See arguments for, against 4 proposed constitutional amendments on the Dec. 7 ballot

BATON ROUGE, La. (BRPROUD) - On Dec. 7 Louisiana voters will have the chance to vote on a number of runoff elections and four constitutional amendments. PAR Louisiana helps break down both sides of the argument for each of the amendments through their constitutional amendment guide.

Amendment 1

“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?”

The Judiciary Commission of Louisiana looks into misconduct allegations by judges and recommends punishments to the Supreme Court. The Louisiana Supreme Court can’t respond to allegations without recommendations from the commission. They investigate situations around willful misconduct, failure to perform duties, public conduct that damages the image of the court and possible felony charges and convictions.

The commission is made up of nine members: one court of appeal judge selected by the Supreme Court, two district judges also selected by the Supreme Court, two attorneys who have practiced for at least 10 years selected by the Conference of Court of Appeal Judges, one attorney serving between 3-10 years, and three people who are not lawyers, judges or public officials picked by the District Judges Association.

The proposed amendment would expand the commission to 14 people. This would allow for the Louisiana Speaker of the House and President of the Senate to appoint two members each and for the governor to appoint a member. The amendment does not give any qualifications or restrictions for who those five people could be.

ARGUMENT FOR: Some believe the Judiciary Commission moves too slowly to address allegations, sometimes taking years to investigate complaints. Some also believe those on the commission are biased towards protecting judges who may have done something wrong. It would also give the Supreme Court more authority over ethics and discipline

ARGUMENT AGAINST: Increasing the commission size wouldn’t make things move faster or be more transparent. Some also believe that the appointments from the governor and legislature could inject politics into the investigation process. Also, allowing the Supreme Court more authority to start up investigations raises concerns over due process since they are the ones who determine the discipline for any wrongdoings.

Amendment 2

“Do you support an amendment to require that the legislature wait for at least forty-eight hours prior to concurring in a conference committee report or amendments to a bill appropriating money?”

This amendment stems from the 2023 legislative session, where the budget for the state was held up in conference committee — a closed door meeting where amendments to the bill are worked out — and the report was not released until the final minutes of the legislative session. Lawmakers were forced to vote on the multimillion-dollar budget within minutes without really knowing what was in it. 

Some legislators were outraged at being put in that position to pass a budget so quickly to avoid launching a special session to complete the process. 

The proposed amendment would require 48 hours between the release of the conference committee report and the official vote to concur in the amendments. This is a House rule, but the body often votes to waive the waiting period to keep the process moving. This would make it so they lawfully cannot waive the waiting period.

ARGUMENT FOR: Requiring the legislature to wait two days to review any changes to the appropriations bills (i.e. budget, capital outlet, judiciary budget, etc.) would allow more transparency in the process and make it so legislative leaders can’t jam bills through the process in the eleventh hour. 

ARGUMENT AGAINST: Requiring a delay can create roadblocks to passing the main charge of their duties, which is a balanced budget. Lawmakers should have the chance to be flexible with their time and how they pass bills. If the conference committee report were to be released on the final day of the session, this rule would require a special session to be launched for the waiting period to be fully realized.

Amendment 3

“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?”

While not legally tied to Amendment 2, it is closely related. This would allow the legislature to extend the regular session by two days at a time, up to six days extra, to have more time to review appropriations bills. Currently, the legislature can meet up to 60 working days in an 85-day period in even-numbered years. They can meet for 45 working days in a 60-day period in odd-numbered years.

ARGUMENT FOR: Allowing more time in the regular session to ensure all legislators understand what they are voting for regarding budgetary bills could lead to more fair and supported legislation. Extending the regular session by a couple of days is likely more cost-effective than a special session being called to complete the budget.

ARGUMENT AGAINST: Some believe the legislature has plenty of time to pass a budget with enough time to review it without an extension. They could work to better prioritize their time in passing the money bills so they are not left to the last moment.

Amendment 4

“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?”

Homeowners must pay property taxes to their local government unless there are exemptions. If someone doesn’t pay their full taxes by the end of the year, the tax collector must put their property up for auction. The current owner has three years to pay back the taxes plus interest to get their house back. Currently, the taxing government gets the money from the auction of the home if the homeowner can't meet that three-year deadline, and the home goes to the person who won the auction.

The proposed change would make it so that should a person not pay all their taxes, their lien would be auctioned rather than the house. People can buy the debt to rack up interest and other financial gains. When the lien is bought, the local government is removed from the equation, and the debt payments are between the homeowner and the bidder.

They still have three years to try to pay off the debt. The house is auctioned off at the end of the three years. Funds are taken from the auction to pay off the lien to the buyer, and whatever is left over goes to the homeowner rather than the local government.

ARGUMENT FOR: There is litigation in other states arguing that the current Louisiana process could be violating taxpayer rights. The tax lien process would better protect people and allow them to address their debt rather than see their property be auctioned off immediately. 

ARGUMENT AGAINST: Louisiana has not been found to be in violation of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, so it is not necessary to shift to a new system. Some believe the longer timelines for property investors could turn people off from wanting to invest in some areas. There is also concern that a new system could lead to new lawsuits.

Latest News