logo
Lawmakers reject insurance bills that had direct relief for Louisiana homeowners

Lawmakers reject insurance bills that had direct relief for Louisiana homeowners

Yahooa day ago

Gov. Jeff Landry speaks to reporters about his legislative agenda to bring down high auto insurance rates on April 9, 2025. (Photo credit: Wes Muller/Louisiana Illuminator)
With just two days left to write new laws in the 2025 legislative session, Louisiana lawmakers have halted the only two insurance proposals this year that critics said would have directly provided relief to homeowners struggling to afford skyrocketing rates.
Senate Bill 235 and House Bill 356 drew wide public interest as homeowners wait for state officials to rein in the coverage costs. Average homeowner insurance premiums in Louisiana are the eighth highest in the nation, according to the industry news site Insure.com.
Both were also among the few insurance bills that had bipartisan support, though not quite enough from conservatives.
Sponsored by Sen. Royce Duplessis, D-New Orleans, Senate Bill 235 would have created an annual tax credit of up to $2,000 for homeowner's insurance payments. It would have been available to anyone with homeowner's coverage and an income no greater than 200% of the federal poverty level. The legislation included a provision to sunset the credit after 10 years.
After narrowly clearing the Senate, Duplessis' SB-235 narrowly failed in the House as Republicans there tanked it with a two-vote margin, 49-52.
The other measure, House Bill 356 by Rep. Jacob Braud, R-Belle Chasse, would have required insurance companies to let homeowners who are free of mortgages to purchase 'stated value' policies. It would cover the home for a lesser amount chosen by the homeowner rather than for its full market value.
Although the bill is still alive, it's a mere shell of the version that cleared the House in a 79-20 vote just last week when it drew strong vocal support from Republicans like Rep. Tim Kerner of Lafitte, who called it the only bill he has seen this year that actually helps homeowners with affordability.
The original measure would have required insurers to create stated value policies upon the request of a customer, but Senate lawmakers changed a single word in the bill — from 'shall' to 'may' — doing away with the mandate provision that served as the cornerstone on which the rest of the bill relied.
Rep. Mike Bayham, R-Chalmette, expressed his disappointment over the fate of the two bills in an interview Tuesday, saying the high cost of insurance is the one issue above all others that lawmakers really needed to fix.
'Everything else seems to be, 'Let's pass something and just hope the rates get better,' Bayham said. 'I thought Braud's bill was more direct, and I thought Duplessis' bill would have provided direct relief even on a limited scale. At the end of the day, we were elected to the Legislature to tackle the insurance crisis.'
The version of Duplessis' bill that reached the House floor would have capped the state's total annual payouts for the homeowner's insurance tax credit at $10 million. It also would have made the credit refundable for filers earning less than $25,000 per year, meaning they could have received a cash rebate for the credit.
However, Rep. Julie Emerson, R-Carencro, gathered enough votes for an amendment to remove the refundable provision and to lower the state's payout cap to $1 million per year.
Rep. Neil Riser, R-Columbia, who presented the bill on the House floor for Duplessis, objected to those changes but lost that vote in a 65-29 decision.
'This bill is to try to help those who need the most as far as homeowner insurance is concerned,' Riser said.
Emerson said the bill would only shift the cost of high homeowner's insurance to the broader Louisiana tax base while doing nothing to address the underlying causes of high rates.
'I don't think that that gives a lot of incentive for rates to go down when we're basically subsidizing those rates,' she said.
House Insurance Committee Chairman Gabe Firment, R-Pollock, who has spearheaded much of the pro-insurance industry legislation this year, rallied his conservative colleagues to oppose Duplessis' bill by calling out one of the organizations backing it, the Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance.
Firment took issue with recent text messages from the Alliance that accused lawmakers of doing nothing to pass meaningful insurance reform. He pointed out the group gave a poor rating to Republican Congressman Steve Scalise ahead of his 2024 reelection and a positive rating to the Democratic challenger Mel Manuel, whom Firment called a 'radical transgender candidate.'
Questioning the relevance of those comments, House Speaker Phillip DeVillier, R-Eunice, began interjecting to ask Firment to focus his comments on the bill, but the Grant Parish lawmaker had made his point and yielded the floor.
Louisiana homeowners might get option to insure their properties for 'stated value'
Meanwhile Monday in the Senate, members of the upper chamber were approving a neutered version of Braud's legislation with little discussion. If signed into law, the Senate's version of the legislation would make no changes to what is already allowed under current law.
Stated value policies are typically customized for homeowners who have paid off all or most of their mortgage and prefer to shoulder the risk of having only partial coverage. They would receive lower premiums in exchange for paying out-of-pocket for any damages, increasing the likelihood of losing their homes entirely in the event of a bad storm or a lawsuit.
In an interview Tuesday, Braud said there's no law that would currently stop insurers from selling stated-value policies, but he wouldn't go so far as to say the Senate changes rendered his proposal a 'do-nothing' bill.
'We've gotta start somewhere,' the Plaquemines Parish lawmaker said.
Braud added that he believes passing the neutered version of the bill might not change anything this year, but it could help the idea of stated value polices gain momentum. Braud said he hopes he can get the word 'shall' back into the law during next year's session.
Pro-industry lawmakers such as Firment opposed Braud's legislation, arguing it would shift insurance costs to other parts of the state that aren't prone to hurricanes and would lead to an increase in blighted property from people abandoning their damaged homes after storms.
Ironically, the same group Firment criticized during debate on Duplessis' bill is aligned with him in opposition to Braud's bill.
In a phone interview Tuesday, Andreanecia Morris, president of the Greater New Orleans Housing Alliance, said her organization is sympathetic to the plight of homeowners everywhere who can't afford insurance, but she believes Braud's bill doesn't address the underlying problem of high rates.
'We're not fans of encouraging homeowners to go it alone and not have enough insurance to replace their homes should the worst happen,' Morris said. 'People can't afford what they need, and that's the issue. Solving that problem isn't gonna be accomplished by just asking them to need less. It's like asking them to breathe less.'
Lawmakers could be doing more to solve the problem and regulate the insurance industry, she said, adding that Braud's bill could spell disaster if too many Louisiana residents go underinsured or drop out of the property insurance market altogether.
'It encourages you to gamble in a way that is unsustainable and could lead to you losing your home,' Morris said. 'We learned those lessons after Katrina.'
Braud's bill is scheduled for a conference committee on Wednesday in which a small group of lawmakers from both chambers try to work on a compromise to get the measure passed.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Senate GOP plan would sell millions of acres of Western public land
Senate GOP plan would sell millions of acres of Western public land

