• Facebook
• Twitter
• Email
• Print

After the Louisiana Supreme Court last month deemed unconstitutional a state law that allows legislators who are also lawyers to get hearings in their legal cases postponed, through a mechanism known as a legislative continuance, some state lawmakers are fighting back.

“We don’t need to impede on the judiciary, and quite frankly, the judiciary doesn’t need to impede on us,” said state Sen. Jay Luneau, D-Alexandria, while presenting legislation he is sponsoring to rework the law the court said was unconstitutional.

“I’m concerned about the fact that now we have a situation created where we have, in essence, a constitutional crisis,” said Luneau, a personal injury attorney.

During formal legislative sessions, including special sessions, state lawmakers are required by law to be at the Capitol, and that could create a conflict if a court requires a lawyer who is also a state legislator to appear for legal proceedings, Luneau said.

He and Sen. Gregory Miller, R-Norco, also a lawyer, are backing two alternatives that could replace the law the Supreme Court struck down.

The legislation is being considered during a 20-day special legislative session that is primarily focused on tax reform. But Miller said he is hoping to have a new law in place before lawmakers convene again in the spring.

“We wanted to have this in place for any future sessions,” he said.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court said the current version of the law violated the separation of powers doctrine in that “the Legislature has usurped the courts’ power to decide when fixed court dates may be continued or extended.”

But ahead of the ongoing special session, the court issued guidance saying that if a state lawmaker is required to participate in a court proceeding as legal counsel, “there shall be a presumption that a motion for continuance filed by the member of the legislature is proper and should be granted."

“The motion for continuance must be accompanied by an affidavit that the legislator will be or is in actual attendance of a session of the legislature,” the guidance said.

Luneau’s proposal, Senate Bill 7, includes a presumption that a motion for continuance is proper, and creates a mechanism to challenge the motion.

Miller’s proposal, Senate Bill 9, would set up “peremptory grounds” for lawmakers to seek a continuance, which is more favorable to lawmakers making the continuance request. It also lays out detailed procedures for how a motion for continuance should be handled by courts.

Both proposals advanced out of a Senate committee Thursday. They must be considered by the full Senate before moving to the House. The current special session ends Nov. 25.