
Louisiana Senate Vetoes Retrial Bill For People Convicted By Split Juries
The Louisiana Senate reaffirmed its commitment to Jim Crow-era practices this week by vetoing a bill that would've allowed incarcerated people convicted under split jury verdicts to seek a retrial.
According to AP, the bill failed on a 9-26 vote that fell along party lines. The bill was authored by state Sen. Royce Duplessis (D) and would've added split jury convictions to the list of claims an incarcerated person could seek a retrial. There are an estimated 1,500 men and women currently incarcerated in Louisiana as a result of split jury convictions, 80 percent of whom are Black.
'If we choose to vote down this bill, we're saying that justice has an expiration date,' Duplessis told his colleagues during debate over the measure. 'We have an opportunity in Louisiana to remove this stain, because right now we are the only ones wearing it.'
Split jury convictions were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2020, which acknowledged the racist origins of the practice and found it violated defendants' constitutional rights. At the time of the ruling, the only states that still allowed them were Oregon and Louisiana.
For its part, Oregon's Supreme Court voted in 2022 to allow the then-400 people incarcerated through split jury convictions to seek a retrial. Conversely, the Louisiana Supreme Court voted to reject retroactively applying the Supreme Court's decision that same year.
Split jury convictions were a cornerstone of Jim Crow policies and were inherently designed to uphold white supremacy. This isn't an opinion; split jury convictions were introduced in 1898 in the Louisiana State Constitution, a framework explicitly designed to 'reestablish the supremacy of the white race,' after the Civil War. Source: Kansuda Kaewwannarat / Getty
Split jury convictions in particular were implemented to ensure that even if Black people were on a jury, their voices wouldn't sway the outcome of a case. This was a multilayered tactic as it allowed Black people to be convicted of felonies under questionable circumstances, which in turn would strip them of their voting rights. These verdicts were and still are used to strip Black people of both their freedom and political power.
Knowing that history, it's hard not to look at the Louisiana Senate with a significant amount of side-eye. Their arguments against the measure were incredibly shallow, stating that they didn't want to overburden the courts and district attorneys. They choose not to rectify an explicitly racist, unconstitutional tactic…because of court scheduling.
I would respect it more if they stopped playing in our faces and just said the quiet part out loud.
Those in favor of the bill countered that it wouldn't automatically allow for a retrial; it simply would've provided a pathway for those incarcerated under split jury convictions, and that retrials would be granted under the discretion of the district attorneys. The fact that this move came as the Louisiana House of Representatives passed an anti-DEI bill that was widely viewed by the Black caucus as racist just goes to show how regressive the Louisiana state legislature is across the board.
Making the veto even more egregious is the fact that a recent poll showed that the majority of Louisiana voters were in favor of the measure passing. So this clearly wasn't about doing what was in the best interest of their constituents. It was about reminding Black people how little their freedom matters to those in power.
Whether it's 1898 or 2025, the playbook remains the same, and sadly, Louisiana will have to continue wearing this stain.
SEE ALSO:
Trump Administration Targets DEI Initiatives at Colleges
California Teen Spurs Outrage With Racist Promposal
SEE ALSO
Louisiana Senate Vetoes Retrial Bill For People Convicted By Split Juries was originally published on newsone.com
Black America Web Featured Video
CLOSE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

