The struggle never ends against Louisiana’s political left’s quest to expand government, as the battle over a one-time shift in education spending demonstrates.

This week, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry notched a victory towards the state providing yet another stipend for educators and support staff in public schools. It all started in 2023 when the state, rather than baking in a permanent pay hike of $2,000 for those with a teaching license and $1,000 for all other employed full-time by a local education association to the Minimum Foundation Program, instead didn’t pass a formula for the MFP but did make a one-time appropriation for stipends. The process repeated the next two years, even as last year voters turned down constitutional amendments taking money from overstuffed trust funds that would pay down unfunded accrued liabilities that could shift money to LEAs to provide these raises, and did so again this year to a similar measure.

The two rejections came from the left mobilizing voters against those items, because in essence these would devolve power away from the state in ongoing education expenses, placing more in the hands of local governments which the left sees as less reliably able to spend more money and grow government because local officials and taxpayers are more likely to hold the line on spending in many places, whereas having the money as part of the MFP put spending increases across the state on autopilot. With this electorate veto power for the moment and Landry and GOP supermajorities in the Legislature wishing to fund raises but not from the MFP that provided for less local control, Landry hit on a plan through an executive order to perform an intercessional redirection for this budget year only to provide for the hikes.

Essentially, each LEA would have to redirect around five percent of its non-instructional funds to the one-time boost. A Legislative Auditor report concluded that most could do this without fiscal harm to reserves or beggaring other operational costs, with a few systems having to perform minor adjustments or dip deeper into reserves to comply. Landry needed two-thirds majorities in each chamber to approve of the reduction leading to the redirection, and he got them.

However, a fly in the ointment occurred when three leftists active in education policy challenged the vote in court. Republican 19^th District Judge Chip Moore felt they had enough of a case to issue a temporary restraining order prior to the vote halting implementation of the reduction and redirection until a hearing, scheduled a few days before the fiscal year begins, about the matter was held.

Republican Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill disputed the order’s propriety, stating it attempted to act retroactively and couldn’t apply to what would be a successful vote. Further, the filing makes a series of spurious and speculative, if not unsustainable, legal assertions. For example, it claims that Landry’s issuance of an executive order that initiated the process violated separation of powers doctrine relative to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education that formulates the MFP – not seeming to realize it and the governor both are parts of the executive branch of government (and that the governor appoints three of its members).

It’s tough to see how the suit succeeds. Landry is empowered by the Constitution to reduce the MFP allocation, which his executive order does, with the backing of legislative supermajorities, which he got. Legislators empowered BESE to assent to Department of Education reallocation on their behalf.

The plaintiffs want a special session of the Legislature to make the authorization delegating the reallocation. This is as they figure it would be easier to mobilize support to prevent the reallocation as part of the larger scheme to increase spending on education – nakedly admitted in the filing. This plays into the larger desire of making the state spend more, backed preferably by higher taxes disproportionately borne by the most productive elements of the state.

Ultimately, the judiciary should ratify the plan going forward. But the tussle over its disposition demonstrates how, even as Louisiana’s political left has been defeated thoroughly in the marketplace of ideas through election outcomes, it will fight tooth-and-nail to take more from the citizenry to empower itself and allied special interests.