Warning About Other Areas Of Law Questions
|
Mahalo Answers is a great place to start your research into Other Areas Of Law questions, but it's not the final answer. Mahalo Answers is not a substitute for informed professional advice. If you desire or require professional advice, please consult a qualified provider who is licensed in your state or country. You should always seek independent professional advice before acting on any opinion, advice, or information available on Mahalo Answers. |
Answered Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
What can and should be done about the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refuses to perform marriages between blacks and whites?
I'm strongly in favor of mixed marriages myself, but I'm also in favor of the rule of law. So far everyone has been condemning the JP including all the politicians except Senator Vitter; but, I have seen no reasonable legal analysis just venting. Here are some of the aspects of the situation:
He is an elected official with 5 years to go on his term of office. He is beyond retirement age and will not run for reelection.
He is not paid to do marriages, he is allowed to do them and collect a fee from the couples.
Being a Louisiana JP only requires a high school education and a biannual training course from the Attorney General's office.
He claims to have simply recused himself from performing the marriages.
I think the laws can still remove him but what is your analysis?
He is an elected official with 5 years to go on his term of office. He is beyond retirement age and will not run for reelection.
He is not paid to do marriages, he is allowed to do them and collect a fee from the couples.
Being a Louisiana JP only requires a high school education and a biannual training course from the Attorney General's office.
He claims to have simply recused himself from performing the marriages.
I think the laws can still remove him but what is your analysis?
Interesting Question?
Yes (3)
No (1)
Interesting: buddawiggi M$2.76, doubleminaz M$0.10, jeffhoard M$0.50
Uninteresting: defolts
- About Louisiana |
- In Other Areas Of Law |
- Tags: justice, intermarriage, peace, louisiana, racism |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| October 20, 2009 06:20 PM |
Aside from that, the Judiciary Committee investigation would have to prove "ethical misconduct". Though many people may not agree with this particular JP's decision or the reasoning behind it, was it unethical for him to refuse to perform a ceremony not required by his job? I would argue that while his beliefs may be held as strongly socially unethical, I'm not at all sure that they are legally unethical.
However, since he is an elected official, it appears to me (judging by this article: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall_in_Louisiana) that he could, in fact, be recalled by the voters for whatever reason they choose as long as they can garner the support of 40% of eligible voters for office at time of last election
(since Tangipahoa Parish ahs a population of over 1,000 eligible voters).
Source(s):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/19/louisiana.interracial.marriage/
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_recall_in_Louisiana
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idi...
| Asker's Rating: |
• The media and we in the public were perplexed; but, the ACLU knew what to do all along. They filed a complaint with the Judiciary Commission who will investigate and make a recommendation to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Their powers are broader than that quote implies. My bet is that the Louisiana Supreme Court will order an involuntary retirement as the JP is already beyond the mandatory retirement age (he's still serving because he was grandfathered in when the mandatory retirement age law was passed years ago). I'll put more thoughts below.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (6)
October 20, 2009 03:53 PM
He should go before the state ethics committee, and his actions should be evaluated. He gives the reason of interacial marriages not lasting, though research does not support that claim. This and the fact that judges and Justices are to perform thier duties with out the influence of thier political philosophies and personal judgments. The state ethics committee should look to see if he acted out of concern for the citizens he serves and in the best interests of state laws. If he is found by the ethics committee not to have done so, thier are a number of things that could be done. He could be disbarred, fined, removed from his seat, and other such consequences. In my opinion, he has shown clear feelings of racism and should be punished according to federal laws as well as what the state ethics committee has in store for him. Racism is a plague in this country that does nothing but hold back human rights from being realized and slows progress on the whole.
Permalink | Report
Reply
October 20, 2009 04:37 PM
- New Source
It is plausible that he could be investigated by the state ethics committee but actually they can't:
"The Board concluded, and instructed me to inform you, that the Code of Governmental Ethics does not have jurisdiction over Justices of the Peace. A Justice of the Peace is defined as a “judge” by the Judicial Code. Thus, Justices of the Peace are exempt from the provisions of the Ethics Code." says one of their decisions.
http://204.196.0.53/EthicRu2.nsf/ecfd553acd8f6446862567f9006e60b6/acaf7beb7ea4b26c86256feb0060bdde?OpenDocument
He can't be disbarred because he is not a lawyer.
