Jump To

Top Caption Disposition [Dissent

                  by Jenkins](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10803231/andrew-bradley-towbin-v-john-t-fuller-and-darren-p-lombard-in-his/about:blank#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Andrew Bradley Towbin v. John T. Fuller and Darren P. Lombard in His Official Capacity as Clerk of Court for Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans

Louisiana Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2026-CA-0152

• Disposition: Affirmed Atkins, J., Dissents With Reasons. Belsome, C.J. Dissents and Assigns Reasons. Lobrano. J., Dissents and Assigns Reasons Jenkins, J., Dissents and Assigns Reasons

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Disposition

Affirmed Atkins, J., Dissents With Reasons. Belsome, C.J. Dissents and Assigns Reasons. Lobrano. J., Dissents and Assigns Reasons Jenkins, J., Dissents and Assigns Reasons

Dissent

                        by Jenkins

ANDREW BRADLEY TOWBIN * NO. 2026-CA-0152

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL

JOHN T. FULLER AND * FOURTH CIRCUIT
DARREN P. LOMBARD IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS * STATE OF LOUISIANA
CLERK OF COURT FOR
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT *
FOR THE PARISH OF
ORLEANS *

---

SCJ JENKINS, J., DISSENTS AND ASSIGNS REASONS

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I write separately, however,

to address the majority’s reliance on Smith v. Charbonnet, 2017-0634 (La. App. 4

Cir. 8/2/17), 224 So.3d 1055 and to clarify why that decision is materially

distinguishable from the evidentiary record presented before us in this matter.

The evidence adduced at trial in this matter differs in significant respects

from the record that was before this Court in Smith. In Smith, the objectors

introduced correspondence from the LDR indicating it could not confirm the filing

of the candidate’s returns for the years 2012 and 2016, and an LDR representative

testified at trial that the agency’s records reflected no filing. The candidate

admitted he had no evidence demonstrating delivery of the returns to LDR prior to

executing his Notice of Candidacy. The only stamped copy of a return was

received after qualification. Thus, the record in Smith affirmatively established the

absence of filing at the time of certification, and the candidate possessed no

contemporaneous documentation or objective corroboration supporting delivery

before he signed.

On the contrary, the evidentiary context here reflects substantially different

circumstances. Mr. Fuller’s 2020 return was prepared by his accountant, Tracy

Madison, in the ordinary course of practice, and an invoice documenting
preparation of the 2019 and 2020 returns was introduced into evidence. Testimony

from both Mr. Madison and Mr. Fuller’s secretary, Danielle Taylor, established a

consistent annual routine: financial documents were gathered, returns were

prepared, signed, and placed in the United States mail pursuant to established

office practice, and the process was repeated year after year. Mr. Fuller also

introduced corroborating communications, including a text message exchange

confirming his filings at the time he qualified and a July 2, 2024 email from his

accountant stating that his 2020 taxes were filed.

Importantly, nearly five years elapsed without any notice from LDR of

delinquency, non-filing, or liability, and Mr. Fuller maintained the same address

and accountant throughout that period. Unlike in Smith, the record here contains

documentary support, corroborated testimony regarding routine mailing practices,

and a prolonged absence of administrative notice.

Moreover, in Smith the objector’s prima facie case was strengthened by

testimony from an LDR representative subject to cross-examination. In this case,

the objector relied solely upon an LDR custodian affidavit in response to a public

records request. While such evidence may establish a prima facie showing, it does

not carry the same qualitative evidentiary weight as live agency testimony

confirming non-filing. When the issue turns on whether a potential candidate

lacked a reasonable factual basis to certify compliance at the time of signing, the

evidentiary context matters.

I find that the proper inquiry is temporal and objective: whether, at the

moment he executed his Notice of Candidacy, Mr. Fuller possessed a reasonable

factual basis to certify that his returns had been filed. The record reflects that he

relied on routine professional preparation, established office mailing practice,

corroborating communications, and nearly five years without any notice suggesting

non-compliance. Those circumstances materially distinguish this matter from
Smith and undermine the conclusion that Mr. Fuller’s certification of tax

compliance was false. “[E]lection laws must be interpreted to give the electorate

the widest possible choice of candidates.” Collins v. Chambers, 2024-01005, p. 3

(La. 8/20/24), 390 So. 3d 1282, 1285 (citing Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.

3/24/05), 899 So. 2d 535, 541).