Louisiana. Constitutional Convention (1973).

Records of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1973 (Volume 7) online

. (page 60 of 168)
Online LibraryLouisiana. Constitutional Convention (1973)Records of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1973 (Volume 7) → online text (page 60 of 168)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

of one of my reservations about this Section a in
which we are considering no*. I do not believe that
you trt going to have a situation that at aany peo-
ple trt fearful of that of the cost factor Involved.
I do not know of an^ situation (hat (here hat been
concern ai."..i .i i-i....iii» ,.f ti... |,,.n,.ir i » m..i

51st Days Proceedings — September 21, 1973

talking about necessarily racial minority but a tf,g f^r,a^ resolution. It just seems to me that we
ty of the people has not at least posed the ^.g^t to offer people ingress into government by

question. I think that the figure as represented

by the committee is an arbitrary figure because w

originally started off at twenty-five then we got

down to fifteen The only reason for fifteen is has not'blen i rresponi i bly ' used ! ' 1 s'that'corrict ■

because basically it's arbitrary. I would ask fo-


final reso'
It to offer
aiding, but

people ir
not putt'

So this


not been ii
J. Jackson


maintains - -in fact if'
thousand in New Orleans
from ten percent in Shri
additional five percent
means in terms of the ar

ig such a high percentage.

your support of this amendment. Mr. J. Jackson Right. If the committee proposal

_-_- - ^-jtojumpfromten

•ther Discussion thousand in New Orleans to twenty-five thousand and

... . ^, from ten percent in Shreveport to twenty to.., an

ladies and gentlemen additional five percent and I don't know what that
jestion of what percentage ^^^„^ ^„ ^^^^5 of jf,^ ^^ount of voters that they

ui .utci nuo ..c = u = v^ luo discussed in the committee, have there

there were suggestions anywhere from twenty-five

percent down to ten percent. One of the problems f^^ pg^g^ As far as the committee is concerned.

that bothered the committee was the cost of calling

these elections that there wasn't a fair chance that

such a proposal may be passed if you only have say

ten percent. However, we have no strong feeling

on the matter one way or the other, we just leave

it to the pleasure of the convention as to what you

figure might be the right percentage in order to

be able to call for such an election.

[Amendment withdrawn without objection. 1


Mr. Poynter Amendment No 1 [by Mr. Bergeron and
Mr. J. Jackson} is just like the amendment I just
read: "Page 4, line 1, immediately after the word
"than" and before the word "percent" delete the
word "fifteen" and insert in lieu thereof "ten".

Amendment No. 2. On page 4, line 2, immediately
after the word "electors" and before the word "who"

-emarks I made previously apply to this pa
lar amendment.

adopted: 102-11. Motion to reconsider




late Gra

vel .



It No.

1 . On




■ 23,


r the



1 and





the word


and ins(


in li

eu ther

eof tl


fol Ic


: "Si


Jackson Mr. Chairman, ladies and ge

...... ,.,.,. ^ ,u . .. . Gravel Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen

de ete the comma , and insert in lieu thereof the of the convention, as all of you know. Section 8
following: "or ten thousand electors, which ever ^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^,,g charters which in the main have
is the lesser, . fo ,^0 ^^j^, those charters that are going to be

adopted in the future. We already have provided in
Explanation Section 7 that the provisions of this constitution

vith respect to even existing charters are para-
. . ,, . .nount, and that there can't be anything done in
thought when I originally got ^^^^^ ^,^^^5 jj,^^ presently have charters that are
-e 1 was explaining the revised amendment. As in.. .that is it would be in conflict with the pro-
:ioned. New Orleans has presently ten thousand visions of this constitution. The purpose of this
requires ten thousand voters, to initiate a amendment, and it's extremely important, is to make
ion to the city council to propose a charter... ^^^^ ^^,3^ „„ t,^^^ ^^^^ charter in the future will
lT'\t'^Hl.^'lt I L°"!^ .^'"L^^?L"h ^V^ *i^^^ ^"y provision that has such efficacy that it

^^^ override any provision in the constitution that
we are confecting at this time. What the amendment
then will do is to provide at the very outset that
subject to and not inconsistent with the provisions
of this constitution a local government charter
can be adopted as otherwise herein prescribed. I
can't emphasize too much how important I think it
is that we engraft upon any such concept with re-
spect to future home rule charters the requirement
that nothing in such charter, nothing in any future
amendment to any existing charter, shall be in con-
flict with any provision that's in this constitu-
tion. Now, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of
this amendment.


M r. ' Nei 1 1 Mr. Gravel, isn't this amendment
necessary to make sure that a home rule charter
won't contradict, say any provision adopted in the
Bill of Rights, for instance, the right to property?

Mr. Gravel Correct, or any other provision of the
constitution that we either have adopted or that
we may adopt. For example if you didn't have this
kind of provision it might very well be argued that
a home rule charter could provide, in the event this
convention decides the people are going to have a
homestead exemption under the constitution, that
ot be a homestead exemption accorded

attempted to do here as I previously mentioned \:

to: one, provide for a situation whereby our

charter already says ten thousand and two for

Shreveport which is that ten percent, and basica

there's no different from the manner in which I

first explained it to you. I'll stand up here 11

case there are any reservations or questions tha

people you know may have about this amendment.


