Louisiana Republicans reject bill that would address split jury verdicts, a Jim Crow-era practice
An estimated 1,000 people behind bars in the Deep South state were convicted by non-unanimous juries, a practice rooted in racism from the era of 'Jim Crow' laws and deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020. Advocates say it is past time for Louisiana to right a wrong and to give those people a chance at a fair trial.
Proponents of the bill pointed to multiple examples of innocent people — since exonerated — who were wrongfully convicted by split juries and spent decades in prison. Supporters said the measure could have created a way for any other possibly innocent people behind bars who had been convicted by non-unanimous juries to seek another chance for a fair trial.
The bill would have added non-unanimous verdicts to a list of claims for which an inmate can seek a retrial. Proponents reiterated that the legislation would only have created the opportunity to do so and that it would not have automatically granted a retrial or release.
During debate in the state Senate on Wednesday, Republican lawmakers raised concerns about overburdening courts and district attorneys with additional trials. Proponents said whether a new trial is granted is ultimately at the discretion of district attorneys.
Opponents also raised concerns about the cases being decades-old with some witnesses possibly dead or evidence lost. Supporters countered that old cases are tried all the time and that transcripts of testimony from the original trials could be used.
'This is about what's right, not about what's easy or convenient,' Sen. Royce Duplessis, the New Orleans Democrat who authored the bill, said to his colleagues.
Louisiana adopted the practice of split jury convictions in 1898 during a constitutional convention that was fueled by efforts to maintain white supremacy after the Civil War. Diluting the voice of Black jurors allowed the often-white majority to determine the outcome.
Louisiana voters did not get rid of the practice until 2018, two years before the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of the 6th Amendment's guarantee of the right to an impartial jury.
At the time, Louisiana and Oregon were the only states that allowed split decisions — 10-2 or 11-1 jury votes — to result in convictions. The Oregon Supreme Court granted new trials to hundreds of people. But Louisiana's Supreme Court rejected arguments to apply the ruling retroactively.
'If we choose to vote down this bill we're saying that justice has an expiration date,' Duplessis said. 'We have an opportunity in Louisiana to remove this stain, because right now we are the only ones wearing it.'
The bill failed on a vote of 9-26, along party lines. Given the overwhelming lack of support for the bill in the Senate and that there is only a month left in this year's Legislative Session, the measure currently has no viable path forward and is likely dead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
An unusual six months in Congress of long days and short fuses
Just over six months in, this Congress has witnessed all-nighters, extra-long votes and flaring personalities. 'I will say again - I am tired of making history. I just want (a) normal Congress,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, said. His comments to reporters in early July came as the House concluded a more than seven-hour vote, then the longest in the chamber's history (a milestone hit after the chamber had already broken the record a week earlier). Of course, the increasingly partisan, combative, and at times, chaotic atmosphere had infiltrated the modern Congress before Johnson or his Senate counterpart, Majority Leader John Thune, took the gavel. But more than six months in, the 119th Congress has seen its share of unusual or unprecedented moments, from extraordinarily long votes to all-nighter sessions. Here's a look at some of the notable moments of the not "normal" kickoff for the 119th. 'All by myself' House lawmakers this year first surpassed the record for the longest House vote while deliberating President Donald Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful bill' on July 2. The vote was held open for seven hours and 23 minutes. Members of Congress filtered in and out of the chamber, mostly congregating off the floor for deals and debates. But someone, by rule, had to supervise the chamber. More: Which way will Senate swing in 2026? Here are 11 pivotal races that will decide. That lucky representative was Arkansas' Steve Womack. Womack, a Republican, had the task of presiding over the floor starting at 11:45 a.m. and staying at the dais well into the evening. 'I'm told he is very very bored,' NBC's Melanie Zanona posted at the time, 'and singing the Eric Carmen song 'ALL BY MYSELF' to himself.' Meanwhile, House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, had his own way of killing time. 'Five,' Cole said, when a reporter asked him, around 5 p.m., how many cigars he had so far that day. 'Is that a lot or a little?' one reporter followed up. 'Certainly not a lot,' Cole replied. Senate burns the midnight oil. A lot. Senators also have plenty of time-consuming accomplishments to boast about, were such efforts to be lauded. The upper chamber kicked off July by barely topping a record set in 2008 for the longest 'vote-a-rama' – Washington parlance for a marathon series of votes on amendments to budget bills. Earlier this summer, Democrats were responsible for the bulk of the 45 proposals to revise Trump's sweeping tax, spending and policy bill. It was one more amendment than what senators almost two decades ago had spent hours voting on. The chamber has had three cases of a 'vote-a-rama' so far this year. Often, they mean overnight sessions that stretch more than a dozen hours. The series in early July was an unusual daylight occurrence, though, beginning a little after 9 a.m. on a Monday and lasting past noon the next day. Long days, short fuses After being elected majority leader by his colleagues, Thune promised more working days for a body of government that many Americans accuse of being allergic to work. That mostly meant adding Fridays to the work calendar (though the chamber has been about 50-50 on coming in those Fridays). More recently, there was talk of scrapping senators' typical summer break and instead staying in town to plow through a backlogged agenda. Some congressional correspondents who'd worked through the session thus far weren't so sure about the idea. More: All work and no play: House heads out while Senate eyes skipping summer break 'The Senate really, really needs a recess,' senior HuffPost Igor Bobic wrote online. But after a Saturday slog Aug. 2, lawmakers finally called it and fled the capital for their home states. The House and Senate are both set to return to town Sept. 2. And with a deadline to keep the government funded looming at the end of the month, a broiling debate over Jeffrey Epstein's case files ongoing, and overall tensions still simmering, Speaker Johnson and the rest of the legislative branch are not likely to see a 'normal Congress' anytime soon.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most education reformers have no idea what parents and kids want — and they don't care
