(Originally published in Citizens for a New Louisiana) — Is it that time of year again? No, not Spring! Low-turnout election season. This means you should be on the lookout for tax increases and constitutional amendments. This is the time to sneak them in. This article will address three of the four amendments in the upcoming March 29th election. Other relevant dates include early voting from March 15th through 22nd.

Proposed Amendment One

“Do you support an amendment granting the Louisiana Supreme Court jurisdiction to discipline out-of-state lawyers for unethical legal practices in the state of Louisiana, and to grant the legislature the authority to establish trial courts of limited and specialized jurisdiction?”

This amendment made it to the ballot through Senate Bill 1 during the 3rd Extraordinary Session, introduced by Senator Jay Morris (R 9/10). Morris also proposed another amendment concerning our judicial branch, which appeared on the December 2024 ballot. That amendment passed with 53% of the vote.

This proposition is twofold. First, it deals with discipline of out-of-state lawyers. This is pretty straightforward. Article V, Section 5(B) of our constitution currently provides:

“The supreme court has exclusive original jurisdiction of disciplinary proceedings against a member of the bar.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court oversees disciplinary matters for lawyers who practice in this state and promulgates rules of professional conduct. Those same rules apply to lawyers who are admitted “Pro Hoc Vice” or for a particular matter and to out-of-state lawyers offering services in the state.

The amendment would simply codify into our Constitution the following additional language:

“…and any lawyer specially admitted by a court of this state for a particular proceeding, as well as any lawyer not admitted in this state who practices law or renders or offers to render any legal services in this state.”

The real rub comes over the part of the amendment that would grant the legislature additional powers to establish trial courts of limited and specialized jurisdiction. There are many valid arguments against this. Fundamentally, it would allow the Legislature to expand the size of our court system and the number of judges. This would not only make our government bigger, but it would also result in added costs for the residents of this state. The legislature could create courts for a plethora of reasons without being uniform in fashion and targeting specific areas or subject matters. Additionally, the judicial branch doesn’t seem to have asked for any changes to the existing structure, so what is it all about?

Article V, Section 15(A) of our constitution currently states in part:

“The legislature by law may establish trial courts of limited jurisdiction with parishwide territorial jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction which shall be uniform throughout the state.”

If approved, the change would read:

“The legislature may establish trial courts of limited or specialized jurisdiction by law enacted by two-thirds of the elected members of each house of the legislature.”

Those courts would no longer have to be uniform throughout the state and would not be subject to parish-wide territorial or subject matter jurisdiction.

Proposed Amendment Two

We will probably have to cover proposed amendment two in another piece. Summing up 109 pages of law into a one-sentence proposition before voters is simply a travesty – but that’s the system we have. We may endeavour to provide a substantive analysis in a future article.

SADOW RELATED

SADOW: Vote Affirmative on Consequential Louisiana Amendments

Proposed Amendment Three

“Do you support an amendment to provide the legislature the authority to determine which felony crimes, when committed by a person under the age of seventeen, may be transferred for criminal prosecution as an adult?”

This amendment has made it to the ballot by way of Senate Bill 2 during the 3rd Extraordinary Session introduced by Senator Heather Cloud (R 9/10). Article V, Section 19 of the constitution currently lists 16 felony offenses which may result in a juvenile being transferred for prosecution to an adult criminal court subject to judicial review. This amendment would remove that list of offenses from the constitution and replace it with the following language:

“…certain felony offenses provided by law…”

In essence, if passed, the legislature could increase or decrease the offenses on the list without having to seek a Constitutional amendment each time.

Proposed Amendment Four

“Do you support an amendment to provide for the use of the earliest election date to fill judicial vacancies?”

This amendment was also the result of an instrument introduced by Senator Jay Morris (R 9/10) (SB5) during the 3rd Extraordinary Session. It addresses special elections for judicial vacancies. The recent change to a closed primary system for certain positions included members of the Louisiana Supreme Court. This amendment seeks to address an unintended consequence of that change.

The present law could make it impossible to fill vacant seats on the Supreme Court within the 12-month time frame required by the Constitution. However, this amendment also seeks to change the constitutional mandate for all newly created judgeships and all judicial vacancies.

Article V, Section 22 of the Constitution currently reads:

“A newly-created judgeship or a vacancy in the office of a judge shall be filled by special election called by the governor and held within twelve months after the day on which the vacancy occurs or the judgeship is established, except when the vacancy occurs in the last twelve months of an existing term. Until the vacancy is filled, the supreme court shall appoint a person meeting the qualifications for the office, other than domicile, to serve at its pleasure. The appointee shall be ineligible as a candidate at the election to fill the vacancy or the newly-created judicial office. No person serving as an appointed judge, other than a retired judge, shall be eligible for retirement benefits provided for the elected judiciary.”

The first sentence would be amended and a second sentence added to read:

“A newly-created judgeship or a vacancy in the office of a judge shall be filled by special election called by the governor and held on the election date first available pursuant to applicable law after the day on which the vacancy occurs or the judgeship is established, except when the vacancy occurs in the last twelve months of an existing term. If the date of the next gubernatorial or congressional election is within twelve months of the date when the vacancy occurred, then the special election shall be held at the next gubernatorial or congressional election, if the special election can be held on that date in accordance with applicable law.”

This certainly seems like a very minor adjustment. Now, do you think we could do something to stop all these tax elections and constitutional amendments from appearing on the ballots during historically low-turnout months?