Washington Post

time33 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Senate GOP plan would sell millions of acres of Western public land

Senate Republicans have proposed selling off up to 3.3 million acres of federally owned land in 11 Western states, according to a draft legislative text offered as part of their spending and tax cut bill, prompting an outcry from conservationists and Democratic lawmakers. According to a budget blueprint released Wednesday evening by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the federal government would be required to sell off between 2.2 and 3.3 million acres of land owned by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service over the next five years. The proposal stipulates that the sold land will have to be used to develop housing or 'community development needs,' which it said could be defined by the secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture departments. The 11 states that would be affected by the proposal are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement Wednesday that the draft legislative text would turn 'federal liabilities into taxpayer value, while making housing more affordable for hardworking American families.' Current law allows BLM to sell off land in some instances, such as in a specific ring around Las Vegas, at a discount if it's developed for affordable housing. But the push to scale up these land sales has spurred pushback from not just Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists but also some House Republicans, who managed to block a similar provision from being included last month in the House's tax and spending bill. Democrats and several conservation groups sharply criticized the Senate blueprint, warning that it could deprive future generations of public access to public land and suggesting much of the land sold might not be used for affordable housing. Sen. Martin Heinrich (New Mexico), the panel's top Democrat, accused Republicans of 'taking up a sledgehammer' in a 'fire sale' of public lands, in a statement Wednesday. 'We all lose access to public lands forever, jeopardizing our local economies and who we are as a nation.' In a statement, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership said it opposed the proposed forced sale, arguing that the budget reconciliation bill was not the right process for public-land sales of this scale. 'The Senate proposal sets an arbitrary acreage target and calls for the disposal of up to six times more land than was proposed in early versions of the House budget reconciliation bill,' said Joel Pedersen, the group's president and CEO. 'If passed, sportsmen and women would lose access to large tracts of public land.' If enacted into law, the draft text would require the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service to sell between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of the 438 million acres of land that they own collectively. It does not include the sale of land with existing grazing rights, along with federally protected lands such as national parks, monuments and wildlife refuges. The committee projected that the land sales would generate between $5 billion and $10 billion of income between fiscal years 2025 and 2034, citing an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