Ms. Zervigo_n Representative Jackson, in the an

where they have got a number in the charter like

ten thousand have there been a whole flood of pe'

tions to put amendments on t-tie ballots and new cl

ter on the ballot?

Mr. J. Jackson Now I only can recall of one I

know, Mary, particularly in the city of New Orle,

Only one. There's no major flood. ..or contrary

the reservation 1 would think some delegates havi

about floods and people proposing amendments to


Ms. Zerviqon In that case that you speak of, i

the end, but never was submitted to the council to

put it on the ballot, and in the end the council

went ahead and put something else on the ballot th

was very similar, isn't that correct? the'citizens'in'the particular locality affected

„ , , , Tu ..., .. ..•,-,■ tiy such future charter. That's correct, Mr.

Mr. J. Jackson That's correct, particularly in O'Neill

the city of New Orleans, and even on the point that

generally i t ' s my . . . my basic feel i ng i s that by Mr. Kean Mr. Gravel, do I understand your explana

posing an amendment doesn't necessarly [necessarily] tion correctly to mean that if there is some other

means that that amendment is going to be - -you know affirmative prohibition or grant in the constitu-


51st Days Proceedings — September 21, 1973

tlon, that the home rule charter which would con-
flict with that would be inconsistent with it, would
not prevail?

Mr. Gravel My amendment means I think, Mr. Kean,
very clearly that no provision of any home rule
charter hereafter adopted can conflict with the
provisions of this constitution. That this consti-
tution in its provisions is paramount that any con-
flict between any of its provisions and those of
any home rule charter will have to be construed as
meaning that the provisions of this constitution
shall prevail. That's what it's intended to do and
I think that's what it does by its terms.

Mr. Kean Well, let me ask you this further ques-
tion, Mr. Gravel. Suppose a home rule charter was
drafted and adopted. If it was not inconsistent
with the provisions of the constitution and the
legislature then adopted a law which would be in-
consistent with what the charter provided, would
the legislative law prevail over the charter pro-
vis ions?

Mr. Gravel Insofar as this particular section and
this particular provision is concerned, there is
nothing said with regard to what the legislature
may or may not do by.. .insofar as putting any re-
straint on the charter. This has nothing to do,
Mr. Kean, ladies and gentlemen of the convention,
nothing to do with legislative action whatsoever
and let's don't confuse it with that. This says
precisely, succinctly and simply that you cannot
have in any future home rule charter any provision,
that is any valid provision, that conflicts with a
provision of this constitution. It has nothing to
do with any legislative act. We're going to get to
that later on.

I simply wanted to make that abundantly
that's the reason I asked the question.




ar and 1





Gravel, yesterday on our amendment
we began the section with the simple phrase "except
as may be inconsistent with the provisions of this
constitution." The prior amendment also used that
same phraseology, but yours goes further and says
"subject to and not inconsistent with the provisions
of this constitution." Are you concerned or do you
intend to broaden what we did yesterday, in this

Mr. Gravel No. I think this is just another way
of saying what we intended and makes It perhaps a
little bit clearer as to the supremacy of this...
of the provision of this constitution and I do think
we're only there talking about a Style and Drafting
problem. My intention by this amendment, so there's
no question about it, Mr. Conroy, and I appreciate
your question, is that no home rule charter can
provide with respect to anything contrary to any
provision in the constitution.

i consti-
our Intent yesterday with the
Section 7 and 1 wanted to make sure this was still
your same intent. 1 would have been. ..felt a lot
more comfortable if you had used exactly the same
phrase, because it seems to me that somebody would
tend to Interpret the two different phrases differ-

Mr. Gravel I think we are going to have to end up
with one phrase, whether it be this one or the one
that was utilised in the previous section one phrase
to encompass the same concept because I know ynu
and 1 have the same view on this, Mr. Conro,

Ms. Zervi9on Mr. Gravel, I'm a little cu'
about the effect of your amendment. Isn't
r«ct that you've drawn the amendment to appiy lu
the paragraph of the article that talks about the
method for drawing the charter?

Mr. Gravel It. aa'aa, Ms. Zervigon. I put >'
at the very beginning because at the very outset
we're granting the authority of local governaient
subdivisions to draft, adopt or aaiend this sort of

This provision as ( view it. Ms. Zervigon, says
that any local government subdivision say adopt a
charter in accordance with the provisions of this
section, which makes it a rather liaited area within
which a local government can act. I want it aade
abundantly clear at the Outset that with respect to
the adoption of any charter, with respect to the
amendment of any charter, nothing can be done by
local government that will conflict with the spec

Online LibraryLouisiana. Constitutional Convention (1973)Records of the Louisiana Constitutional Convention of 1973 (Volume 7) → online text (page 60 of 168)