Most education reformers — especially those interested in low-income communities — rightly focus on the needs and interests of students, whether they are discussing short-term outcomes like standardized testing results, or longer term results like rates of college acceptance and graduation. But the most important question they should be asking is: What do the parents in these communities want for their children? What do their extended family, mentors and pastors want? Unfortunately, even the best-intentioned reformers rarely entertain this question. Parents are the most important stakeholders in matters of education after the children themselves, yet reformers' ideological and emotional interests consistently take precedence over those of the parents and the local community. All too often, the education of poor or marginalized children gets lost in ideological battles between groups of elites who are completely removed from the communities they purport to defend. Elitist social justice initiatives — such as tossing out commonsense academic and behavioral standards because of supposed racial justice concerns — are a prime example of this 'soft bigotry of low expectations.' Is it acceptable to lower standards for certain children even if their parents want them to be held to a higher standard? Respect and consideration of parental priorities is one of the major reasons that indigenous, community-oriented and community-generated educational projects produce objectively excellent and even superior outcomes to top-down interventions from reformers outside the community. Take the Rosenwald schools: Booker T. Washington of the Tuskegee Institute and Julius Rosenwald, then-president of Sears Roebuck, joined to create one of the most remarkable educational successes of American history — yet remarkably few people know that they ever existed. Noting the dire lack of funding for education of Black children in the Jim Crow-era South, the Rosenwald Fund contributed $4.3 million — matched and exceeded by $4.7 million raised by Black communities themselves — to build over 5,000 schools, shops and associated homes across the segregated South. The Rosenwald schools were both very successful and indigenous projects: The seed money empowered local men, women and children to narrow the racial literacy gap in the Jim Crow-era American South by a stunning 40 percent. Within a generation, a three-year racial education gap shrank to well under a year. These highly localized, community-driven projects succeeded in the face of widespread, bitter discrimination. A modern-day example of indigenously led excellence can be seen in the Piney Woods School, a challenging preparatory school serving underprivileged children that was founded by Laurence Clifton Jones in 1909. Piney Woods serves a student body that wouldn't otherwise have access to a high-quality education, and relies largely on the generosity of donors to fund the scholarships for many of those who attend. But these kids, and their families, don't want a handout. They don't want low expectations. They want a challenge. And a challenge is what they receive. The school emphasizes self-responsibility, self-government and empowerment from within the communities and families it serves rather than from outside or 'above' them. Every student commits to working an on-campus job — in fact, the bulk of the campus buildings were built by students themselves. And their families donate or contribute to the school. They aren't looking to be accommodated or coddled. They don't want to be excused, and never have — even in the face of clear racism. There is a cautionary tale of reform, however, and it is the charter school movement. Charter schools are an increasingly common and often promising mode of educational reform, but they often flounder on the simple fact that reformers eventually rely on politics, rather than community interests, to guide their decisions. Former inner-city public school teacher Robert Pondiscio, in his recent review of Steve Wilson's book 'The Lost Decade,' briefly recounts the rise and fall of the 'no excuses' charter school model. In its ascendant years, the model allowed urban and underprivileged students to excel beyond anyone's expectations. But then it failed, catastrophically, under the growing weight of social justice culture. The schools that offered an irreplaceable chance at academic excellence — and long-term professional success — to Black students all over the country were sabotaged by the anxieties of political elites locked in pointless ideological battles over 'whiteness.' White guilt became more important than Black excellence. These charter schools abandoned the 'no excuses' standards that had helped lift students up from disadvantaged backgrounds as outdated or racist, replacing them with 'equity' initiatives that are leading today to low scores and low achievement. But no one asked the community leaders, who stand to gain or lose the most, if they were on board with these changes. Parents are stakeholders. Children are stakeholders. Siblings, aunts and uncles, mentors, pastors — anyone invested in these kids' lives are stakeholders. And that is the only real safeguard that communities have here: direct participation in and influence over the well-being of the children. If we want to build a more just society, we can and should begin by abandoning the top-down, ideologically-motivated model of educational reform. We must stop letting the elites destroy the strongest chance our most vulnerable children have at improving their station in life. Indigenous projects are the very best of our past — and they will be the very best of our future. Bob Woodson is the founder and president of the Woodson Center, and editor of the book ' A Pathway to American Renewal: Red, White, and Black Vol II. ' Will Crossley is the executive vice president of the Woodson Center and president of the Piney Woods School.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Israel minister who led prayers at a controversial holy site has a record of provocative actions
