Opinion Number

Dear Ms. Adams:

Your request for an Attorney General's opinion has been assigned to me for research and reply. Your letter states:

In the past several years, the City of New Iberia has annexed property into the city.

Recently, it has come to my attention that there may be a specific provision of the law concerning joint jurisdiction between the City Court of New Iberia and the justices of the peace and constables in the area annexed.

Does the law on the City Court of New Iberia provide that there are instances where a voter may vote on both the city court offices and the justice of the peace and constable?

LSA-R.S. 13:1952, provides in pertinent part:

The following city courts, heretofore created and established by special legislative Act, are hereby recognized and continued in existence and, except as otherwise provided in this Section, their territorial jurisdiction shall extend through the city and ward or wards wherein the city in which they are domiciled is located, as extended from time to time:

* * *

(18) The City Court of New Iberia, domiciled in the city of New Iberia, parish of Iberia, having one city judge and a city marshal. The territorial jurisdiction of the court shall extend over all territory within Iberia Parish which is now or hereafter included within the corporate limits of the city of New Iberia. Wherever the corporate limits of the city of New Iberia extend or hereafter extend into a justice of the peace ward, the city court shall have jurisdiction within the portion of the justice of the peace ward included within said corporate limits concurrent with that of the justice of the peace in those cases in which the said justice of the peace would have jurisdiction, and that portion of the justice of the peace ward not included within the said corporate limits shall remain under the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace.

Additionally, R.S. 13:1872 provides in pertinent part:

A. (1) In all wards where city courts exist and in wards containing cities of more than five thousand inhabitants, except in the city of Donaldsonville, the voters thereof shall elect a city judge, upon whose election the jurisdiction of justice of the peace and constable in that portion of the ward or wards in which the city is contained shall cease; . . .".

These two statues are conflicting, with R.S. 13:1952(18) providing for concurrent jurisdiction, and R.S. 13:1872 providing for the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court to cease. In researching the history of these laws, we found that Act 32 of 1960 continued into law R.S. 13:1872
and section 1952(18), containing only the first sentence thereof, each reading as follows:

[R.S. 13:1872, Louisiana Acts 1960, No. 32]

A. In all wards where city courts exist and in wards containing cities of more than 5,000 inhabitants, the voters thereof shall elect a city judge upon whose election the offices of justice of the peace and constable in the ward or wards in which the city in contained shall be abolished ipso facto. (Emphasis added).

[R.S. 13:1952(18), Louisiana Acts 1960, No. 32]

The following city courts, heretofore created and established by special legislative Act, are hereby recognized and continued in existence and, except as otherwise provided in this Section, their territorial jurisdiction shall extend through the city and ward or wards wherein the city in which they are domiciled is located, as extended from time to time:

* * *

(18) The City Court of New Iberia, domiciled in the city of New Iberia, parish of Iberia, having one city judge and a city marshal;

Thus, the city court in the City of New Iberia had been recognized and continued in 1960, and the offices of justice of the peace and constable were to be abolished ipso facto upon the annexation of the ward of the justice of the peace court.

In 1972, Act 34 added the second and third sentences of R.S. 13:1952(18), giving concurrent jurisdiction to the justice of the peace and city court in the City of New Iberia in that portion of the justice of the peace ward, wherein the justice of the peace would have jurisdiction under the law. Although this 1972 act conflicted with the general law of R.S.13:1872(A), it was the latest expression of legislative will.

Thereafter however, Act 577 of 1980 amended R.S. 13:1872(A), changing the language stating, "the offices of justice of the peace and constable" to "the jurisdiction of justice of the peace and constable in that portion of the ward" and changing the language stating, "shall be abolished ipso facto" to "shall cease". The 1980 act further provided in Section 3 as follows: "All laws or parts of law in conflict herewith are hereby repealed."

