Do old dry-ward votes still bar alcohol sales after Livingston Parish creates new election districts?

Plain-English summary

Livingston Parish voters had allowed alcohol sales parishwide, but some older police-jury wards later voted dry. A home rule charter replaced the old political map with nine council election districts that did not match the wards. None of the new districts had held a local-option vote. The Attorney General said the old dry-ward status did not survive in those new districts; they were treated as wet under the merger rule it discussed.

The AG relied on R.S. 26:583 and a Louisiana Supreme Court decision concerning a formerly dry ward merged into a new election district. The opinion's concluding paragraph prints “R.S. 26:563,” while its opening, statutory quotation, and case discussion identify R.S. 26:583. This page follows the provision the opinion quoted and flags that internal number discrepancy.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. Later local-option elections, district changes, legislation, or court decisions may have changed sales status. Verify the current boundaries and election results before relying on it.

What this means for you

Parish and election officials

Map the old ward boundaries against the new election districts and check whether each new district has held a local-option vote. The AG's answer depended on the absence of a prohibitory election in the new district, not simply on the parish adopting a charter.

Alcohol retailers and residents

Do not rely on an old ward's dry designation alone after restructuring. In this opinion the new districts were wet because none had voted dry; current district elections and permit rules still need separate verification.

Common questions

Did the old dry vote still control the former ward territory?

No. The AG read R.S. 26:583 as giving territory merged into a new election district that district's sales characteristics. With no prohibitory election there, the new district was wet.

Had Livingston Parish voted to allow alcohol sales at all?

Yes. The request reported a parishwide vote allowing alcohol sales, followed by dry votes in some former wards. The AG then addressed what happened after those wards became parts of new districts.

Why does this page cite R.S. 26:583 rather than R.S. 26:563?

The opinion quotes and analyzes R.S. 26:583, then prints “R.S. 26:563” once in its conclusion. The latter number conflicts with the provision it actually discussed.

Background and statutory framework

R.S. 26:583 addressed the legal sales status of territory merged into another ward, district, or municipality and sought a uniform local-option status across each resulting unit. The AG applied that rule, and the cited state Supreme Court's similar district-merger analysis, to Livingston's new council districts.

Citations

• R.S. 26:583 (effect of territorial merger on local-option status).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.la.us/Opinion/Download/06-0228

Original opinion text

December 28, 2006
OPINION 06-0228

55-INTOXICATING LIQUORS AND LOCAL OPTION

Wanda J. Edwards
LSA-R.S. 26:581, et seq.; R.S. 26:583
Livingston Parish Council
Wards previously voted “dry” in local option election
519 Florida Avenue, SW
which have been merged into new election district
Denham Springs, LA 70726
where no local option election has been held are
considered “wet” and must permit the sale of alcoholic beverages.
Dear Ms. Edwards:

Your correspondence to this office requests our opinion regarding whether local option elections held in Livingston Parish in wards which prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages remain valid now that the parish has converted to a home rule charter and election districts, when no local option election has been held in the newly created election districts.

We requote the facts as set forth in your correspondence. In 1940, the voters of Livingston Parish permitted the business of selling or dealing in or with alcoholic or intoxicating liquors within the parish after a special election called for that purpose. Subsequently, and under the old “police jury ward system,” various wards within the parish prohibited the sale of alcoholic beverages pursuant to local option elections held under La. R.S. 26:582(1). These elections were held in 1975.

In 1996, Livingston Parish adopted a home rule charter and changed its plan of government from the police jury to the president-parish council form of government. The council consists of nine council members elected from single- member districts and an elected president. The council districts were created through reapportionment and do not correspond to the former wards. The wards were not abolished per se, but they are relegated to service as tax wards. No local option elections have been held in any of the nine newly created council districts.

R.S. 26:583 states, in part:

583. Effect of merger

A. When a portion of a ward, election district, or municipality is annexed or made a part of another ward, election district, municipality, or city-parish government, the portion annexed or

Page 2

Ms. Wanda J. Edwards
OPINION 06-0228
Page 2
made a part of shall take on the legal sales characteristics, as provided in this Chapter, of the ward, election district, municipality, or city-parish government to which it is annexed or made a part of.

B. The provisions of this Section shall be applicable to any election previously called under this Title or any other local option law and to any territory covered by such election which has subsequently been merged with another ward, election district, incorporated municipality, or portion thereof or whose boundary has been changed, it being the intention of this Chapter that the sale of beverages covered by this Title be permitted or prohibited only in an entire ward, election district, or incorporated municipality and not in any portion thereof.

In Sabine Parish Police Jury vs. Commissioners of Alcohol & Tobacco Control, 898 So. 2d. 1244 (LA 2005), and interpreting R.S. 26:583 quoted above, the Supreme Court determined that a formerly dry ward that merged into a new election district took on the sales characteristics of the newly created election district, which was deemed “wet” in its entirety, given that there had never been a local option election in the election district prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages.

We agree with your legal assessment as stated in your correspondence. Since the factual circumstances in Livingston Parish are the same as those considered in the Sabine case, supra, the holding of the case is applicable. The provisions of R.S. 26:563 as interpreted by the Louisiana Supreme Court dictate that a ward, or portion thereof, must take on the local option sales characteristics of the election district which it comprises after parish restructuring.

We hope the foregoing is helpful to you. Should you have other questions in which we may provide assistance, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

CHARLES C. FOTI, JR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY: _____
KERRY L. KILPATRICK
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL

KLK:arg

Page 3

Ms. Wanda J. Edwards
OPINION 06-0228
Page 3

SYLLABUS

OPINION 06-0228

55 – INTOXICATING LIQUORS AND LOCAL OPTION

Wards previously voted “dry” in local option election which have been merged into new election district where no local option election has been held are considered “wet” and must permit the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Ms. Wanda J. Edwards
Livingston Parish Council
519 Florida Avenue, SW
Denham Springs, LA 70726

Date Received:

Date Released: December 28, 2006

KERRY L. KILPATRICK
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL