Explaining the Louisiana constitutional amendments on the March 29 election ballot
Louisiana voters will have another chance to change their state Constitution with four proposed amendments on the March 29 ballot.
The proposed amendments range from expanding specialty courts to lowering income tax rates.
Voters have approved 220 amendments to their Louisiana Constitution during the past 50 years. That's compared to 27 amendments (including the original 10 in the Bill of Rights) in the U.S. Constitution over more than 200 years.
The following is an edited explanation of the proposed amendments from the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, which provides a voter's guide without taking a position. For PAR's full analysis, go to the
A vote for would: Add to the constitution the Louisiana Supreme Court's authority to discipline out-of-state lawyers for legal work in the state and expand the Legislature's authority to create specialty courts not limited to parish and judicial district boundaries.
A vote against would: Retain the current provisions governing the Louisiana Supreme Court's oversight of lawyer discipline and keep the Louisiana Legislature's authority to create specialty courts limited to parish and judicial district boundaries.
This massive proposed amendment would lower the maximum rate of income tax, increase income tax deductions for citizens over 65, provide for a government growth limit, modify operation of certain constitutional funds, provide for property tax exemptions retaining the homestead exemption and exemption for religious organizations, provide a permanent teacher salary increase by requiring a surplus payment to teacher retirement debt and make other modifications.
A vote for would: Rewrite large portions of the Louisiana Constitution article dealing with revenue collections, the state budget process, savings accounts and taxation rules.
A vote against would: Continue the current provisions governing revenue collections, budgeting procedures, savings accounts and taxation limitations.
A vote for would: Remove the list of 16 crimes for which people under the age of 17 can be charged as adults from the Louisiana Constitution, allowing lawmakers to more easily expand the list of felony offenses in law.
A vote against would: Maintain the limited list of 16 crimes for which people under the age of 17 can be charged as adults.
A vote for would: Change the timing requirements for filling a judicial vacancy or newly created judgeship, so the special election coincides with the regular elections calendar.
A vote against would: Keep election rules for filling a judicial vacancy or newly created judgeship that require the special election to be held and a judge to be seated within 12 months after the vacancy began.
More: Buc-ee's will break ground in Ruston, Louisiana, soon: Here's the time line for the Beaver
Greg Hilburn covers state politics for the USA TODAY Network of Louisiana. Follow him on Twitter @GregHilburn1.
This article originally appeared on Shreveport Times: Explaining the proposed amendments to the Louisiana Constitution
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump loyalty is now part of job application
More than six million Americans are still looking for work, according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Amid ongoing economic uncertainty, the federal government remains one of the country's most active employers, with open roles for nurses, actuaries, physicists, engineers and IT professionals listed at But prospective applicants may notice something different about the application process in 2025. Alongside typical questions about experience and qualifications, some federal job forms now ask about an applicant's alignment with presidential policy priorities, raising concerns about political screening in what are supposed to be nonpartisan civil service roles. Under guidance issued by the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCOC), part of a broader federal hiring overhaul, applicants may be asked to explain how they would help implement specific executive orders or initiatives. One question currently being used reads: 'How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.' This directive is connected to an executive order President Donald Trump that emphasizes 'merit-based' hiring over previous diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations. The administration stated that these changes are intended to root out political bias and ensure a more ideologically aligned workforce. Critics argue that these practices resemble loyalty tests, particularly as questions of commitment to the Constitution and the President's policies appeared in job applications. Earlier this year, multiple government agencies experienced layoffs of employees who were seen as insufficiently aligned with current leadership, even in traditionally apolitical roles. Historical parallels have been raised. During the McCarthy era in the 1950s, public servants and private citizens alike were pressured to prove their loyalty to the U.S. government to root out suspected communists. Accusations and investigations often targeted personal beliefs rather than actions, leading to widespread firings, blacklisting and surveillance. Civil service roles in the U.S. were originally designed to serve the Constitution and the public, not individual officeholders. Federal employees take an oath to uphold the Constitution, a foundational distinction meant to separate American governance from monarchic or authoritarian systems. Whether the latest hiring guidelines are a temporary shift or a lasting transformation of the federal workforce remains to be seen. For now, job seekers interested in federal positions may want to prepare answers not just about their skills but about their stance on presidential policy.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the borderor sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here's what to know about American Samoans in Alaska who are being prosecuted after trying to vote
