Louisiana Voice

So, the question of the day is: how responsive is the administration of one Jeff Landry to the public’s right to know about how our state government conducts its business?

For the answer to that, we need only refer to a single public records request made by LouisianaVoice back on Sept. 3.

On that date, the following public records request was submitted to the Louisiana Office of Economic Development (LED):

Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2026 4:11 PM
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Under the Louisiana Public Records Act § 44:1 et seq., I am requesting the opportunity to review all copies of public records that include:

Any and all Nondisclosure Agreements executed, signed or otherwise agreed to by the following elected and/or appointed officials for the Parish of Livingston and Watson, Louisiana, from January 1, 2020 through September 3, 2026:

A list of 30 names was included in that request. Here is the initial response from the LED:

Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 11:22 AM
To: Tom Aswell <louisianavoice@outlook.com>
Subject: Re: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Good morning:

The official records custodian for Louisiana Economic Development (“LED”) received your Public Records Request (“PRR”) on September 3, 2026, at 4:11 p.m.

LED estimates that its search for records that may be responsive to your request, along with any necessary review, segregation, examination, redaction, and processing, will be completed by November 3, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. If records that may be responsive to your request are identified and become available for production before that time, LED will make them available as soon as practicable.

If responsive records are identified for production, LED’s standard copying fee of $0.25 per page may apply. At this time, we are unable to estimate any costs associated with your request. If responsive records are identified for production, you will be notified of any applicable copying costs before the records are provided. You may also inspect any responsive

records made available for inspection at no cost.

Thank you for reaching out to LED.

Monica Craig-Champagne

Strategic Communications Project Manager

Louisiana Economic Development

Now, in case you might be unfamiliar with the Louisiana Public Records statute (L.R.S. 44:2 et seq), the law clearly and unequivocally says that the custodian of the records “shall” provide any public record not exempt immediately or inform the requestor as to when the record will become available “within three working days.”

Nevertheless, giving LED the benefit of the doubt, I did not object to their arbitrary timetable.

But as that deadline approached, I received the following email from Ms. Champagne at 7:27 a.m. on Oct. 26:

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2026 7:27 AM
To: louisianavoice@outlook.com
Subject: Re: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Dear Requestor:

Apologies for the delay. Please be advised that despite our diligent efforts, we are still in the process of collecting, segregating, and reviewing records that may be responsive to your request.  We estimate that any records we may deem responsive to your request should be available by December 30, 2026 by 5:00 p.m.

Best Regards,

Monica Craig-Champagne

Strategic Communications Project Manager

Louisiana Economic Development

Dec. 30? Why, that’s four months after I submitted my original request. So, 17 minutes later, at 7:44 I responded:

Sent: Monday, October 26, 2026 7:44 AM
To: Emma.Wagner@la.gov
Subject: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

This is totally unacceptable. I will come to LED to review the files myself. State law says you are required to make them available on demand. I fully intend to have that law enforced. You are stalling, attempting to wait me out and I simply won’t have it. The alternative is litigation against the department and the custodian of the record(s).

Tom Aswell

louisiana-public-records-act.pdf

I also included the above link to the state’s public records law as well as a copy and paste of applicable sections of the statute:

What is a public body? A government agency, branch, office, department, board, commission, committee, subcommittee or other governing authority at the state, parish or local level. Private corporations that perform a governmental function may also be considered public bodies.   2. What is a public record? Any document that is created, used or kept to perform the business of a public body, regardless of physical format. Public records include books, papers, letters, maps, pictures, drawings, photographs and recordings. They also include information stored electronically, such as in e-mail and databases.  3. How do I see (examine) a public record?  At no cost, you can examine any public record in the office where it is kept during regular working hours. Special permission may be needed to allow you to see a record in a different place or at a different time. The person responsible for keeping the record can make reasonable rules to make sure that you do not destroy, damage or alter a record while you are examining it. (However, only Louisiana residents can seek records from the governor’s office and must provide ID.)  • The law calls the person in charge of releasing or protecting records the “custodian.” The person in charge of any public body is automatically a records custodian, but the responsibility can also be granted to other employees who handle records. Most public bodies name only a few people to handle all public records requests. • The custodian may ask for your name and age before showing you a public record. Also, the custodian may ask you to sign a list so he or she can keep track of who has seen or copied a certain record. The custodian can ask questions about the specific records being sought if unable to determine what records are requested.   4. How do I get a copy of a public record?  You may ask for a public record in any manner—over the phone or in person, by email or in a letter. To protect your right to sue in case of a dispute, you should always request records in writing and date your request.

