1898, and having a population of two hundred thousand or less, which has not come under the provisions of Part I of Chapter 2 of this Title, desires to amend its charter, the same may be done in this way: The municipal governing body may prepare, in writing, the desired amendments, have the same published for three weeks in a newspaper published in the municipality, ...; the proposed amendments shall then be submitted to the governor, who shall submit them to the Attorney General for his opinion. If the Attorney General is of the opinion that the proposed amendments are consistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, including Part I of Chapter 2 of this Title, the Governor

Page 2

Kimberly Wooten Rosenberg
Opinion Number 03-0150
Page -2-

shall approve the proposed amendments. If, within thirty days after publication, one-tenth of the electors of the municipality protest against any proposed amendment, the Governor shall not approve the amendment protested against until it is submitted to and ratified by a majority of the electors of the municipality at an election held within sixty days after the protest has been made.
Amendments, when approved by the Governor, shall be recorded at the expense of the municipality, in the office of the Secretary of State and upon the records of the municipal governing body, and, when so recorded, shall have the force and effect of law.

We have reviewed the proposed amendment and are of the opinion that it is consistent with the constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, including Part I of Chapter 2 of Title 33. More specifically, Part I of Chapter 2 of Title 33, commonly referred to as the Lawrason Act, provides that ’"~he legislative powers of a municipality shall be vested in and exercised by the board of aldermen" and that "the board of aldermen may: ... enact ordiances and enforce the same by fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or imprisonment not exceeding sixty days, or both." R.S. 33:362(A)(1), (2)(b).
Therefore, we recommend that the Governor approve the proposed amendments, provided no protest has been filed within the thirty day period provided by law.

Trusting that this opinion sufficiently responds to your request, we remain

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
A~-TORNEY fGE~ ERAL

A~IG’]~E)-ROGE RS LAPLACE
Assistant Attorney General

RPI/ARL;mjb
Cc: Gregory P. Hardy, City Attorney