East Baton Rouge City Councilwoman Tara Wicker’s legal battle to put her name on the November ballot as a candidate for mayor-president came to a screeching halt Friday as the state Supreme Court declined to hear her case.
Wicker had filed a request urging the high court to review an appeals court decision that found a lack of documentation showing that Wicker had filed state income tax returns for the years 2016 and 2018. State law dictates that failing to file tax returns disqualifies her from running in the mayoral race, three East Baton Rouge parish residents argued in a lawsuit.
Though a district court judge, Timothy Kelley, sided with Wicker in the dispute, the First Circuit Court of Appeal decided that she did not offer sufficient proof she filed the proper paperwork with the Louisiana Department of Revenue (LDR). The department, however, did subsequently provide a letter stating that Wicker had no liabilities or outstanding interest or penalties.
“Ultimately, we believe it should be an open/closed case because we have demonstrated that I paid my taxes, was owed a refund, and I have my tax filings for both years,” Wicker told the Louisiana Record in an email prior to Friday’s Supreme Court decision.
Wicker’s attorneys had argued that the high court should grant an oral argument on the issue. The “liberal construction of election laws” supported her candidacy, and the residents alleging a failure to file income taxes relied on vague and unreliable public records requests, Wicker’s request to the Supreme Court stated.
“The Tara Wicker for Mayor-President campaign is disappointed by the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision not to hear our case; however, the campaign respects the decision and the justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court,” the campaign said in a Twitter post on Friday. “We are at peace regarding the decision.”
Wicker, family members and her campaign staff will meet in the days ahead to discuss her next steps, the post said.
Her filing with the Supreme Court said an LDR official, Bobbie Swafford, had testified that the agency often misplaced records. In addition, Wicker received state income tax refunds for the years 2015, 2017 and 2019, according to the filing, and this is an indication that her tax responsibilities had been met.
She filed for a tax extension relating to her 2015 and 2016 tax returns, and her tax preparer sent the returns for both years in the same envelope to the department, Wicker’s Aug. 15 filing states.
In affirming that she was disqualified from running, however, the appeals court noted that Wicker did not call her tax preparer to testify nor provide any other documentation saying that he had delivered the 2018 tax return to the LDR.