Could a Louisiana clerk of court use public funds for election ads, and could staff work the polls when the clerk was a candidate?

Plain-English summary

A parish clerk of court asked what kinds of public service announcements the office could pay for and whether its employees could serve as poll commissioners while the clerk was a candidate. In Opinion 03-0319, the AG drew a line between factual public information and publicly financed advocacy. Public money could be used to disseminate purely factual information. It could not be used to promote or defeat a candidate or proposition or to manipulate public opinion on a public issue.

The AG did not approve any particular proposed advertisement because the clerk had supplied no specific example. On staffing, the AG's research found no provision barring a clerk's employee from working as a poll commissioner solely because the clerk was a candidate in that election.

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

Clerks of court and public information staff

The opinion identified lawful factual announcements as distinct from campaigns to sway public opinion. It quoted the constitutional ban on using public funds to urge a vote for or against a candidate or proposition and noted the statutory rule concerning publicly funded advertisements bearing a public official's name. Without a proposed advertisement before it, the AG gave no item-by-item approval for television, radio, newspaper, or internet ads.

Clerk employees serving at the polls

The AG found no legal disqualification based solely on the fact that the employee's clerk of court was on the ballot. The opinion directed readers to the election statute on commissioner qualifications and classifications but did not decide an individual employee's eligibility on other grounds.

Common questions

Could the clerk's office pay for a factual public announcement?

The AG said dissemination of purely factual information could lawfully be paid for with public funds. It did not review a specific advertisement.

Could public money be used to persuade voters on a candidate or ballot measure?

No. The opinion quoted the constitutional ban and treated publicly funded promotion or opposition as unlawful.

Was an employee automatically disqualified as a poll commissioner when the clerk ran for office?

The AG found no law imposing that disqualification solely because of the employer's candidacy.

Background and statutory framework

The AG relied on La. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 4 and LSA-R.S. 18:1465 for the election advocacy restriction. It quoted LSA-R.S. 43:111.1 on advertisements containing a public official's name and drew on Godwin v. East Baton Rouge Parish and earlier AG opinions to distinguish public information from public relations. It referred to LSA-R.S. 18:425(B) for poll commissioner qualifications. A third issue about a supposed 2003 enactment was left aside after the requester said the act had not passed.

Citations and references

• La. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 4; LSA-R.S. 18:1465: public funds and election advocacy.
• LSA-R.S. 43:111.1: advertisements containing a public official's name.
• LSA-R.S. 18:425(B): poll commissioner qualifications.
• Godwin v. East Baton Rouge Parish, 372 So.2d 1060 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1979): public funds restriction discussed by the AG.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/03-0319

Original opinion text

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
One American Place
301 Main Street, Suite 600
CIVIL DIVISION
P.O. Box 94005
BATON ROUGE
TEL.: (225) 342-7013
FAX: (225) 342-2090
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
70804-9005
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OCT 2 4 2O03
Opinion Number 03-0319

1-A-1 Advertising
90-A-1 Public Funds & Contracts
15-A Constitutional Law
26 Elections - Elections Officers (Party Committees, Commissioners, Special Duty Shedffs)
La. Const. Art. XI, Sec. 4
LSA-R.S. 18:1465; 43:111.1
Honorable Eliana DeFrancesch
Clerk of Court
Use of public funds to finance public relation techniques to manipulate public
opinion on public issues is ultra vires. Use of public funds to provide a public St. John the Baptist Parish information function to a public office is integral to its constitutional andlor
P. O. Box 280
statutory power and function, and is lawful if its intent is to be factually informative
to the public. An employee of the Clerk of Court is n an employee of the Clerk of
Edgard, Louisiana 70049
Court from working as a poll commissioner for a particular election merely
because their employer, the Clerk of Court, is a candidate in that election not prohibited from working as a poll commissioner for an election merely because his
Dear Ms. DeFrancesch: or her employer, the Clerk of Court, is a candidate in that election.

This office is in receipt of your recent opinion request. Therein, you request that this office address certain issues regarding the use of public funds for public service announcements and advertisements, and the employment of Clerk of Court personnel as poll commissioners. Specifically, your letter provides:

’~/Vhat public service announcements and advertisements can a public office, the Clerk of Court’s office, pay for out of the office funds? This includes TV, radio, newspaper and Internet advertisements.

