On Monday, January 26, the Louisiana 23rd Judicial District Court will be holding two hearings at 9 AM and at 12 PM Central Time. The first will be regarding the Vida Voce case, in which the Ascension Parish Council is alleged to have violated the legal requirements in its zoning votes. In that case, defendant Councilmembers have filed exceptions in which they attempt to argue the case against them should not move forward on procedural grounds. The court will then need to decide the merits of defendants’ exceptions. The second hearing is at noon regarding the Ascension Economic Development Corporation’s (AEDC) claim that it is exempt from complying with the Louisiana Public Records Act. Ultimately, the court will need to decide whether to compel the AEDC to comply with the Act and plaintiffs’ records request.

WHEN: Monday, January 26 at 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM CT

WHERE: Louisiana 23rd Judicial District Court, 607 E Worthey St, Gonzales, LA 70737

WHO: Plaintiffs and their attorneys will be available for comment on the record.

ABOUT THESE SUITS:

Rural Roots and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade vs. Ascension Parish Council

According to the complaint, the Ascension Parish Council has violated state law mandating transparency in local government in its votes to rezone land in the proposed RiverPlex Mega Park area. The Council changed the zoning without vocally casting votes on the record. The suit was filed on October 6, 2025.

The suit, which was filed in state court, alleges that members of the Ascension Parish Council skipped voice voting on critical votes concerning the rezoning of land for the RiverPlex MegaPark, which includes a proposed Hyundai facility. Instead, according to filings, the “Ascension Parish Council has been approving certain agenda items with silent, implicit consent voting – or no voting at all.”

The requirement of casting votes by viva voce is a key component of government transparency and accountability. It allows constituents to have a record of how each of their elected officials voted on any given issue. By flouting the legally mandated voting process, plaintiffs contend, Councilmembers are making it harder for the public to understand and have a record of members’ decision-making processes.

At the heart of the case is an August 7, 2025 session of the Council in which members convened to decide certain zoning matters pertaining to the development of the so-called “RiverPlex MegaPark.” The area has long been zoned for conservation. Recent zoning votes have set the stage to radically change the character of the area into a landscape of industrialization.

For multiple August 7 agenda items concerning the RiverPlex MegaPark, “there was no voice vote or roll call vote; the Council chair instead asked for objection, and then deemed the items approved when no member of the Council verbally objected,” according to the suit. Then, two weeks later, on August 21, and again on November 20, the Council again approved multiple agenda items in the same fashion without meeting the legally mandated requirement of casting votes by viva voce (literally “the living voice” or voting aloud).

The requirement of casting votes by viva voce is not merely a formality, but a key component of government transparency and accountability. It allows constituents to have a record of how each of their elected officials voted on any given issue.

The planned industrial expansion in the area would include a proposed Hyundai steel mill. The state of Louisiana has created a $600 million dollar incentive package for the project. The anticipated construction has already spurred the loss of irreplaceable historic sites and caused concern within the community about additional harmful industrial pollution.

Rural Roots and the Louisiana Bucket Brigade vs. Ascension Economic Development Corporation

Plaintiffs requested public records from the AEDC pertaining to its economic development activities on behalf of the parish government. Despite the lawful request being made under the Louisiana Public Records Act, the AEDC originally refused to comply, stating that it is a private entity whose records are not covered by the state’s public records law. Plaintiffs’ lawsuit was filed in response to AEDC’s refusal to comply.

The Louisiana Public Records Act specifically applies to state and local government bodies, and generally excludes private companies from disclosure of their records. However, there are exceptions in place for economic development corporations using public funds, or otherwise operating as government bodies. As plaintiffs have already shown in their filings, the AEDC, despite its organization as a private company, is indeed a creation of Louisiana municipalities and operates primarily thanks to hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual public funding.

After plaintiffs filed suit, AEDC admitted that it is required to provide records related to its use of public funds. However, it also claimed that it has not used any of its extensive public funding in its work on developing the MegaPark. Now that AEDC agrees that it is required to disclose public records, the remaining issues will be what records it has, and of those records, what it is required to disclose.

###