PANEPINTO v. SMITH (2022)

Writ application granted. See per curiam.

Writ granted. The judgments of the lower courts disqualifying Darryl David Smith as a candidate for mayor of the city of Hammond are reversed. See Deal v. Perkins, 22-1212, (La. 8/19/22), ––– So.3d ––––, 2022 WL 3570375.

It is undisputed that the residence of candidate Smith is on North Oak Street and that he does not claim a homestead exemption on his residence.

For the reasons set forth in my dissent in Francis Deal v. Adrian Perkins, et al., 22-1212 (La. 8/19/22), ––– So.3d ––––, 2022 WL 3570375, I disagree. Under the clear language of La. R.S. 18:492(A)(1) and (3), I find that Mr. Smith has “failed to qualify for the primary election in the manner prescribed by law” and does “not meet the qualifications for the office he seeks in the primary election” and therefore should be disqualified as a candidate for the office of Mayor of the City of Hammond.

I agree with the majority that the lower courts erred in disqualifying Darryl David Smith in his candidacy for the position of mayor of the city of Hammond. In my view, however, this case is distinguishable from Deal v. Perkins, 22-1212, (La. 8/19/22), ––– So.3d ––––, 2022 WL 3570375. Here, the record demonstrates that Mr. Smith did not make a false certification on his Notice of Candidacy, as Judge Guidry noted in his dissent. See Panepinto v. Smith, 2022-0830 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/9/22), ––– So. 3d ––––, 2022 WL 3205529 (Guidry, J., dissenting). I, therefore, agree with Judge Guidry “that there exists a reasonable basis in the record that Mr. Smith was truthful and accurate in his certification that he did not claim a homestead exemption on a residence pursuant to Article VII, Section 20 of the Constitution of Louisiana in a precinct other than where he is registered.” Id. at ** 2.

Hughes, J., concurs and assigns reasons. Crichton, J., dissents and assigns reasons. McCallum, J., concurs in the result and assigns reasons.