Terri Love has been a judge on the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal since 2000. She was a judge on the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans from 1995 to 2000.
Judge Love is a member of the Greater Saint Stephens Full Gospel Baptist Church. The church’s “Mission is to be a Word-Centered Ministry designed to ‘Bridge the Gap’ between Calvary and Pentecost.”
Judge Love joined a unanimous Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal in State v. Ravy (2019), which rejected the idea “that the [defendant’s] non-unanimous verdicts violate the Equal Protection Clause because the provision's enactment was motivated by an express and overt desire to discriminate against people on account of race. The United States Supreme Court later “held that jury verdicts in state felony cases must be unanimous,” and Judge Love joined a unanimous appeals court in vacating the defendant’s non-unanimous convictions.
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
The Ten Commandments should not be displayed in public school buildings or court houses.
What does "separation of church and state" mean to you?
As a jurist, I hold the pronouncement of the Constitution to be my guiding principle - that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality which is necessary for our system of limited government.
George Washington's comment that “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society” is still true today.
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
I am a lifelong Baptist and an active and engaged Christian, affiliated with the Full Gospel Baptist denomination.
In light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your opinion of whether the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be extended to the LGBTQ community?
Prohibited by the Canons
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Prior to becoming a member of the judiciary, I handled numerous family matters pro bono. Upon becoming a member of the judiciary, I was prohibited from engaging in any pro bono work by the Judicial Cannons. However, I remain committed to community service, which I accomplish through my church and various educational mentorship programs, among other activities.
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
2012 Democratic Primary, 2012 General Election, 2014 Democratic Primary, 2014 General Election, 2016 Democratic Primary, 2016 General Election, 2018 Democratic Primary, 2018 General Election
When you consider your views on a wide range of issues from economic and social matters to foreign policy and immigration, which of the following best describes you overall?
Please provide publicly available information validating your answer to the previous question.
As a member of the judiciary, I am guided by legal precedent and the duty to uphold the rule of law. I seek to ensure that all my rulings are consistent with legal precedent, fairly and equally applied to all involved parties.
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Service on our highest court requires an advanced judicial education & deep understanding of the appellate process, both of which I possess. I have a zealous approach to judicial education, with an LL.M. in the Judicial Process & study at numerous judicial institutes, including the NYU School of Law's Institute for Appellate Judges, the George Mason School of Law Collegium in Economics & Law, the Brookings Institute, & the International Judicial Academy at The Hague, Netherlands. Additionally, I litigated for a decade & have served as a judge for 25 years, at all levels of the judiciary - from specialized courts, to trial court & appellate court. I've served in numerous leadership positions & worked extensively with the Supreme Court on initiatives to improve judicial efficiency. Last, I am fully committed to the legal system's fundamental objective - equal justice for all. This combination of education, experience, & commitment to public service qualifies me to serve as a Justice.
In what areas of law have you practiced?
As a litigator, my practice included family law, civil law, & criminal law, with both public & private clients. As a judge, I have presided over hundreds of civil trials, juvenile court matters, & appellate proceedings on civil and criminal matters.
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Why should the voters choose you?
I’m the only candidate with an in-depth experience of appellate operations, gained through legal practice, judicial service, post-law school judicial education, & administrative leadership. I’ve served as both a trial & appellate court judge, issuing hundreds of opinions & presiding over hundreds of trials. I attained an extensive post-law school judicial education & served as a leader on many administrative issues. I have a strong commitment to the rule of law & equal justice for all.
Is there anything else you would like voters to know about you?
I've always been guided by the concept of God, family, the Christian belief of service to others, and a strong work ethic.
The U.S. Constitution and my state constitution should be interpreted as living documents, rather than using a strict constructionist or originalist approach in judicial decisions.
There are times when American judges should alter U.S. case law in order to comply with foreign case law.
Which current U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Legislative history is often utilized to ascertain legislative intent when interpreting statutes that are ambiguous or susceptible to different meanings.
What possibilities should a judge exhaust before departing from precedent?
The rule of law and an adherence to precedent are the foundations of my judicial philosophy. However, I am always mindful of changing applications of recently enacted legislative pronouncements.
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Judges should approach the United States Constitution as a living, breathing document.