Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

648 So. 2d 1

648 So.2d 1

94 La.App.1Cir. 2148

Rushing v. Jupiter

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided October 20, 1994

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1994-10-20

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-10-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2014

7 state decisions

40199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This is an election contest suit contesting the election for mayor of Napoleonville, Louisiana. A total of 437 votes were cast. Defendant-appellee Darryl Jupiter received 219 votes, and plaintiff-appellant Grady Leslie Rushing, III, received 218 votes.

¶2The trial court maintained the peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action and dismissed plaintiffs suit. Plaintiff appeals.

¶3We pretermit any discussion of the no cause objection and whether or not an amended petition could relate back to the original petition because we affirm for other reasons.

¶4At issue is the validity of two absentee ballots wherein there is no challenge to the qualifications of each voter, but rather the qualifications of one witness on each absentee envelope flap is challenged. One witness was legally blind and the other was not present when the voter signed the certificate. This second witness was seated in a car outside the voter’s house and signed as a witness when the absentee ballot envelope was returned to the car.

¶5Be the above as it may, a deputy registrar of voters was the other witness on each of these absentee ballots, and under La.R.S. 18:61 B, a deputy registrar of voters may administer an oath. Thus, the deputy registrar was acting the same as the notary, in lieu of witnesses, as provided in La.R.S. 18:1306 E(l)(f). The mere technicality that the deputy registrar may have signed the flap on the wrong line is of no moment.

¶6Therefore, there is no defect in these absentee ballots, and we affirm at appellant’s costs.

¶7AFFIRMED.

/648/so2d/1 · .json · Public domain