Louisiana voter turnout higher than expected as constitutional amendments fail
NEW ORLEANS (WGNO) — Voter turnout in Saturday's election was higher than expected but less than half from November.
Still, it was a disappointment for Gov. Jeff Landry, who supported the four constitutional amendments.
The Louisiana Secretary of State's Office is reporting that the unofficial turnout for the March 29 election is 21%, which, according to political analyst Jeff Crouere, is high for this type of election.
Gov. Jeff Landry, Louisiana officials react after March 29 proposed amendments fail
'The governor was saying at the White House in a meeting, caught on a hot mic, that he thought the turnout would be between 12 and 18%, and it turned out to be 21%. So, that goes to show you it had a little bit more interest than people thought,' said Crouere.
All four constitutional amendments failed by a significant margin.
Pollster Silas Lee believes much of the reason is because of the work of the opposition and that the amendments lacked clarity.
Gov. Jeff Landry names new Louisiana OMV commissioner
'There was a lot of activity taking place on the ground and other initiatives that one, informed voters and two, voters were very confused by the amendments in the sense that they did not specify specifically how they would accomplish specific goals,' explained Lee.
Among the voters in the state who showed up to the polls Saturday, nearly 37% were Democrats, and about 35% were Republicans, but neither party favored the amendments.
'When we look at the fact that it failed in the home parishes of the governor, of the speaker of the house and also in parishes that supported [President] Trump overwhelmingly, that would indicate there was not a substantial difference,' said Lee.
$10K Mega Millions ticket sold in Independence
As for the governor, it's back to the drawing board.
'Maybe they can do it just through legislation, as opposed through constitutional amendments,' said Crouere. 'That's why, it'll be interesting now with the session starting just in a few weeks, whether this will now change what type of session we're going to have, and I think it will.'
The next election is scheduled for May 3. Early voting begins April 19.Girl, 9, dies after procedure at California dental office
De La Cruz's 4 hits, career-high 7 RBIs lead Reds to 14-3 rout of Rangers
Louisiana voter turnout higher than expected as constitutional amendments fail
Louisiana lawmakers to discuss budget priorities as teachers face a pay cut
US Coast Guard 'tripled' personnel to prevent maritime human smuggling
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
Republicans in Congress Grill Democratic Governors on Immigration
Congressional Republicans on Thursday questioned and criticized three Democratic governors on their states' immigration policies, amplifying national tensions set off by President Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts and his military deployments to California as anti-deportation protests spread across the country. The acrimony was evident throughout an eight-hour hearing, held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. All three governors — Tim Walz of Minnesota, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York — used part of their testimony to condemn the Trump administration for deploying troops to Los Angeles against the wishes of the city's mayor, Karen Bass, and California's governor, Gavin Newsom. 'As we speak, an American city has been militarized over the objections of their governor,' Ms. Hochul said in her opening statement. 'At the outset, I just want to say that this is a clear abuse of power and nothing short of an extraordinary assault on our American values.' Throughout the contentious hearing, Republican lawmakers focused intently on undocumented immigrants whom the authorities have accused of violent crimes, extrapolating from individual cases to frame the immigration debate as being about lawlessness and criminality. They tried to needle the governors over policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration agencies or protect undocumented immigrants against detention or deportation. 'Let me be clear: Sanctuary policies don't protect Americans,' said Representative James R. Comer, Republican of Kentucky, the committee's chairman. 'They protect criminal illegal aliens.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump didn't want Israel to strike Iran. They did it anyway
In the hours before Israeli warplanes carried out an attack on Iran early Friday, raising fresh fears of all-out war in the region, President Donald Trump made clear it was an outcome he hoped to avoid. 'I don't want them going in because, I mean, that would blow it,' he said, referring to his diplomatic efforts to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions. The fact Israel went in anyway – without any US involvement, and against the president's publicly stated wishes – now thrusts Trump into one of the biggest tests of his young presidency. By his own telling, the strikes risk scuttling his attempts at diplomacy with Tehran, even as his top envoy was preparing to depart for Oman for another round of talks this weekend. It casts a pall over his already tense relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he has sharply disagreed for months and whom he urged as recently as this week to hold off on a strike. And it presents him another global conflict without any easy resolution, this one with tens of thousands of US troops potentially caught in the regional crossfire. Trump will now find himself caught between competing crosscurrents from within his own party. Many Republicans were quick to offer their support to Israel on Thursday, including Sen. Lindsey Graham – a longtime Iran hawk – who wrote on X: 'Game on.' Yet Trump has never quite adopted that strain of his party's foreign policy, particularly in his second term. His administration is stacked with officials, starting with his vice president, who take a deeply skeptical view of US military involvement abroad without express American interests on the line. Trump offered no signals in the immediate aftermath of the attacks that he was prepared to use American military assets to help defend Israel from expected Iranian reprisal, as his predecessor Joe Biden did when Israel and Iran exchanged fire last year. Without American assistance, Israel's air defenses could be unable to withstand a major Iranian onslaught. The focus of public messaging from the US administration was instead on protecting American personnel in the Middle East, and warning Iran not to drag the US into the fray. Still, for all the complicated dynamics for Trump to now sort through, the attack hardly came as a surprise to the president and his team. Even as he was speaking from the East Room on Thursday, the president and his aides were aware the strikes were likely coming soon, sources said, despite Trump's repeated attempts at urging Netanyahu to hold off. As the strikes were getting underway, Trump was appearing on the South Lawn at a congressional picnic. He returned to the West Wing afterward to huddle with top officials, according to a White House official and other sources. Afterward, a terse statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to put distance between the US and any role in the attack. 'Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region,' read the statement, which was distributed by the White House. 'Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense. President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners,' Rubio continue. 'Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.' Devoid of even boilerplate language offering support for Israel and its defense, the statement made clear: this would be Israel's conflict, not Trump's.
New York Times
20 minutes ago
- New York Times
Senate G.O.P. Includes Expanded Fund for Radiation Victims in Policy Bill
Senate Republicans on Thursday included in their version of President Trump's domestic policy bill a provision that would revive and significantly expand a law for compensating victims of government-caused nuclear contamination who developed cancer and other serious illnesses. The measure, long championed by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, would overhaul a law passed more than three decades ago with a narrow scope. It was meant to compensate civilians sickened by the legacy of the nation's aboveground nuclear testing program, a hallmark of the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, and uranium miners who worked between 1942 and 1971. It paid out more than $2.6 billion in benefits to more than 55,000 claimants since its creation in 1990. The Senate passed bipartisan legislation last year to substantially broaden the scope of that law — called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA — beyond Cold War-era victims to cover others who have been harmed by the aftereffects in the decades since. But after Republican leaders refused to allow it to come to a vote on the House floor, the law expired, dashing hopes of compensation for sickened civilians. Senate Republican leaders are now, at the behest of Mr. Hawley, giving the measure another shot at passage, including it in the Senate version of the domestic policy bill that they are hoping to pass in weeks. He is considered a key vote on the bill because he opposes several provisions floated by his party for cutting Medicaid. 'I think about, in the St. Louis area alone, how many folks I've talked to whose grandfathers or grandmothers were involved with the radiation project and whose families have subsequently had cancer in the family for generations,' Mr. Hawley said in an interview. 'And they're very proud of their service to the nation, but they would like to be thanked for that and be treated appropriately and not lied to anymore by their government.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