The following day, Oct. 27, at 10:09 a.m., I received this:

Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2026 10:09 AM
To: louisianavoice@outlook.com
Subject: Re: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST

Dear Requestor:

After a diligent search and review of the agency’s records in regards to your September 3, 2026,  Public Records Request, the agency has determined that it does not possess any records responsive to your request at this time.

Accordingly, the agency considers this request closed.

Thank you for reaching out to LED.

Monica Craig-Champagne

Strategic Communications Project Manager

Louisiana Economic Development

Amazing, right? Was it my threat of litigation or did LED just happen to magically come up with the information that it did not possess any records responsive to my request?

I suppose we’ll never know the answer to that but I do know one thing for certain:

At least one of the persons on my list of 30 did, in fact, sign an NDA, LED’s denial notwithstanding. So, on the face of it, it would seem someone at the agency took it upon themselves to simply concoct a “non-response” response to my request in order to prevent possible litigation—without actually ascertaining who had signed an NDA.

This is an example of how this administration responds to public records requests. And remember, when Jeff Landry was attorney general, he actually sued a reporter for the Baton Rouge Advocate who had the temerity to make a public records request and later, it was that same Landry as governor who convinced the Repugnantcan legislature to water down the state’s public records laws.

Members of ACT UP, an LGBTQIA+ organization that was instrumental in outing then-4^th District Congressman Jim McCrery has released 26 pages of emails and text messages which it says indicates that family values Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is himself a closet gay.

ACT UP was also in the forefront of efforts to prod Louisiana’s political establishment to take the growing AIDS epidemic seriously back in the 1970s and 1980s.

It was almost exactly one year ago that LouisianaVoice FIRST REPORTED that ACT UP was turning its attention to Johnson—not because he might be gay but because he goes to such lengths to conceal the fact, even openly opposing the LGBTQIA+ community while hiding behind a Bible and the flag.

The documents turned over to LouisianaVoice indicate that several major news organizations, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, The London Times, The New Yorker, The Baton Rouge Advocate and The Shreveport Times, attempted to learn of any gay proclivities of Johnson but none ever published a story.

But the documents cite specific instances of homosexual activity on Johnson’s part, including:

• An affair with a Minden attorney after they had won a major verdict in court resulted in a divorce when the attorney’s wife caught them together. In fact, Johnson was an attorney for that firm when he represented the state in challenging several same-sex couples who opposed the state’ ban on same-sex marriage.
• Another attorney, also caught by his wife with Johnson and subsequently divorced, once practiced in Shreveport but now is in New Orleans.
• Johnson also is said to have picked up a 15-year-old boy at a Bossier City gym believed to have been used to groom troubled boys.
• Johnson is said to have also frequented at a gay dance bar in Shreveport dating back to the 1980s.

Of the alleged affair with the Minden attorney, the ACT UP document said, “It seems MJ (Mike Johnson) and another attorney in the law firm worked together on a case and had a big win. The two ended up celebrating by having sex that afternoon at the other attorney’s house and the wife caught them unexpectedly. A divorce followed and the records are sealed in the Webster Parish Court House. Everything was hushed up, MJ moved on to another firm.”

If true, Johnson would not be the first gay person to serve in Congress or other high elective or appointive office. But others, like Barney Frank and Pete Buttigieg, were openly gay, making no effort to hide their sexuality. Attempting to conceal the fact that one is gay, on the other hand, could leave that person subject to blackmail which could jeopardize national security.

McCrery was outed in 1992 when a Dallas teacher claimed he had sex with the congressman on two occasions jus before he won his first election in 1988. Just as Johnson would do later, McCrery supported antigay legislation and policies.

Julia Letlow, in her current TV ad in her campaign to succeed Bill Cassidy as US senator, says, with oh-such sincerity, “I’m holding FEMA and the big insurance companies accountable to lower costs.”

Whoa. Sounds good but she might want to check with the folks in North Carolina to see how well they’ve succeeded in “holding FEMA accountable” from recovery from the ravages of Hurricane Helene two years ago.

And she might want to check in with the guy she calls the “greatest president ever” to hear what he has to say about FEMA’s role in disaster recovery in the future.