There are no Federal laws against being racist, you have to do something specific that violates a law.
http://www.ethics.state.la.us/
Report
"The Board concluded, and instructed me to inform you, that the Code of Governmental Ethics does not have jurisdiction over Justices of the Peace. A Justice of the Peace is defined as a “judge” by the Judicial Code. Thus, Justices of the Peace are exempt from the provisions of the Ethics Code." says one of their decisions.
http://204.196.0.53/EthicRu2.nsf/ecfd553acd8f6446862567f9006e60b6/acaf7beb7ea4b26c86256feb0060bdde?OpenDocument
He can't be disbarred because he is not a lawyer.
There are no Federal laws against being racist, you have to do something specific that violates a law.
http://www.ethics.state.la.us/
October 20, 2009 05:04 PM
He answers to somebody, and that entity should look into his actions. As far as racism not being illegal that may be so, but the federal government does have a five year penalty attached to hate crimes. If he is found to have done something illegal than the extra sentance can be added. I do believe that it is federally illegal to infringe upon human rights in this country especially those given by our federal and state laws. As far as being disbarred goes, my legaleze could use a brush up. He is not an attorney, but in almost all cases Judges were lawyers before they became judges and had to pass the bar and be liensed. Judges do not just give up thier licenses to practie law, they still need it.
Report
October 20, 2009 05:22 PM
You don't have to be a lawyer to be a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana, you only need a high school diploma or GED. I'm pretty sure refusing to marry someone would not rate being called a hate crime, it's not at all clear it's any sort of crime.
However, you are right that he has to answer to someone. Those would be the voters of his Ward and the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The voters have to wait five years unless they get a recall petition through (if you can recall a JP). The Supreme Court of Louisiana can censor, remove, or involuntarily retire him, it appears, if the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana recommends it.
Report
However, you are right that he has to answer to someone. Those would be the voters of his Ward and the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The voters have to wait five years unless they get a recall petition through (if you can recall a JP). The Supreme Court of Louisiana can censor, remove, or involuntarily retire him, it appears, if the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana recommends it.
October 20, 2009 04:02 PM
I too am strongly in favor of mixed marriages, as well as anyone being able to marry another person, be it those with different skin tones, religions, heights/weights, or same sex. Why should the government draw boundaries on whom individuals can marry? Would this have even made the news if a Justice of the Peace in a pro Gay Marriage state had refused to marry a gay couple? In almost any working environment today there are defined lines of harassment that we cannot cross or risk termination. I cannot refuse to work with someone based on the color of their skin, sexual orientation, etc.. and expect to keep my job. My employer would fire me in a second. Not because I wouldn't of been good at what I did, or near retirement, but because my actions would reflect poorly on the company, and possibly lead them (and me) into legal trouble. He represents his voters community, and if they find that he isn't the face of the community that they wish to portray, then he should be replaced.
Permalink | Report
Reply
October 20, 2009 04:24 PM
This is just more personal opinion. What legal reasoning is involved? He can't be fired because he is an elected official not an appointed official.
Report
October 20, 2009 09:02 PM
why are you strongly in favor? should'nt it be because 2 people met and fell in love? while I think the judge is a a**clown people that marry people way different from themselves generally don't make it. it isn't about racism it is about when the newness wears off, what do you really have. I have seen many times where a black guy will date or marry a non black woman and then refer to black women as "our women" not realizing that his attitude rubs people the wrong way.
Report
October 20, 2009 09:45 PM
I mentioned it in passing but that is not the question here. The question is did the JP break the law, if so which one(s), and what legally can or should be done about it?
Report
October 20, 2009 06:56 PM
Interesting question, albanian, and I'm interested to learn what YOUR analysis is. I'm not going to research Louisiana law (now THERE'S a jambalaya for you!), and I think it might be a stretch to make a federal case for constitutional violations. But, I was thinking about the possibility that the JP might find himself staring down the business end of a 1983 action. (That would be a federal civil action filed by the harmed parties against him, the parish and the state for racial discrimination.) 42 U.S.C. 1983 applies to persons who deprive others of rights "under color of" law. The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Am. to the U.S. Constitution is the right, the law that permits him to do marriage ceremonies is the "under color of" law.
