The opinion
SANDRA THOMAS * NO. 2025-CA-0449
VERSUS *
COURT OF APPEAL
KEVIN GRIFFIN-CLARK AND *
THE HONORABLE DARREN FOURTH CIRCUIT
P. LOMBARD *
STATE OF LOUISIANA
*******
APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2025-06886, DIVISION “I-14”
Honorable Lori Jupiter, Judge
******
Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott
******
(Court composed of Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Rosemary Ledet, Judge Tiffany
Gautier Chase, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott, Judge Monique G. Morial)
John W. Joyce
Michael A. Balascio
Lorcan L. Connick
BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN FREEMAN & SARVER, L.L.C.
909 Poydras Street, Suite 2350
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
Ryan K. Thompson
ATTORNEY AT LAW
12605 South Harrell Ferry Road, Suite 5
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816
Jessica F. Hawkins
P.O. Box 5072
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
Madro Bandaries
MADRO BANDARIES, P.L.C.
1127 2nd Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE, DARREN LOMBARD IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT AND CHIEF
ELECTIONS OFFICER
AFFIRMED
JULY 25, 2025 AT 4:06 P.M.
NEK This is an appeal of an election suit objecting to the candidacy of Appellant,
DLD
RML Kevin Griffin-Clark (“Mr. Griffin-Clark”), for the office of New Orleans City
TGC
Council, District D. Mr. Griffin-Clark seeks review of the district court’s July 21,
MGM
2025 judgment sustaining Appellee’s, Sandra Thomas (“Ms. Thomas”), petition for
action objecting to candidacy (“petition”). For the following reasons, we affirm the
district court’s judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 11, 2025, Mr. Griffin-Clark qualified for the office of New Orleans
City Council, District D, by filing a State of Louisiana – Notice of Candidacy
Qualifying Form (“Notice”) with the Clerk of Court for Orleans Parish Criminal
District Court. The Notice, which was signed by Mr. Griffin-Clark and notarized,
provided, in pertinent part:
9) If I am a candidate for any office other than United States senator or
representative in congress, that for each of the previous five tax years,
I have filed my federal and state income tax returns, have filed an
extension of time for filing either my federal or state income tax return
or both, or was not required to file either a federal or state income tax
return or both.
***
1
14) All the statements contained herein are true and correct.
Four days later, Ms. Thomas filed a petition objecting to Mr. Griffin-Clark’s
candidacy. She alleged that Mr. Griffin-Clark failed to file his Louisiana state tax
returns for the tax years 2021 and 2023, and thereby provided a false certification on
his signed Notice. Due to his false certification, Ms. Thomas averred that Mr.
Griffin-Clark should be disqualified as a candidate for the District D council seat.
The matter was set for hearing on July 21, 2025.
During the July 21, 2025 hearing, four witnesses testified – Kameelah Isby
(“Ms. Isby”), Ms. Thomas, Pamela Manuel (“Ms. Manuel”), and Mr. Griffin-Clark.
Ms. Isby – an executive assistant for Deep South Political Consulting – testified that
on July 11, 2025, she made a public records request to the Louisiana Department of
Revenue (“LDR”) regarding whether Mr. Griffin-Clark filed tax returns for the
2020-2024 tax years. According to her testimony, on July 14, 2025, she received a
response from the LDR indicating that it did not have 2021 or 2023 tax returns on
file for Mr. Griffin-Clark. After receiving the response, Ms. Isby explained that she
made an additional request to the LDR for an affidavit verifying its July 14, 2025
response. She further testified that she received an affidavit – from the same LDR
representative that provided the initial response – certifying that the July 14, 2025
response was true and correct. The public records request, the July 14, 2025 LDR
response, and LDR affidavit were all introduced and admitted into evidence.
Ms. Thomas – a registered Orleans Parish voter and resident of District D –
testified that on July 14, 2025, she made a public records request to the LDR
regarding whether Mr. Griffin-Clark filed tax returns for the 2020-2024 tax years.
According to her testimony, she received a response from the LDR indicating no
confirmation of tax filings for the 2021 and 2023 tax years for Mr. Griffin-Clark, the
2
same response received by Ms. Isby. Ms. Thomas explained that she filed the
petition because of the discrepancy between Mr. Griffin-Clark’s signed Notice and
the LDR response regarding his tax filings and her desire to have elected officials
who “make representations that are accurate.” Introduced and admitted into evidence
were Ms. Thomas’ voter registration card, her public records request, her LDR
response, and Mr. Griffin-Clark’s signed Notice.