15 minutes ago
Nevada governor's race shaping up as a marquee battle in a state carried by Trump
LAS VEGAS -- Setting the stage for what is expected to be a highly competitive fight for Nevada governor, Democratic Attorney General Aaron Ford announced Monday he will challenge Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo next year. Ford represents the highest-profile Democrat to enter the still-emerging contest in a battleground state carried by President Donald Trump in 2024. In the election, Trump made gains among younger voters, voters without a college degree and Black and Hispanic men. 'Nevadans are suffering in an economy that is rigged against those trying their hardest to stay afloat,' Ford said in a statement. "I will work to lower the crushing cost of housing and prescription drugs, strengthen our public schools and ensure every community in Nevada is safe.' The Better Nevada PAC — which supports Lombardo — called Ford a 'radical' who has pushed a 'dangerous woke agenda' on Nevada families. Even with the primary election nearly a year away, the race is widely seen as a toss-up, in part because Nevada is narrowly divided between Democrats and Republicans. As in many parts of the country, residents continue to be stressed by the cost of living and a lack of affordable housing. The race will unfold during an unsettled time nationally, with Democrats still trying to recast their brand after 2024 losses in Congress and the White House. Meanwhile, recent polling found only about one-quarter of U.S. adults say that President Donald Trump's policies have helped them since he took office. The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found underwhelming marks for the president on key issues, including the economy, immigration, government spending and health care. Lombardo, who is expected to run for reelection, would come to the race with the advantages of incumbency. Not surprisingly in a swing state, he has sought to fashion a generally middle-ground Republican reputation at a time when Americans are deeply divided by partisan politics. Last month, Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill that would have required voters to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has been on Lombardo's legislative wish list. The bill came together as a compromise between the governor and the top Democrat in the state Assembly, who wanted to add more drop boxes for mail ballots in the days leading up to an election. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but felt the final version fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match' under the bill. If elected, Ford would be Nevada's first Black governor. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, political scientist David Damore said Democrats have lost ground in the state. But there is a path for Ford if the party can make the election a referendum on the Trump economy — including cuts for Medicaid and green energy programs and declining Las Vegas tourism — while avoiding identity politics issues that have cost Democrats with voters. 'A caveat is there is no U.S. Senate race in 2026, which typically injects lots of Democratic resources into the state,' he added in an email.


New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
DOJ files misconduct complaint against Judge James Boasberg over ‘improper' comments about Trump: ‘Undermined the integrity of the judiciary'
The Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against District Judge James Boasberg on Monday, demanding that the jurist be reassigned from a migrant deportation case over 'improper' remarks he allegedly made about President Trump. 'Today at my direction, [DOJ] filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,' Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X. Boasberg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, is presiding over a case involving Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport suspected criminal migrants. Bloomberg via Getty Images Advertisement The complaint, written by Bondi's chief of staff Chad Mizelle and sent to the Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Sri Srinivasan, refers to comments Boasberg allegedly made during a March 11 judicial conference attended by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other jurists. 'While there, Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would 'disregard rulings of federal courts' and trigger 'a constitutional crisis,'' Mizelle wrote, according to Fox News. 'Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis — the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,' Mizelle continued. 'Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions.' Advertisement Boasberg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, allegedly made the remark just days before he presided over a case involving Trump's use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport suspected migrant gang members to a notorious maximum-security prison in El Salvador. Boasberg, 62, maintains the Trump administration violated his March 15 order to halt deportation flights to El Salvador. Mizelle referenced Boasberg's deportation flight order that has since been overturned by the Supreme Court and argued that 'Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders.' 'Taken together, Judge Boasberg's words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and, erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation,' he wrote, asking that Boasberg be removed from the Alien Enemies Act case 'to prevent further erosion of public confidence while the investigation proceeds.' Advertisement Trump has argued that Boasberg should be impeached. REUTERS Bondi argued that Boasberg's alleged comments 'have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that.' Trump has previously slammed Boasberg as a 'Grandstander' and 'highly conflicted,' 'radical left' judge who is attempting to 'usurp' his presidential power. Advertisement 'This judge … should be IMPEACHED!!!' the president fumed in March 18 Truth Social post. A DC district court spokesperson did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment.


Bloomberg
4 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Philippine Senate Chief Favors Dropping VP Duterte's Impeachment Case
The leader of the Philippine Senate has signaled there won't be an impeachment trial against Vice President Sara Duterte, saying a court ruling that voided the complaint should be followed. 'The decision of the Supreme Court is clear: the impeachment complaint is null and void,' Senator Francis Escudero said at a media briefing on Tuesday.