Thus, I foresee it eventually reaching the political level of not whether Bardwell'll be removed - but whether Louisiana will have the fortitude to forbid future JP's from making similar racist decisions.
Source(s):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html; http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html;
Permalink | Report
Reply
October 20, 2009 07:59 PM
Maybe, but I'm not sure he actually deprived anyone of anything. He said, more or less, I won't do it but you can go to the JP in the next Ward. He's thinking of himself like a Priest or Rabbi but he's a JP and not supposed to do that. The area is known for its lack of comprehension of separation of Church and State too.
I'm willing to bet that a new section is going to be added to the Attorney General's one-day biannual training class for JP's!
Report
I'm willing to bet that a new section is going to be added to the Attorney General's one-day biannual training class for JP's!
October 20, 2009 09:10 PM
I'm thinking he deprived them of equal protection. Sure it is his choice, but by exercising the choice in a discriminatory way....
Report
October 23, 2009 05:23 PM
Thanks, albanian. I agree with your analysis above, and think that it also meshes with my thoughts on the 1983 claim.
Report
October 20, 2009 08:34 PM
Since he is only "allowed" to perform marriages, there's nothing that can be done other than removing that priviledge from his list of duties. As an Afro-American woman with a white husband, I am under no delusions that racism isn't at work in many government entities, especially our legal system, at large.
I prefer this fellow's open refusal to his performing the ceremony, then sending the KKK to burn a cross on the new family's front lawn.
Tags: marriage, racism, ignorance
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(1)
Helpful: defolts
Unhelpful: albanian
Tip mysticraven for this answer
Reply
October 20, 2009 09:03 PM
The law is more complex than that. You can't just seize on one word. That's why most of the discussions in the papers have been pretty pointless. It's also why he thinks his actions are ok; he has a simplistic notion of "recuse".
Report
October 20, 2009 09:06 PM
there probably is not a lot that can be done and it is up to the people of Louisiana not the rest of the country. everyone wants to be the hero and act like they are enlightened, the truth is there are plenty of other stories involving race that are never given much coverage, why I can even think of a country that we run huge trade deficits with and provide free defense to and they view others as less than their own citizens, and there is no outrage, nor do they take in very many refugees. I guess I would make him stand in the corner and send him to bed without his pot roast.
Source(s):
personal opinion.
Permalink | Report
Reply
October 20, 2009 09:41 PM
That is not much of an answer. A bit of research would have helped.
Report
October 20, 2009 09:53 PM
there were already answers above, you are in an area where you really cannot do a whole lot of research, there really are not specific rules against what this judge did and to mark someones answer unhelpful is really disingenuous, you and andrew44232 have the bad habit of doing, that what exactly could I have added to that was not already added? I have been in the court room and laws are always open to interpretation, if there is no specific rule against what he did, he can probably do it until the state acts. everyone wants to be the hero here, everyone wants to show they are not racist, like everyone wanted to say they love animals and were outraged about Michael Vick, most people are clueless when it comes to how the legal system works. most people are clueless when it comes to how athletes get to where they are, most people are clueless in the United States when it comes to racism that is perpetrated by nonwhites. everyone wanted to run around and attack apartheid in South Africa when the truth is the Japanese system is not much better.
Report
October 20, 2009 11:03 PM
If you didn't have anything helpful to add you didn't have to answer. Especially as you seem completely off topic.
Report
October 21, 2009 04:41 AM
not all of us are attorneys like you must be, these are political questions. my point on this topic was everyone jump on the band wagon when there is a white racist and yet when others act similarly they seem to not see it.
as far as answering questions, have you ever done the same? http://www.mahalo.com/answers/actors/how-do-you-plan-to-remember-patrick-swayzes-recent-passing
I wonder... not every question here is going to require much or any research, how do you answer the best song question? who even decides these things? a lot of these questions are just designed to generate web traffic and nothing more.