The principles of law with regard repealing laws is that "`[r]epeals by implication are not favored and will not be indulged if there is any other reasonable construction' that prior laws are repealed by subsequentlaws only in case of positive enactment or clear repugnancy; that nothing short of irreconcilable conflict between two statues works a repeal by implication; that where a statute is ambiguous and susceptible of two construction, the courts will give that construction which best comports with the principles of reason, justice, and convenience, for its is to be presumed that the legislature intended such exceptions to its language as would avoid its leading to injustice, oppression, or absurd consequences.'" Thomas v. Highlands Insurance Company and Brown and RootUSA, Inc., 617 So.2d 877, 878-879 (La. 1993) (Emphasis added). Additionally, with regard to special laws versus general laws, the principle of law is that "[A] special law is not repealed by a general law `unless the intent to repeal is clear and unmistakable'." CaliforniaCo. v. City of New Orleans, 60 So.2d 103 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1952).

It is our opinion that the prior law of Louisiana Acts 1972, No. 34, amending R.S. 13:1952(18) was repealed by the subsequent law of Louisiana Acts 1980, No. 577, amending R.S. 13:1872(A) by providing clearly and unequivocally in Section 3, "All laws or parts of law in conflict herewith are hereby repealed." If the legislature wanted to except the City of New Iberia from this repealing clause it could have done so in the repealing clause or in the law itself, as was done for the City of Donaldsonville [R.S. 13:1872(A)].

Our research also included a review of the committee minutes on Louisiana Acts 1980, No. 577. The minutes reflect that the author of the bill intended the bill to provide for the "[d]iminution of the territorial jurisdiction of the justice of the peace and constable in wards in which the city is contained to let the city judge have his jurisdiction within the city limits and the justice of the peace have it outside of the city limits." Minutes, House Committee on the Judiciary, June 2, 1980. These minutes further support the clear intent of the repealing clause of Section 3 of the 1980 act.

It is important to note that you confirmed to us that the prior practice of the registrar's office has been to no longer allow a voter who has been annexed into the city to vote for the office of justice of the peace, but to only vote on the office of city judge. This practice is consistent with the present law.

In answer to your jurisdictional question, it is our opinion that the City Court of New Iberia does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the justice of the peace court in that portion of the justice of the peace ward which has been annexed into the city's boundaries. However, the extension of the city's boundaries by way of annexation must be approved by the United States Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for the specific purpose of expanding the jurisdiction of the city court before same can be implemented. See, Atty.Gen.Op. No. 98-344 enclosed herein for an in-depth explanation.

In answer to your election question, it is clear that R.S. 13:1872
provides for the election of the city court judge by those voters within the city's boundaries, provided the necessary approval has been received from the Justice Department, as stated above. The election of the justices of the peace and constables includes those qualified voters within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court. R.S. 13:2582(B) and 2583(B). Since it is our opinion that the justice of the peace does not share jurisdiction with the city court in the City of New Iberia, it is our opinion that they do not share voters. Thus, the voters in the city's boundaries which have been extended into the justice of the peace ward will vote only on the city court offices. Likewise, the voters outside of the city's boundaries, but within the justice of the peace ward will vote only on the offices of justice of the peace and constable.

Again, our opinion is written under the assumption that the City of New Iberia has obtained the approval of the U.S. Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, not only for the city's purposes but also for the city court's purposes.

We hope this opinion answers all of your questions, but if we can be of further assistance, please advise.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB ATTORNEY GENERAL

___________________________ ANGIE ROGERS LAPLACE Assistant Attorney General

RPI/ARL;mjb

Enclosure

Cc: City of New Iberia City Court of New Iberia Justices of the Peace, New Iberia Elsie Cangelosi, Dept. of Elections and Registration

Dear Registrar Wilson:

We are in receipt of your request for an Attorney General's opinion regarding the City Court of Alexandria. Your question is as follows:

When annexation of land located inside Ward Two is fully completed to the City of Alexandria, will only that area affected by the annexation be allowed to vote in the upcoming Judge's race [office of Municipal Judge for the City of Alexandria], or will the whole ward be allowed to vote?

Your letter states that in the past all of Wards one (1) and eight (8) have been allowed to vote on the Municipal Judgeship, even though both of these wards are not completely inside the City of Alexandria. Additionally, you state that Attorney General Opinion No. 96-52 provided that the voters in Wards 9, 10, and 11 were to vote on the Municipal Judgeship held by the City of Pineville, and that while you realize that both of these districts are not governed by the same laws, that it is confusing.

