Could a Louisiana drainage district collect a renewed tax in an annexed precinct left off the polling-place list?

Plain-English summary

Livingston Parish Gravity Drainage District No. 5 added territory before a 2005 vote on renewing its half-cent sales tax, but the registrar omitted the newly added precinct from the polling-place list. The Attorney General concluded that the mistake did not invalidate the election. The tax had passed by a substantial margin, and the only resident of the omitted precinct had tried to vote for it. On those facts, inclusion of the precinct could not have changed the outcome, so the district could collect the renewed tax in both the added area and its original territory.

The AG relied on White v. Livingston Parish School Bd., which addressed when a polling-place irregularity could overturn a tax election. The quoted rule placed the burden on a challenger to show that the general election result changed. The opinion did not say an omitted precinct was harmless in every election; its conclusion turned on the small affected electorate and the wide margin here.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. 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.

Common questions

Did leaving the new precinct off the polling-place list void the tax renewal?

The AG said no for this election. The registrar's error affected a precinct with one resident, while the proposal passed by a substantial margin; the missing vote would not have reversed the result.

Could the district collect the tax in the annexed territory?

Yes. Because the AG treated the renewal election as valid despite the omission, it concluded the district could collect the tax in the newly added area as well as the original district.

Did the opinion approve every election with an omitted precinct?

No. It followed a result-focused rule and emphasized the actual voting margin and number of affected voters. It did not resolve a case where the omission could change the outcome.

Background and statutory framework

The police jury created the district in 1985, the district added territory in 2004, and the board held a renewal election in January 2005. The registrar, rather than the drainage district, controlled the precinct list. The AG compared this error to the polling irregularity in White and found the uncast vote immaterial to the result under the facts submitted.

Citations

• White v. Livingston Parish School Bd., 111 So. 700 (La. 1927) (effect of a polling-place irregularity on a tax election).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/05-0151

Original opinion text

July 28, 2005
OPINION NO. 05-0151

22-1 DRAINAGE & DRAINAGE DISTRICTS
Ms. Wanda J. Edwards
Attorney at Law
Registrar’s failure to include newly added precinct to the
Fayard and Honeycutt
list of polling places did not invalidate tax election since
A Professional Corporation
the tax proposal passed by a wide margin and since the
519 Florida Avenue, SW
number of voters at this precinct would not have changed
the outcome of the election. Thus, the District can collect Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726 the tax in the newly annexed area, as well as the remainder of the originally created Gravity Drainage
Dear Ms. Edwards: District of Livingston Parish.

I am in receipt of your letter requesting an opinion concerning whether a Registrar’s failure to include a newly added precinct in a tax renewal election in a newly annexed territory prevents a drainage district from collecting the tax approved by the vast majority of the voters.

In connection with this request, you submit the following facts: In 1985, the Livingston Parish Police Jury created by ordinance the Gravity Drainage District No. 5. On April 8, 2004, the Board of Commissioners of the District (“the Board”) altered the boundaries to include the additional territory. On January 15, 2005, the Board caused an election to be held in the entirety of the District, including the additional territory, for the purpose of renewing a ½ cent sales tax that the Board had previously authorized in 1995. The Registrar of Voters of Livingston Parish did not include the one newly added precinct to the list of polling places. The final election tally indicated that the tax renewal election passed by a substantial margin. The only person who lives in the newly annexed precinct attempted to vote for the proposition. No one attempted to vote against the proposition.

White v. Livingston Parish School Bd., 111 So. 700 (La. 1927) presents facts similar to the ones in this case. In White, the Livingston Parish School Board called a special parish-wide election to receive authorization to impose a tax to provide aid to the public schools. The School Board passed an ordinance levying the tax and requiring its collection on all property within the parish-wide school district.
Alleging that irregularities at two precincts deprived a sufficient number of voters to have changed the result of the election, opponents of the tax filed suit seeking to annul the election and enjoin the school board from collecting the special tax. When at the trial court level the opponents to the tax won, the school board appealed.

Page 2

Ms. Wanda J. Edwards
Attorney at Law
OPINION NO. 05-151
Page 2

The Court, adopting 9 R.C.L § 111, p. 1108, held:

“’[s]o even if the polling place in one precinct is not opened at all, and no election is held, this does not of itself invalidate the election held in the county unless it appears that the general result was thereby changed, and the burden of showing this lies upon the person contesting the result as returned.’” [citations omitted.] Id. at 271.

In this case, the governing authority was a drainage district, not a school board. Like the facts of White, problems arose concerning one or more precincts. However, in this case, the drainage district did not have control over the precincts. The Registrar did. These facts differ from the facts in White since the school board in that case ran the election. Most significantly, the Registrar’s blunder here had a minimal effect. The tax proposal passed by a wide margin. The only person who lived in the newly annexed precinct attempted to vote for the provision. No one attempted to vote against the proposition. Thus, the outcome of the election would not have changed had the omitted precinct been included on the list of polling places.

Even though the Registrar did not include one newly added precinct to the list of polling places, the Registrar’s omission did not invalidate the election since the tax proposal passed by a wide margin and since the number of voters at this precinct would not have changed the outcome of the election. It is our opinion that the election was valid in spite of the Registrar’s mistake and that, therefore, the District can collect the tax in the newly annexed area, as well as the remainder of the originally created Gravity Drainage District No. 5 of Livingston Parish.

We hope that this sufficiently answers your inquiry, but if we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: _________
CHRISTOPHER D. MATCHETT
Assistant Attorney General

CCF:CDM:lrs

Page 3

OPINION NO. 05-0151

22-1 DRAINAGE & DRAINAGE DISTRICTS

Registrar’s failure to include newly added precinct to the list of polling places did not invalidate tax election since the tax proposal passed by a wide margin and since the number of voters at this precinct would not have changed the outcome of the election. Thus, the District can collect the tax in the newly annexed area, as well as the remainder of the originally created Gravity Drainage District of Livingston Parish.

Ms. Wanda J. Edwards
Attorney at Law
Fayard and Honeycutt
A Professional Corporation
519 Florida Avenue
Denham Springs, Louisiana 70726

Date Received:

Date Released: July 28, 2005
Christopher D. Matchett
Assistant Attorney General