Report
as far as answering questions, have you ever done the same? http://www.mahalo.com/answers/actors/how-do-you-plan-to-remember-patrick-swayzes-recent-passing
I wonder... not every question here is going to require much or any research, how do you answer the best song question? who even decides these things? a lot of these questions are just designed to generate web traffic and nothing more.
October 21, 2009 04:47 AM
when you put in the line "I'm strongly in favor of mixed marriages myself" and then proceeded with what you stated was an analysis this ceased to be a question. all this was designed to do was invite commentary, only you like so many other people on the internet cannot stand it when someone disagrees with you. did you even read what this woman was going to school for, do you not think that maybe this was designed to cause controversy? kind of like going into an office of ACORN with no intention of seeking any real help. were you aware that Rosa Parks was chosen to start the protest on the bus? these things do not happen out of the blue. the tea parties were planned and organized the moment the republicans knew they were going to loose.
Report
October 21, 2009 08:58 AM
You are completely off topic and this was not a personal opinion question but one very amenable to online research. It is not relevant to the case whether anyone else is racist (except perhaps voters in his Ward) or whether other countries exhibit racism.
And it turns out I was right about that other question, I completely forgot about the person until you reminded me here.
Report
And it turns out I was right about that other question, I completely forgot about the person until you reminded me here.
October 20, 2009 09:23 PM
im sure in some way shape or form this involves money, and when it comes to money everyone needs to get paid and will at any cost... If they dont care for your cause theres no way they will pass mixed marriages any time soon. I suggest moving or something were it is ok.. I know that is so ridiculous but sometimes this world is a s--tty place just role with the punches and sometimes punch back if u know u can win.! =) Thanks Mike @ !
Permalink | Report
Reply
October 20, 2009 09:43 PM
This answer does not reflect even reading the basic news story let alone doing any research.
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
No questions found.
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- surgoutam, November 27, 2009 02:52 PM
- bizgloo, November 27, 2009 02:31 PM
- samtiff2, November 27, 2009 02:28 PM
- barbaraproctor, November 27, 2009 02:28 PM
- toniescheef, November 27, 2009 01:59 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
Recall
The legislature shall provide by general law for the recall by election of any state, district, parochial, ward, or municipal official except judges of the courts of record. The sole issue at a recall election shall be whether the official shall be recalled. "
I think a JP is considered a judge of the court of record (although I'm not sure). No judge or JP has ever been recalled in Louisiana. If it was legal, they would need 33% of the voters in the 8th Ward to sign. There are currently 3231 white voters and 58 black voters. I suspect a big proportion of the voters support their JP, although we'll never know for sure.
"On recommendation of the Judiciary Commission, the Supreme Court may censure, suspend with or without salary, remove from office, or involuntarily retire a judge for willful misconduct relating to his official duty, willful and persistent failure to perform his duty, persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute, and conduct while in office which would constitute a felony, or conviction of a felony."
Considering that he admits not marrying mixed couples for 30+ years and that has brought the office and the whole state into disrepute across the country and even internationally (I saw it on the BBC) I don't see how it could not be "persistent and public conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute," You could scarcely fit that better if you tried.
My bet is that the Louisiana Supreme Court will order an involuntary retirement as the JP is already beyond the mandatory retirement age (he's still serving because he was grandfathered in when the mandatory retirement age law was passed years ago).
The basic laws that he was breaking, beyond this catch-all for judges, are in my opinion the ones banning discrimination in Public Accommodations. Public Accommodations aren't just hotels and restaurants, they have a big body of law and include almost anything offered to the public. Findlaw says about the government part: "Government-owned/operated facilities and services. Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government. Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance)." So the services of a Justice of the Peace in performing marriages is surely a Public Accomodation in the eyes of the civil rights laws. What usually happens with them is that on a complaint the judge orders the offending party to stop discriminating. This probably will not be the route taken but the arguement will probably be made during the investigation by the Judiciary Commission that this was specifically how he was bringing the office into disrepute.
http://www.lasc.org/la_judicial_entities/judiciary_commission.asp
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/more-civil-rights-topics/public-accommodation-civil-rights-more/public-accommodation-discrimination-overview.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/19/louisiana.interracial.marriage/