Ms. Manuel – Mr. Griffin-Clark’s tax preparer – testified that she
electronically filed his 2021 and 2023 tax returns in August 2024. Although Ms.
Manual explained that she received confirmation pages indicating these tax returns
were transmitted, she failed to provide any documentation of these purported
confirmation pages to the court.
Finally, Mr. Griffin-Clark testified that he signed his Notice of Candidacy on
July 11, 2025, and acknowledged that he was obligated to file federal and state tax
returns for the preceding five years, including the 2021 and 2023 tax years. Mr.
Griffin-Clark explained that “to the best of his knowledge”, based on Ms. Manuel’s
representation to him, he believed his tax returns for the pertinent years were filed
at the time he executed his Notice. Nevertheless, Mr. Griffin-Clark conceded that he
did not have any documentation present in court evidencing the filing of his 2021
and 2023 federal and state tax returns. Notably, no documentary evidence was
introduced during the hearing on behalf of Mr. Griffin-Clark.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court took the matter under
advisement. Later that afternoon, the district court rendered judgment sustaining Ms.
Thomas’ petition and disqualifying Mr. Griffin-Clark from the election. This timely
appeal followed.
3
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Appellate courts review a [district] court’s findings of fact under the manifest
error or clearly wrong standard.” Henry v. Bell, 2023-00543, p. 4 (La. App. 4 Cir.
8/25/23), 371 So. 3d 566, 569 (citing Smith v. Charbonnet, 2017-0634, p. 5 (La.
App. 4 Cir. 8/2/17), 224 So.3d 1055, 1058-59). “Regarding issues of law, the
standard of review of an appellate court is simply whether the court's interpretative
decision is legally correct.” Id. “[I]f the decision of the [district] court is based upon
an erroneous application of law rather than on a valid exercise of discretion, the
decision is not entitled to deference by the reviewing court.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Griffin-Clark asserts two assignments of error, which we find can be
succinctly summarized into one salient issue for this Court to consider: whether the
district court manifestly erred in disqualifying Mr. Griffin-Clark as a candidate for
New Orleans City Council, District D.1 “[E]lection laws must be interpreted to give
the electorate the widest possible choice of candidates[;]” therefore, “a person
objecting to candidacy bears the burden of proving that the candidate is
disqualified.” Collins v. Chambers, 2024-01005, pp. 3-4 (La. 8/20/24), 390 So. 3d
1282, 1285 (citing Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La. 3/24/05), 899 So. 2d 535,
1 On appeal, Mr. Griffin-Clark asserts two assignments of error: (1) the district court erred and/or
abused its discretion in not following the intent and spirit of the law, and in not properly
interpreting the Louisiana Election Law Code, when it ruled that Kevin Griffin-Clark bore the
burden of proving actual filing of his tax returns prior to his notice of candidacy and is not qualified
to run in the primary election for New Orleans City Council, District D, rather than looking to his
reasonable belief that said returns were in fact filed; and (2) the district court erred and/or abused
its discretion in ignoring the testimony of Mr. Griffin-Clark and Pamela D. Manuel, CPA, who
affirmatively testified that she did in fact electronically transmit Mr. Griffin-Clark’s tax returns in
August of 2024 to the Louisiana Department of Revenue through Drake Tax software and Sigma
Tax Pro, a certified third-party vendor which meant that the taxes were timely filed in accordance
with Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 61, pt. I, §4911 (B)(4).
4
541). “The party on which the burden of proof rests must establish a prima facie
case.” Id., 2024-01005, p. 4, 390 So. 3d at 1285. Once the objecting party establishes
a prima facie case, “the burden then shifts to the opposing party to present sufficient
evidence to overcome the [objecting] party’s prima facie case.” Id.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 18:492 sets forth the grounds for disqualification
of an election candidate. In the matter herein, Ms. Thomas’ objection is based on La.
R.S. 18:492(A)(7), which provides:
A. An action objecting to the candidacy of a person who qualified as a
candidate in a primary election shall be based on one or more of the
following grounds:
***
(7) The defendant falsely certified on his notice of candidacy 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 as provided in R.S.
18:463(A)(2), or was not required to file either a federal or state income
tax return or both.
According to Mr. Griffin-Clark’s filed Notice, he attested to filing his federal and
state tax returns for the previous five years. In support of her objection, Ms. Thomas
produced a sworn affidavit from an LDR employee stating it had no confirmed tax
filings for Mr. Griffin-Clark for the 2021 and 2023 tax years. The trial court
determined that this evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case under La.
