Oct 4, 2010 9:20 PM by Alison Haynes
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - A lawsuit filed Monday challenges the
way state lawmakers balanced last year's budget with $200 million
from Louisiana's "rainy day" fund and seeks a repayment that
could damage this year's budget.
Former state Rep. Ron Gomez of Lafayette is one of two
plaintiffs on the lawsuit, which claims legislators violated the
state constitution by not refilling the rainy day fund after using
it to help close a deficit in the fiscal year that ended June 30.
The repayment issue was at the heart of a dispute between House
and Senate leaders in budget negotiations in the last legislative
session. Senate leaders won the debate, arguing that a 2009
statutory change doesn't require the rainy day money to be repaid
for years, and a majority of House members and Gov. Bobby Jindal
went along with that interpretation.
The lawsuit, filed in East Baton Rouge Parish district court,
argues that a statute can't trump a constitutional provision
governing the fund that requires the fund to be repaid. The lawsuit
calls the statute illegal.
Gomez and co-plaintiff Bob Reid of Baton Rouge list themselves
as residents and taxpayers on the lawsuit. In a joint statement,
the pair said they filed the lawsuit to prevent state officials
from repeatedly raiding the fund.
"Our state government is attempting to avoid its responsibility
to balance the state budget through the traditional means of
regulating spending and revenue levels. If allowed to continue,
these actions will quickly result in the exhaustion of the fund,
and will place Louisiana back in the precarious and unstable fiscal
condition which the fund was designed to prevent," Gomez and Reid
Treasurer John Kennedy and the state are listed as defendants.
"I followed the statute, but whether the statute is
constitutional or not we're going to have to let a judge tell us,"
Kennedy said Monday. "I was afraid this was going to happen."
Senate President Joel Chaisson, D-Destrehan, wasn't surprised
the lawsuit was filed, saying he had heard business groups had been
looking for someone to challenge the way lawmakers used the money
without repaying it. But he added, "I strongly feel that the case
is without merit."
House Speaker Jim Tucker, who unsuccessfully pushed for rainy
day fund repayment, disagreed.
"In my mind the statute and the constitution are in clear
conflict, so we'll see how the court views it," said Tucker,
If the money is required to be repaid, it would create an
estimated $200 million hole in the current $25.5 billion state
budget that would have to be closed by June 30, which likely would
require budget cuts across state agencies.
"We will reach out to agencies to ask them to prepare plans for
absorbing an additional $198 million reduction, in the event that
the court takes issue with this budget language. We are not raising
taxes, so if the court rules against this language, we will have a
plan in place to make the necessary reductions," said Paul
Rainwater, commissioner of administration and Jindal's top budget
Formally called the Budget Stabilization Fund, the rainy day
fund was created in the state Constitution in 1998 to help with
state budget shortfalls.
Certain funds immediately flow into it, including budget
surpluses and state income tied to oil and gas, unless the fund has
reached its cap. There are limits on when the fund can be used and
how much can be taken from it, and a two-thirds vote of lawmakers
The fund is currently at $644 million, which is below its cap.
But rather than oil and gas money flowing into the fund as provided
by the constitution, the state followed a 2009 statute that doesn't
require the fund to be filled until the state's revenue reaches the
levels of the 2007-08 fiscal year, a high-water mark in state