Louisiana voters will soon get the opportunity to decide whether the state constitution should be amended to divert certain federal funds to coastal protection and to change the timeline for legislators to approve the budget. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Louisiana voters will soon get the opportunity to decide whether the state constitution should be amended to divert certain federal funds to coastal protection and to change the timeline for legislators to approve the budget.
Five proposed amendments to the state constitution were approved by the Legislature this spring. One will be on the ballot for the Nov. 5 general election, and four will be on the Dec. 7 runoff ballot.
The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana releases an annual, nonpartisan guide explaining the constitutional amendments. A summary follows.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Nov. 5
Amendment 1
What it says: “Do you support an amendment to require that federal revenues received by the state generated from Outer Continental Shelf alternative or renewable energy production be deposited into the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund?”
Why it matters: Money in the Coastal Protection and Restoration trust fund pays for flood risk reduction efforts such as levees and floodgates, diversion projects, wetlands creation, barrier island protection and other projects aimed at safeguarding and rebuilding Louisiana’s receding coast. Louisiana currently doesn’t have enough money to fund the coastal projects it needs.
Those against the amendment point out lawmakers are already limited by existing budget protections in the constitution, and further restrictions could force more cuts to unprotected dollars for health care and higher education.
A vote FOR means: Federal money Louisiana receives from offshore alternative energy production goes to the state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund, where it can only be used on projects aimed at safeguarding the coastal area.
A vote AGAINST means: Federal money Louisiana receives from alternative energy production offshore would go into the state general fund, where it can be spent on anything.
Dec. 7
Amendment 1
What it says: “Do you support an amendment to allow the supreme court to sanction a judge upon an investigation by the judiciary commission, and provide that the recommended sanction shall be instituted by the judiciary commission or by a majority of the supreme court, and to provide for the appointment of five members of the judiciary commission?”
Why it matters: The amendment would add five political appointees to the state Judiciary Commission, which can recommend discipline for judges. The Louisiana House speaker and state Senate president would each name two appointees, and one would come from the governor. None of their appointees would be required to have any particular qualifications.
The amendment would also give the Supreme Court the authority to direct the commission to start an investigation into a judge and would allow justices to temporarily disqualify a judge without the commission’s recommendation. The list of improper behavior for which a judge could be disciplined would be expanded to specifically include malfeasance in office.
A vote FOR means: The state Judiciary Commission would add to its existing nine members, and the state Supreme Court would have authority to direct the commission to investigate allegations of judicial misconduct.
A vote AGAINST means: The Judiciary Commission would remain at nine members, and the Supreme Court’s authority over judicial ethics and discipline would be limited to action based on the commission’s recommendations.
Amendment 2
What it says: “Do you support an amendment to require that the Legislature wait for at least 48 hours prior to concurring in a conference committee report or amendments to a bill appropriating money?”
Why it matters: This amendment is a response to the chaotic end to the 2023 regular session, when lawmakers passed the state’s budget bills in the final moments, without most lawmakers knowing what was in the bill.
Lawmakers want time to review the budget before they vote on billions of dollars in spending. Current legislative rules require the 48-hour wait period, but lawmakers can waive the rules.
A vote FOR means: Lawmakers would have to wait at least 48 hours to review proposed amendments to bills appropriating money before they can take a final vote.
A vote AGAINST means: Lawmakers would continue to be permitted to take a final vote on bills appropriating money and send them to the governor at any time in a legislative session.
Amendment 3
What it says: “Do you support an amendment to allow the legislature to extend a regular session in increments of two days up to a maximum of six days if necessary to pass a bill appropriating money?”
Why it matters: This amendment was designed to complement Amendment 3, by mitigating concerns that Amendment 2 would risk lawmakers ability to pass the budget before the end of session.
The Legislative Fiscal Office estimates a six-day extension of a regular session could cost about $155,000 for lawmakers’ per diem, and it also could result in additional staff and supply expenses.
Though these amendments are considered companions, the public can approve one and not the other.
A vote FOR means: With a two-thirds vote, lawmakers can extend a regular legislative session for up to six days if they need more time to pass a budget bill.
A vote AGAINST means: Lawmakers will have to stick to the current legislative calendar.
Amendment 4
What it says: “Do you support an amendment to eliminate mandatory tax sales for nonpayment of property taxes and require the legislature to provide for such procedures by law; to limit the amount of penalty and interest on delinquent property taxes; and to provide for the postponement of property tax payments under certain circumstances?”
Why it matters: Louisiana’s tax sale system is considered uncommon. It has been heavily litigated over concerns about violations of due process rights of the property owners. Lawmakers have revised the process multiple times in response to court rulings.
A 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling about the rights of a delinquent taxpayer during the foreclosure process raised questions about possible implications for Louisiana’s tax sale system. A report from the nonpartisan Louisiana Law Institute, which is required by law to provide a report on unconstitutional and preempted state laws to the Legislature every other year, said “a legitimate possibility exists” that the state’s tax sale process violates the Supreme Court decision, though the report stressed that the question hasn’t been tested in litigation.
A vote FOR means: When a property owner hasn’t paid property taxes and the local government wants to satisfy the tax debt, a tax lien auction process would be used rather than a tax sale process.
A vote AGAINST means: Louisiana’s tax sale process would remain in place when local governments seek to satisfy a tax debt when a property owner hasn’t paid taxes.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.