The City Court of Alexandria was created by special legislative act, No. 72 of 1944, which provides in pertinent part:

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana that there is hereby established a Court to be styled `The City court of Alexandria, Louisiana,' whose territorial jurisdiction shall extend through Ward One of the Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana, in which the City of Alexandria is located. Said Court shall be composed of a City Judge and a City Marshal who shall be elected by the duly qualified electors of said Ward One and whose terms of office shall be for a period of six years.

Thereafter, the City Court of Alexandria was specifically recognized in LSA-R.S. 13:1952(2) as follows:

The following city courts, heretofore created and established by special legislative Act, are hereby recognized and continued in existence and, except as otherwise provided in this Section, their territorial jurisdiction shall extend through the city and ward or wards wherein the city in which they are domiciled is located, as extended from time to time:

* * *

(2) The City Court of Alexandria, domiciled in the city of Alexandria, parish of Rapides, having one judge and a city marshal;

* * *

With regard to the City Court of Pineville, we have opined that "[L]SA-R.S. 13:1951 and 1951.1 work in conjunction to provide that Pineville shall have a city court judge whose jurisdiction extends throughout the wards of the city in which the court is domiciled and, as legislatively extended, throughout Ward Eleven of Rapides Parish." Atty.Gen.Op. 97-348, 96-52.

The election question is in part based on these state laws and on federal law. In Attorney General Opinion No. 01-248, we opined that "R.S. 13:1872
provides for the election of the city court judge by those voters within the city's boundaries, provided the necessary approval has been received from the Justice Department ". LSA-R.S. 13:1872 provides:

A. (1) In all wards where city courts exist and in wards containing cities of more than five thousand inhabitants, the voters thereof shall elect a city judge,

Under federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, the extension of a city's boundaries by way of annexation must be approved by the United States Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act or by a three judge court for the specific purpose of expanding the jurisdiction of the city court before same can be implemented, meaning before an election can be held using such new boundaries. See, U.S.A. v. State ofLouisiana, 952 F. Supp. 1151.

In Attorney General Opinion No. 01-248, copy enclosed, we reviewed the history of R.S. 13:1872 and 1952. In sum, it was our conclusion that, ingeneral, prior to 1980 if a city annexed into a ward, the office of justice of the peace was abolished ipso facto and thus, although the city court's boundaries did not include the entirety of the ward, it's jurisdiction extended throughout the ward. Otherwise, if that were not the case, the citizens of the ward would be without a justice of the peace and not within the jurisdiction of the city court. Additionally, we concluded that after the 1980 amendment to R.S. 13:1872 by Act 577, that since the law was changed to provide for the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace to cease in only that portion of the ward which was annexed into the city's boundaries, when a city annexes a portion of a ward, the city's jurisdiction extends only into that portion of the ward which was annexed into the city and the justice of the peace [if there is one] retains jurisdiction in the remainder of the ward. Obviously, where there is no justice of the peace in the ward, the city court's jurisdiction extends throughout the ward, even though the election boundaries of the city court only extend into a portion of the ward. We do recognize that there are some specific laws with regard to jurisdiction of city courts in R.S. 13:1952 which may not fall within this general conclusion.

In response to your question as to who votes on the office of judge for the Alexandria City Court where a portion of Ward two (2) is annexed into the city, it is our opinion that only those voters within the annexed portion of Ward two (2) will vote on the office, in addition to those voters in Wards one (1) and (8) who have historically voted on the office. We know from Act No. 72 of 1944 that Ward one (1) votes on the city court, and we can only assume that the voters of Ward eight (8) have voted on the office due to a past annexation, although we have no factual information with regard to this issue. Again, this opinion is contingent on the approval of the annexation of Ward two (2) by the U.S. Department of Justice or a three judge court for the purpose of the election of the city court judge.

If our office can be of further assistance, please advise.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB ATTORNEY GENERAL

ANGIE ROGERS LAPLACE Assistant Attorney General

RPI/ARL;mjb

OPINION NUMBER 01-248

September 13, 2001

24 — ELECTIONS — Conduct of Primaries General 56 — JUDGES 57 — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Voters within the precleared boundaries of the City of New Iberia will vote only on the city court offices and voters within the justice of the peace and constable ward which has not been annexed into the city will vote only on the offices of justice of the peace and constable.

Mildred L. Adams Registrar of Voters Parish of Iberia Courthouse Building — Suite 110 300 Iberia Street New Iberia, LA 70560-4543