All four amendments fail in the Louisiana municipal elections 

The Mar. 29 municipal elections were a litmus test for Louisiana politics, particularly Governor Landry’s administration. Every Louisiana voter could vote yes or no on four amendments, as well as numerous parish and local-level races. 

Amendments to the Louisiana state constitution are outlined by Section 1 of Article XIII. They are first drafted by the state legislature and then voted on. If the proposal receives a two-thirds majority in favor, it’s moved to the ballot, where voters reject or accept on election day. All four amendments on the ballot this time were rejected, since they received less than 50% in favor. Thus, state law has not changed. The overall turnout was approximately 21.3%. 

Amendment One expanded the Louisiana Supreme Court’s ability to discipline out-of-state lawyers using unethical legal practices while in Louisiana and granted the legislature greater authority to establish trial courts of specialized jurisdiction. 

Amendment Two, the longest of the four, included extensive revisions to the tax policies outlined in Article VII and provided for a permanent teacher salary increase. Among other provisions, it would’ve lowered the maximum income tax rate, provided more tax deductions for citizens over 65, installed a government growth limit and provided for property tax exemptions (including for religious organizations and homesteads). The amendment would’ve also kept certain characteristics of Article XII, the Coastal Protection and Restoration Act, Transportation Trust Fund and the TOPS program. 

Amendment Three would have changed Article V to allow the legislature to determine by a two-thirds majority vote which felonies committed by juveniles (persons under the age of 17) could be transferred to an adult court, and how the accused would be treated while the trial is underway. The current Constitution has a set list of felonies for which such proceedings would apply, such as murder, manslaughter, rape, kidnapping, burglary and robbery. 

Amendment Four would require a special election to be held immediately when a vacancy for a judgeship opens, unless the vacancy occurs 12 months prior to a congressional or gubernatorial election. 

Professor Jacob Authement of the Political Science Department explained that “packaging all the amendments together led to their collective defeat.” 

Amendment Two was also 115 pages long, so its complicated structure may have confused voters. State law requires that ballot amendments contain a short summary of the proposed changes, which may have dismayed voters when Amendment Two was condensed into less than 100 words. Authement suggested that, “people are more likely to stay with the status quo if they don’t understand what the changes will entail.” 

Meanwhile, Amendments One and Four were relatively uncontroversial and not very confusing. Yet, Authement noted that all four amendments were rejected by similar margins, between 64 and 66%. This may be because out-of-state influence pushing Amendment Three to fail created a negative perception of that proposal as well as the other amendments simply for appearing on the same ballot. 

Elections may be perceived as a test for the current administration. Authement said that Landry’s Administration and state Republicans have probably not changed in popularity. However, they must change strategies in order to get their agendas passed. He said, “you’ll see more amendments that are individually less controversial.” 

Meanwhile, Democrats must tout this as a major defeat for Landry to be as successful as possible. They may try to make bolder stances against Landry’s governorship. Should Landry’s popularity wane, Republicans in the legislature may be more willing to break with him on policies. 

After the results were released, Landry, who strongly supported the amendments, remarked on his disappointment in Amendment Two failing. He said, “We realize how hard positive change can be to implement in a State that is conditioned for failure […] This is not the end for us, and we will continue to fight to make the generational changes for Louisiana to succeed.” He also placed blame on Democratic influencers such as George Soros for spreading lies about the amendments. 

Students at the University were varied in their opinions on the election results. 

Madison Firmin, a sophomore in sociology, said, “I was happy with the results. I know a lot of people weren’t happy with them.” 

Gabbie Lopez, a freshman kinesiology student, was dismayed about Amendment Two’s rejection. Lopez said, “the most important one for me was the teacher pay raise because everyone in my family is teachers, and it did not go the way I wanted it to go.” 

Cameron Robin, a freshman political science major, stated, “Things like changing taxation procedures or expanding the list of felonies that will have juveniles charged in adult courts, only open pathways for the state government to openly abuse. We shouldn’t be giving powers away for people to abuse.” 

When asked about their thoughts on voting in general, each interviewee expressed that it’s a privilege and a right to vote, and one should vote if they can. 

State Representative Julie Emerson, who represents the Carencro region (R-District 39), the author of the second amendment on the ballot, released a post-election statement on her personal Facebook account on Mar. 30, explaining her thoughts on the criticism that state republicans have received for the amendments. Its purpose was to “fix several things at one time so we could cut down on the need for so many changes in the future,” but Emerson relented that it was too complex. Emerson finished her statement admitting that, “I’m not settled on what the best path forward is right now but I am committed to trying to find it.”