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel's far-right national security minister led prayers on Sunday at Jerusalem's most sensitive holy site, drawing international condemnation and escalating tensions as Israel faces strong criticism over the war in Gaza. Itamar Ben-Gvir has frequently visited the contested Jerusalem hilltop compound during the war in Gaza. Jews revere the site as the Temple Mount, where the biblical temples once stood. It is the holiest site in Judaism. Today, it is home to the Al Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam. Tensions at the compound have frequently spilled over into violence over the years. It was the latest act of defiance by the 49-year-old ultranationalist settler leader who transformed himself over the decades from an outlaw and provocateur into one of Israel's most influential politicians. Here is a closer look at Ben-Gvir: Why was the visit considered a provocation? Since Israel captured the site in 1967, Jews have been allowed to visit but not pray there. Palestinians consider the mosque a national symbol and view visits by Jewish leaders as provocative and as a potential precursor to Israel seizing control over the compound. Most rabbis forbid Jews from praying on the site, but there has been a growing movement in recent years of Jews who support worship there. Ben-Gvir has long called for greater Jewish access to the holy site. Ben-Gvir was visiting to mark the Jewish holiday of Tisha B'Av, a day of mourning and repentance when Jews reflect on the destruction of the First and Second Temples, key events in Jewish history. Visits like Ben-Gvir's are legal. Israeli media said the visit was the first time that a sitting minister actively and vocally led prayers. Ben-Gvir also called for Israel to conquer and declare sovereignty over all of the Gaza Strip and encourage 'voluntary' migration from Gaza in order to end the war and bring the hostages back. Palestinians say the migration plan is a disguise for forced expulsions. In response to Ben-Gvir's visit, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the status quo at the site had not changed and would not change to allow Jewish prayer. Run-ins with the law Ben-Gvir has been convicted eight times for offenses that include racism and supporting a terrorist organization. The army banned him from compulsory military service when he was a teen, deeming his views too extreme. Ben-Gvir gained notoriety in his youth as a follower of the late radical rabbi Meir Kahane. He first became a national figure when he broke a hood ornament off then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's car in 1995. 'We got to his car, and we'll get to him too,' he said, just weeks before Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist opposed to his peace efforts with the Palestinians. Two years later, Ben-Gvir took responsibility for orchestrating a campaign of protests, including death threats, that forced Irish singer Sinead O'Connor to cancel a concert for peace in Jerusalem. Moving to the mainstream The political rise of Ben-Gvir was the culmination of years of efforts by the media-savvy lawmaker to gain legitimacy. But it also reflected a rightward shift in the Israeli electorate that brought his religious, ultranationalist ideology into the mainstream and diminished hopes for Palestinian independence. Ben-Gvir is trained as a lawyer and gained recognition as a successful defense attorney for extremist Jews accused of violence against Palestinians. With a quick wit and cheerful demeanor, the outspoken Ben-Gvir also became a popular fixture in the media, paving his way to enter politics. He was first elected to parliament in 2021. Ben-Gvir has called for deporting his political opponents. In an episode in 2022, he brandished a pistol and encouraged police to open fire on Palestinian stone-throwers in a tense Jerusalem neighborhood. In his Cabinet post, Ben-Gvir oversaw the country's police force. He used his influence to encourage Netanyahu to press ahead with the war in Gaza and recently boasted that he had blocked past efforts to reach a ceasefire. As national security minister, he has encouraged police to take a tough line against anti-government protesters. Controversial minister Ben-Gvir secured his Cabinet post after 2022 elections that put Netanyahu and his far-right partners, including Ben-Gvir's Jewish Power party, into power. 'Over the last year I've been on a mission to save Israel,' Ben-Gvir told reporters before that election. 'Millions of citizens are waiting for a real right-wing government. The time has come to give them one.' Ben-Gvir has been a magnet of controversy throughout his tenure — encouraging the mass distribution of handguns to Jewish citizens, backing Netanyahu's contentious attempt to overhaul the country's legal system and frequently lashing out at U.S. leaders for perceived slights against Israel. Resignation and return to Netanyahu's cabinet Ben-Gvir temporarily resigned from Prime Minister Netanyahu's cabinet earlier this year to express his disapproval of the Gaza ceasefire deal. The ceasefire ran from Jan. 19 to March 1. Hamas released 25 Israeli hostages and the bodies of eight others in return for nearly 1,800 Palestinian prisoners, including senior militants serving life sentences for deadly attacks. Israeli forces pulled back to a buffer zone, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians returned to what remained of their homes, and there was a surge of humanitarian aid. Ben-Gvir's resignation did not stop the ceasefire, but it did weaken Netanyahu's governing coalition. Ben-Gvir rejoined the cabinet when Israel ended the ceasefire and returned to active combat in Gaza in March 2025. Last week, the Netherlands banned Ben-Gvir and far-right Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich from entering the country. Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway imposed financial sanctions on the two men last month.
