finding because there is no clear and specific right to register to vote under two different parties, the district court did not err in declining to issue a writ of mandamus to order the Registrar to comply with Plaintiff's wishes to register as both Republican and Democrat
How later courts described this case
- finding because there is no clear and specific right to register to vote under two different parties, the district court did not err in declining to issue a writ of mandamus to order the Registrar to comply with Plaintiff's wishes to register as both Republican and Democrat
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GUIDRY, J.,
concurs.
|¶1 agree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court did not err in denying Mr. Baldone’s petition for writ of mandamus. It appears that a challenge to the processes by which La. R.S. 18:107(B) is implemented would be more properly sought by means of a declaratory judgment action or other ordinary proceeding.
Additionally, I write separately to express my concern that the law does 'not appear to provide guidance to a registrar when a voter’s choice does not fall within the options provided. Here, Mr. Baldone sought to change his registration from one recognized party to two recognized parties; he did not choose “other” — the option’generally provided when a voter wishes to register with a party that has not’ been recognized under La. R.S. 18:441. I question whether or not the registrar had the authority to choose a party designation for him, rather than simply declining to change his registration status.