CHANEL ROBINSON DEBOSE AND JACKSON VOSS v. HON JUDGE JUANA MARINE LOMBARD AND THE HONORABLE CHELSEY NAPOLEON CLERK OF COURT (2026)

For over thirty-five years, this court has recognized that election laws must be interpreted to give the electorate the widest possible chose of candidates. See, e.g., Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, p. 6 (La. 3/24/05), 899 So.2d 535, 541; Dixon v. Hughes, 587 So.2d 679, 680 (La. 1991). A court determining whether the person objecting to candidacy has carried his burden of proof must liberally construe the laws governing the conduct of elections so as to promote rather than defeat candidacy, and any doubt concerning the qualifications of a candidate should be resolved in favor of allowing the candidate to run for public office. Id., 05-0758 at 7, 899 So.2d at 541. Virtually every election case states these principles. Applying these fundamental principles, I find the unanimous decision of the court of appeal correctly applied the law as written and determined that the district court erred in disqualifying Judge Juana Marine-Lombard.

Our election laws require that a candidate certify “that for each of the previous five tax years, he has filed his federal and state income tax returns, has filed for an extension of time for filing either his federal or state income tax return or both, or was not required to file either a federal or state income tax return or both.” La. R.S. 18:463(A)(2)(a)(iv). Judge Marine-Lombard's candidacy was challenged on the basis she “falsely certified” that she filed her state tax return for 2023 as required by La. R.S. 18:463(A)(2)(a)(iv). Although plaintiffs made a prima facie showing for disqualification, it is clear that Judge Marine-Lombard successfully rebutted that showing.

In disqualifying Judge Marine-Lombard, the district court effectively held that her certification was false because there is no evidence that the tax return was actually delivered to and received by the Louisiana Department of Revenue (“LDR”). But whether the tax return was received by the LDR should not be the proper test for determining whether a candidate's certification was false. The law could provide proof of receipt of the tax returns is required to qualify for office, but the legislature has chosen not to impose that requirement. Thus, the proper focus should be on the truthfulness of the certification made at the time the candidate executed the Notice of Candidacy. See Debose, et al v. Hon. Judge Juana Marine-Lombard, et al, 26-0592 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/22/26), –So.3d–, 2026 WL 2456647 at *7 (Lobrano, J., concurring). Such determination can not be made simply based on a candidate's unsupported belief that the tax returns were filed; the court must determine whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to find that the candidate had a good faith belief that all of the required tax returns had been filed at the time she made the certification in the notice of candidacy. See Towbin v. Fuller, 26-00296, p. 1 (La. 3/11/26), 429 So.3d 715, 715-16 (Weimer, C.J., concurring).

In this case, the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Judge Marine-Lombard had a justified good faith belief that her 2023 state tax return was filed: she signed and gave her 2023 federal and state tax returns to her longtime accountant; the federal and state tax returns were mailed at the same time; the federal return was processed and produced a refund. Judge Marine-Lombard demonstrated a history of timely tax filings and a decades-long professional relationship with her accountant, which support her stated belief that her 2023 Louisiana tax return was filed. As detailed in Judge Lobrano's concurring opinion:

On this record, Judge Marine-Lombard's belief was not a bare assertion of subjective confidence. It rested upon a longstanding professional filing relationship, her execution of the paired federal and state returns and delivery of both signed returns to her accountant for filing, objective federal acceptance and processing, the subsequent application of the resulting federal overpayment to another tax period, and her testimony that she had received no rejection, deficiency notice, or other warning from the LDR before qualifying. Considering these circumstances together, the evidence supplied an objectively reasonable factual basis for her certification.

More particularly, Judge Marine-Lombard testified from personal knowledge that Mr. Ronald Parent had served as her accountant since 2009. She further testified that she met with Mr. Parent, signed her completed 2023 federal and Louisiana returns at the same time, and returned both signed returns to him for filing. The IRS transcript independently established that the companion federal return was received on April 23, 2025, and processed on June 30, 2025. The IRS thereafter issued a notice reflecting an overpayment on the 2023 federal return and applying that amount to another tax period.

The receipt and processing of the companion federal return do not independently establish that the LDR received the Louisiana return. They nevertheless constitute relevant objective evidence corroborating Judge Marine-Lombard's testimony that the completed federal and state returns were signed together and returned to her longtime accountant for filing.

Debose, 2026 WL 2456647 at *9 (Lobrano, J., concurring).

The law does not require a candidate provide proof of receipt of the filing. Instead, La. R.S. 18:463(A)(2)(a)(iv) requires the candidate “certify” she filed her tax returns or filed for extension. Alleging the candidate made a false certification implies she did so dishonestly, deceitfully, or speciously, indicating some form of bad faith. Critically important is the finding of the trial judge that the candidate “believed the taxes were filed.” That factual finding, when supported by objective, reasonable, and demonstrative evidence as was produced in this case, is generally inimical to a finding that the candidate made a false certification at the critical time when the certification is made and does not justify finding the candidate forfeited the right to run for office.

Because I find the evidence supports a finding that Judge Marine-Lombard has not “falsely certified” the Notice of Candidacy, I agree with the decision to deny the writ application.

WEIMER, C.J., concurring