WHITTIER, Alaska (AP) — They were born on U.S. soil, are entitled to U.S. passports and allowed to serve in the U.S. military, but 11 people in a small Alaska town are facing criminal charges after they tried to participate in a fundamental part of American democracy: voting. The defendants, who range in age from their 20s to their 60s, were all born in American Samoa — the only U.S. territory where residents are not automatically granted citizenship at birth. Prosecutors say they falsely claimed American citizenship when registering or trying to vote. The cases are highlighting another side of the debate over exaggerated allegations of voting by noncitizens, as well as what it means to be born on American soil, as President Donald Trump tries to redefine birthright citizenship by ending it for children of people who are in the country illegally. Here's what to know about the prosecutions in Alaska and the status of American Samoans when it comes to voting. What is the Alaska case about? The investigation began after Tupe Smith, a mom in the cruise-ship stop of Whittier, decided to run for a vacant seat on the regional school board in 2023. She was unopposed and won with about 95% of the vote. That's when she learned she wasn't allowed to hold public office because she wasn't a U.S. citizen. Smith says she knew she wasn't allowed to vote in federal elections but thought she could vote in local or state races, and that she never would have voted if she knew it wasn't legal. She says she told elections workers that she was a U.S. national, not a citizen, and was told to check a box saying she was a citizen anyway. About 10 months later, troopers returned to Whittier and issued court summonses to her husband and nine other American Samoans. While Smith appeals the charges against her, the state filed charges against the others in April. The state argues that Smith's false claim of citizenship was intentional, and her claim to the contrary was undercut by the clear language on the voter application forms she filled out in 2020 and 2022. The forms said that if the applicant did not answer yes to being over 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, 'do not complete this form, as you are not eligible to vote.' Why can't American Samoans vote in the U.S.? The 14th Amendment to the Constitution promises U.S. citizenship to those born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction. American Samoa has been U.S. soil since 1900, when several of its chiefs ceded their land and vowed allegiance to the United States. For that reason, Smith's lawyers argue, American Samoans must be recognized as U.S. citizens by birthright, and they should be allowed to vote in the U.S. But the islands' residents have never been so considered — Congress declined to extend birthright citizenship to American Samoa in the 1930s — and many American Samoans don't want it. They worry that it would disrupt their cultural practices, including communal land ownership. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited that in 2021 when it declined to extend automatic citizenship to those born in American Samoa, saying it would be wrong to force citizenship on those who don't want it. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision. People born in all other U.S. territories — Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam — are U.S. citizens. They can vote in U.S. elections if they move to a state. American Samoans can participate in local elections on American Samoa, including for a nonvoting representative in Congress. Have other states prosecuted American Samoans for trying to vote? Supporters of the American Samoans in Whittier have called the prosecutions unprecedented. One of Smith's attorneys, Neil Weare, suggested authorities are going after 'low-hanging fruit' in the absence of evidence that illegal immigrants frequently cast ballots in U.S. elections. Even state-level investigations have found voting by noncitizens to be exceptionally rare. In Oregon, officials inadvertently registered nearly 200 American Samoan residents to vote when they got their driver's licenses under the state's motor-voter law. Of those, 10 cast ballots in an election, according to the Oregon Secretary of State's office, but officials found they did not intend to break the law and no crime was committed. In Hawaii, one resident who was born in American Samoa, Sai Timoteo, ran for the state Legislature in 2018 before learning she wasn't allowed to hold public office or vote. She also avoided charges. Is there any legislation to fix this? American Samoans can become U.S. citizens — a requirement not just for voting, but for certain jobs, such as those that require a security clearance. However, the process can be costly and cumbersome. Given that many oppose automatic citizenship, the territory's nonvoting representative in Congress, Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, has introduced legislation that would streamline the naturalization of American Samoans who do wish to become U.S. citizens. The bill would allow U.S. nationals in outlying U.S. territories — that is, American Samoa — to be naturalized without relocating to one of the U.S. states. It would also allow the Department of Homeland Security to waive personal interviews of U.S. nationals as part of the process and to reduce fees for them. ___ Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska, and Johnson from Seattle.
