A number of sitting justices of
the peace and constables just now are kicking up a fuss after they have
appeared to figure out that a bill signed into law two months ago disallows
them running for their jobs again this fall. Act
495 removes an exception to the law that permitted those already elected to
office as of Aug. 15, 2006 to be eligible for reelection without the age limit
of being younger than 70 when beginning a term of service that otherwise would
apply. It is estimated to affect around 160 officials, only some of whom
already are over 70.
Justices of the peace fitting
that loophole were the only elected state judicial officials excepted from the
state’s 70-year-old age limit (the constitutionality
of age limits having been upheld). They handle civil claims under $5,000, can
issue orders pursuant to those, and perform marriages. Constables carry out
those orders and also have minor law enforcement powers associated with that
ability.
Author state Sen. Elbert Guillory claims to have been
asked to do this by somebody representing himself as from the professional
organization for these officials, the Louisiana
Justice of the Peace and Constables Association. However, the organization denies
this – even though it never raised any objections to the legislation. Further,
the organization had opposed HB
237 by state Rep. Sherman Mack
that originally
would have lifted the age limit on constables entirely.
And it’s not like this was done
in a cloak-and-dagger fashion. The bill didn’t have obscure passages buried in
it and rammed through quickly, but was a short, clear, standalone bill making
the change that had numerous presentations. A Senate committee
heard in on May 6, where Guillory succinctly and unambiguously explained it.
Only state Sen. Dan Claitor had a
question then, asking why the bill as he had heard of no complaints, to which
Guillory responded (repeating his introduction) “a constituent” expressed
concern about elderly constables without Peace Officer Standards Training carrying
guns. Two days later, Guillory presented it to the
Senate, where he got no questions and unanimous
passage of the members present.
On May
22, a House committee heard it, where Guillory got a question from Mack for
a request to amend it on the floor to except Livingston Parish constables from
the requirement, which Guillory then said he was amenable to. Then the House
heard it on May 30, with state Rep. Ledricka Thierry
handling it. Mack nor anybody else offered any amendments, much less any
questions. Only state Rep. Kenny Cox voted
against it. In all, legislators spent fewer than eight minutes on the bill
for the entire session.
Recently, legislators also caught
flak over apparent inattentiveness in allowing a bill to pass that raised
state liability on pensions that apparently would benefit only two individuals.
Some defended themselves by saying the bill came through at the very end of the
session with that provision tucked away into a larger bill by a conference
committee at the last minute (which, as the amended bill changed that
liability, makes it of dubious constitutionality). Many have vowed to repeal
that portion as soon as possible.
But now some, including Guillory,
are talking of repealing Act 495 as well, even though it was right out in the
open for months unobscured and unchanged, taking a leisurely stroll into law,
on the basis they didn’t know some of the affected might get upset over it. The
LJPCA had it in full view at all times – and if it found the time to review and
object to Mack’s bill it surely knew of this one – and found as little wrong
with it as did legislators, who approved of it by a whopping 117-1 margin.
There’s no excuse here to claim they didn’t know about this unless they simply
were inattentive and not doing their jobs.
Relevant to all of this is one
bill from last session that not only did not pass but also did not even get out
of its initial committee hearing. State Rep. Steve Carter’s HB
373 would have reduced the general session length (60 days met out of 85)
to the fiscal-only session length (45 days met out of 60) and limit the number
of general session non-local bills that could be introduced to 10 total. His
argument was too many bills got offered that never would pass, spreading
everybody’s attention span and time too thin, and that other states operated successfully
with these kinds of restrictions.
Naturally, given that much legislation
gets offered more with future campaigns in mind rather than with any real commitment
to it and/or any realistic chances these can pass, the committee
shunted this aside. Being that Louisiana’s legislators, elected and paid to
do the job, twice within the past month have said they didn’t understand what
they were doing when they passed a bill, an idea like Carter’s ought to be
taken more seriously beginning next session.
No comments:
Post a Comment