Is it permissible for the Clerk of Court employees to work as poll commissioners on Election Day if the Clerk of Court, their employer, is a candidate?"

With regard to your first question, we note that you did not provide this office with any information regarding any particular announcements or advertisement your office has under consideration. As we discussed by phone, it is beyond the purview of this office to provide you with specific advice or information regarding each and every form of announcement or advertisement the Clerk of Court’s office could or might contemplate paying for out of public funds. We can, however, provide you with information regarding Louisiana law regarding such advertisements and announcements, as well as citation to pertinent opinions of this office addressing same.

La. Const. Art. Xl, Sec. 4 pertinently provides:

"No public funds shall be used to urge any elector to vote for or against any candidate or proposition, or be appropriated to a candidate or political organization. This provision shall not prohibit the use of public funds for dissemination of factual information relative to a proposition appearing on an election ballot."

Page 2

Opinion Number 03-0319
Honorable Eliana DeFrancesch
Clerk of Court
St. John the Baptist Parish
Page -2-

This constitutional provision was examined in Godwin v. East Baton Rouge Parish, 372 So.2d 1060 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1979); writ den., 373 So.2d 527 (La. 1979), wherein the court stated:

"... [La. Const. Art. Xl, Sec. 4] was obviously intended to protect the public fisc by prohibiting expenditure of public funds for expressly proscribed purposes, namely to promote or oppose a candidate for office, to promote or oppose the cause of any political organization, or to promote or oppose passage of any proposition submitted to the electorate. Additionally, the provision is designed to prevent public officials from using public funds to support or oppose candidates, parties or propositions."

LSA-R.S. 18:1465, contained within Louisiana’s Election Code, adopts verbatim the language of the La. Const. Art. ×1, Sec. 4, and provides penalties for violation of the provision.

Finally, we note the provisions of LSA-R.S. 43:111.1, which provide:

No public funds shall be used in whole or in part for the payment of the cost of any advertisement containing therein the name of any public official whether elected or appointed; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall in no case be construed to apply to advertisements placed by any public agency or body authorized by law to advertise in the furtherance of its functions and duties."

This office has recognized that the above-quoted provisions of law, among other prohibitions, clearly prohibit the use of public funds to promote or defeat any candidate or proposition, or to manipulate public opinion. Attorney General Opinion Nos. 03-0207; 02-0252. This office has, however, also recognized a distinction between the dissemination of lawful public information and unlawful public relations, based upon Godwin v. East Baton Rouge Parish, cited supra. In Attorney General Opinion No. 90-126A, we stated:

’~Vithout specific, express authorization from the legislature by statute (i.e. drug education, economic development, etc.), the use of public funds to finance public relation techniques to manipulate public opinion on public issues to create a body of public opinion favorable to a public official or entity, is ultra vires. The use of public funds to provide a public information function to a state office is integral to its constitutional and/or statutory power and function, and is lawful if its intent is to be factually informative to the public."

Our opinions also indicate that the dissemination of purely factual information via advertisement or publication may be lawfully paid with public funds. In Attorney General

Page 3

Opinion Number 03-0319
Honorable Eliana DeFrancesch
Clerk of Court
St. John the Baptist Parish
Page -3-

Opinion No. 89-418, we determined that advertisements may be published concerning an upcoming tax election and paid for with public funds where the authority disseminates purely factual information. See also: Attorney General Opinions Nos. 02- 0252; 02-0029; 99-34 and 94-528.

With regard to the second issue presented by your request, please be advised that our research revealed no provision of law which would prohibit an employee of the Clerk of Court from working as a poll commissioner for a particular election merely because his or her employer, the Clerk of Court, is a candidate in that election. With regard to the qualifications and classifications of commissioners, see LSA-R.S. 18:425(B).

Your letter requesting our opinion also sought our advice regarding an act of the legislature which you referred to as having been passed in July of 2003. However, you subsequently advised the undersigned by phone that the act your letter referred to was never adopted into law by the Legislature. As such, a discussion of that act is pretermitted herein.

We trust the foregoing to be of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we can be of assistance in other areas of the law.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Attorney General

E-MARIE
BARHAM

RPI/JMZB/dam
~ nt Attorne~