Would-Be Florists Say State Test Is Unfair

March 28, 2004 -- Sandy Meadows has spent the past 10 years arranging flowers in Louisiana retail stores and supermarkets, but the flower police still came calling.

One day, a state inspector showed up where Meadows works, and she knew what was coming: in the state of Louisiana, she cannot sell flowers because she did not pass the test.

Louisiana's flower-arranging test is no joke. Offered four times a year, it is required of anyone who hopes to sell flowers in the state. It is administered by the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry and is so difficult that even longtime florists who move to the state rarely pass. The state's own figures show that more than half of the people who take the exam usually flunk.

Meadows has flunked four times. "The first couple of times, I was really depressed," she said. "The third time I was super depressed, and this past time I pretty much expected I wouldn't pass."

The details of the test are kept under lock and key. State officials refused to surrender a copy to ABCNEWS. But a handbook the state gives to applicants explains that there is a written examination and a demonstration exercise. The demonstration portion alone is three hours in length, and applicants are tested on the fundamentals of "good design," "balance," "rhythm," and "unity."

"It's ridiculous," Meadows said. "This is not rocket science. It doesn't hurt anybody."

Hoping for Change

Lawyers from the Institute for Justice agreed.

Just moments after Meadows completed her fourth attempt to pass the test, she walked out the testing center's door and met a representative from the renowned non-profit law firm.

The two began what is about to become class-action lawsuit against the state of Louisiana. They argue the test is unfair, unnecessary, and that only the marketplace should decide who can sell flowers in the state.

Clark Neily, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, says the entire examination process is suspect.

"When you have a law this stupid — and it really is a stupid law — you know there's something else going on here," he said.

Meadows and the other plaintiffs say that that "something" is self-preservation. They claim that the judges who grade the tests are florists themselves. The test, the lawsuit argues, is a means of eliminating the competition.

Squashing the Competition?

Mary Dark, a former test judge, says the test helps already licensed florists stay in business. And even she participated in the squash. "Oh sure," she said, "if you can keep your competition from opening up, wouldn't that be a temptation?"

Dark now shares this inside information in a course she teaches called "Cram for the Exam." It's for applicants who plan to take the test, and it is not cheap. Tuition is $900.

Would-be florist Shamille Peters says she is tired of spending money. She's already paid for two floral design courses at her local community college. The courses, books and supplies cost her $1,000. And she has yet to pass.

"I've taken it five times," she said. "I haven't passed it once."

Both Peters and Meadows complain that it seems easier in Louisiana to obtain a license for hunting than for arranging flowers, and they'd like state officials to explain themselves. The state Department of Agriculture and Forestry isn't talking, because of the pending litigation.

But one point seems to be clear: in the 49 states without this exam, there is no evidence that an unlicensed florist has ever caused a customer any harm.