As evidenced by Vivek Ramaswama, aka Vile Rama-smarmy, perhaps we all should hit the pause button and consider just how low the bar is and to what length candidates might promise stunningly miraculous results if they are elected.

That’s because even as Letlow is PROMISING to “hold FEMA accountable,” TACO Don is out there proclaiming that the burden of disaster recovery is going to be SHIFTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.

In fact, says Politico, Trump has taken longer than his predecessors—and even his own administration during his first term—to respond to state requests for aid after major storms

The residents of NORTH CAROLINA are already familiar with what Louisiana and other Gulf Coast states can expect when the next big one hits anywhere from Texas to Florida, including Louisiana.

Normally, it might be fun to watch a freshman senator take on a sitting president but in the case of Louisiana, it’ll just be yet another disaster.

Caught an interesting story online this morning.

A federal judge (appointed by the Pedophile-President, no less) has dismissed (with prejudice) a case in which the Department of Justice (DOJ) demanded that Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson turn over state voter data to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Trump-appointed judge slams door on DOJ as court losses pile up days ahead of midterms

Dismissal with prejudice means it cannot be brought up again.

District Judge David Barlow on Friday dismissed the case the Department of Justice brought against Henderson, a Republican, demanding that she turn over state voter data. The administration sought to compel Henderson, the state’s top election official, to hand over a complete list of Utah voters, including their names, birthdays and addresses as well as their driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security numbers.

States which have refused to comply with DOJ’s “demands” include Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico (it is still New Mexico, by the way), Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Maine and Washington, D.C.

Those, like Louisiana, that have rolled over, include Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Alaska.

Missouri and Kansas provided publicly-available versions of their voter lists or instructions on how to obtain them while Hawaii, Delaware and Idaho were sued for not providing full information sought.

Trump’s defeat in Utah is the latest of more than two dozen voter-roll LITIGATION LOSSES but not to worry; Louisiana’s GOP (Guardians of Pedophiles) legislature, governor and attorney general went down without so much as a whimper of protest, rolling over to the wishes of a clown who possesses the color, texture, personality and IQ of the interior of a fully-baked sweet potato.

You see, back last spring, there was this bill, HOUSE BILL 691, to be precise, that sailed through both chambers of that beacon of good government, the Louisiana Legislature, on its way to becoming Act 6 when Gov. Squeaky Landry just couldn’t wait to sign it into law.

The bill, by Rep. Gerald “Beau” Beaullieu (R-New Iberia) “requires the secretary of state to annually submit to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program administered by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security a check against every registrant in the state voter registration computer system for which the requisite state data exists. The data shall be submitted prior to 180 days before a regularly scheduled federal general election.”

Rep. Gerald (“No Problem”) “Beau” Beaullieu

And just what data does the bill require to be submitted to the Gestapo feds?

Let’s let THE LENS, which tried to alert us to the dangers before the bill was passed, explain that: “Under the bill, the Louisiana Secretary of State’s office would be required to submit personal identifying information, including addresses, birthdates [driver’s license numbers] and [last four digits of] Social Security numbers, for all registered voters in the state to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which will check the information against a federal database that is typically used to verify citizenship of people applying for government benefits.

Of course, there were some in the legislature who tried to warn us of the pitfalls of a police state having such personal information. Rep. Edmon Jordan (D-Baton Rouge) said the state shouldn’t provide a person’s social security number with a federal law enforcement agency without consent or probable cause but Beaullieu, in a typically Republikkkan response, said he saw no problem with doing so.

Rep. Edmond Jordan

Just for the fun of it, do you want to know how your state senator or representative voted on providing your personal information to an agency like DHS which has no second thoughts about shooting American citizens in the street?

Yes? Okay, here’s how the HOUSE voted (74-29 with two abstentions).

The compliant SENATE was equally lopsided (29-8 with three senators taking a walk).

Each of the eight senators voting no, by the way, are Democrats while the two Repugnantcan senators running for the 6^th District congressional seat, Rick Edmonds and Blake Miguez voted to give your personal away.

Just thought you’d like to know that had our governor, his sock puppet attorney general, Liz Murrill, Beaullieu and the rubber-stamp Repugnantcans in the legislature chosen to protect your sensitive information, they could have done so.

But they didn’t choose your interests over blind loyalty to Dirty Diaper Donnie, did they?