R.S. 18:492(A)(7). We agree. At this point, the burden shifted to Mr. Griffin-Clark
to establish he did not falsely certify that he filed his taxes for the previous five tax
years.
At the hearing, Ms. Manuel testified that she electronically filed Mr. Griffin-
Clark’s 2021 and 2023 tax returns in August 2024, and Mr. Griffin-Clark testified
that he believed his taxes were filed based on Ms. Manuel’s representation to him.
5
However, fatal to Mr. Griffin-Clark’s case was the fact that he failed to produce any
documentary evidence to corroborate that his tax returns were transmitted, filed, or
received by the taxing authorities.
On appeal, Mr. Griffin-Clark attempts to form a nexus between his case and
Clark v. Bridges, 2023-00237 (La. 2/22/23), 356 So. 3d 990. However, this instant
matter is factually distinguishable from the Clark case. In Clark, the lower courts
disqualified Stephanie Bridges (“Mrs. Bridges”) – a judicial candidate – based on
the fact that she was unable to verify that her electronically-filed tax returns were
delivered to the taxing authorities at the time she signed her notice of candidacy. The
Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decisions and ruled that based
on La. Admin. Code Title 61, pt. I §4911(B)(4), “transmission by the tax payer is
the operative event for electronic filing.” Id., 2023-00237, p. 7, 356 So. 3d at 994.
The Court reasoned “the objective evidence confirms that transmission, the
operative event, was successful because LDR received the filing[,]” thus, “Ms.
Bridges has met her burden to establish that her tax returns were filed prior to the
filing of her notice of candidacy.” Id. at pp. 8-9, 356 So. 3d at 995.
At trial, Mrs. Bridges presented objective evidence that she filed tax returns
the previous five years leading up to qualifying for office. Specifically, Mrs. Bridges
presented documentary evidence that her tax returns were transmitted, filed, and
received by the taxing authorities. Mrs. Bridges testified that on the morning of
January 25, 2023 – prior to signing her notice of candidacy – she and her husband
went to their tax preparer’s office, signed their federal and state tax returns, waited
at the office until the tax preparer informed them that their federal and state tax
returns were electronically filed, and received copies of their electronically filed tax
returns. Id. at pp. 3-4, 356 So. 3d at 992. Mrs. Bridges further testified that prior to
6
leaving the office, her tax preparer provided her with a letter stating that her federal
and state tax returns were filed electronically, and this letter was admitted into
evidence. Id. at p. 4, 356 So. 3d at 992. Moreover, Mrs. Bridges submitted her own
public records request to the LDR, and on February 6, 2023, she received
correspondence that the pertinent tax return was on file, and this correspondence was
admitted into evidence. Id. at p. 3, 356 So. 3d at 991.
Unlike Mrs. Bridges in Clark, Mr. Griffin-Clark failed to provide any
documentary evidence that his tax returns were ever transmitted, filed, or received
by the taxing authorities. Mr. Griffin-Clark did not testify that he signed any tax
returns or witnessed their transmission. Additionally, he did not introduce into
evidence any copies of his 2021 and 2023 tax returns. Furthermore, no documentary
evidence was admitted demonstrating that Ms. Manuel received or provided Mr.
Griffin-Clark with any proof that his tax returns were transmitted, filed, or received
by the taxing authorities. Mr. Griffin-Clark maintains his belief that his tax returns
were filed, based solely on his tax preparer’s representation that she filed his 2021
and 2023 tax returns in August 2024, is sufficient to overcome Ms. Thomas’ prima
facie case. However, a candidate’s personal belief regarding tax status or filings is
insufficient to rebut a plaintiff’s prima facie case. Henry, 2023-0543, p. 5, 371 So.
3d at 570.
The uncorroborated testimony of Ms. Manuel and Mr. Griffin-Clark was
insufficient to rebut Ms. Thomas’ prima facie showing that Mr. Griffin-Clark had
not filed his 2021 and 2023 tax returns at the time he signed his Notice. Accordingly,
we find that the district court did not manifestly err in determining that Mr. Griffin-
Clark falsely certified that all of his federal and state tax returns for the last five years
had been filed when he signed his Notice.
7
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s July 21, 2025
judgment disqualifying Mr. Griffin-Clark from the election for New Orleans City
Council, District D.
AFFIRMED
8