Political fights put spotlight on leader of Washington's largest public employee union
Political fights put spotlight on leader of Washington's largest public employee union

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Political fights put spotlight on leader of Washington's largest public employee union

Mike Yestramski, president of the Washington Federation of State Employees, could not get a meeting with Gov. Bob Ferguson so he "called" during a March protest in the governor's office. (Photo by Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero) Mike Yestramski has enjoyed a low profile through much of his six years leading Washington state's largest public sector union. Not anymore. His very public clashes with the governor during a contentious 2025 legislative session put a political spotlight on the president of the Washington Federation of State Employees. The union represents 54,000 state government, higher education and public service workers. Ferguson and Democratic state senators — longtime union allies — wanted to furlough workers and make them pay more for health care coverage. They also called for curtailing programs and closing Rainier School, a rehabilitation center in Pierce County for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, moves certain to trigger layoffs. Yestramski and legions of fellow union members turned out in force to oppose these moves. Clad in the union's green t-shirts, they rallied on the Capitol steps, demonstrated at the governor's office and patrolled the hallways outside the House and Senate chambers to pigeonhole lawmakers through the final hours of session. The muscular, pony-tailed labor leader was ubiquitous, rebellious and, in the end, victorious in some of the most pitched political battles of the session. And he didn't hold back with rhetorical slights against the new governor, calling Ferguson a 'pseudo Democrat' at rallies and 'Ratfink Robbie Ferguson' on Facebook. The swipes further brightened the exposure of the union's demands. Yestramski said in a recent interview in the union's Olympia headquarters that he prefers 'adult conversations' to resolve differences, though he realizes what occurred in the legislative session 'may have painted a slightly different impression.' But the gravity of the situation demanded a strong retort, he said. 'I generally believe that collaboration tends to be more successful than aggression,' he said. 'But that takes all of the parties involved to do that.' Yestramski, 45, was elected to a two-year term as federation president in 2019. Then 39, Yestramski said he was reportedly the federation's youngest ever president. Yestramski was reelected in 2021 and 2023. He plans to seek a fourth term this fall. He started his public service career as a homeless outreach social worker in Baltimore. He came to Washington in 2013, taking a job as a psychiatric social worker at Western State Hospital. An active union member, Yestramski said he pursued the leadership post because he was 'just getting really sick of seeing my friends and co-workers getting beat up, really, really bad.' 'People ended up in ICUs. People lost digits,' he said. Jobs at the hospital can still be dangerous, but Yestramski credited CEO Charlie Southerland for working collaboratively with the union to come up with solutions to bolster worker safety. The following interview was lightly edited for clarity and length. Have you had a chance to chat with or meet face-to-face with the governor? I have not. You've called him a few names. How do you feel about him now? While his rhetoric during the session I didn't love, he did ultimately sign the budget that funds our contracts and did not contain furloughs. As far as what he actually did, he didn't harm us, which was the fear based on statements that were coming out. For that, I'm thankful. You did say you felt scammed and that workers were lied to because Ferguson's proposals didn't align with his pledges to labor leaders in the 2024 campaign. Do you think WFSE members now feel they can trust him to have their backs? As a social worker — this is going to be related, I promise — the therapeutic school that I was brought up in was behaviorism. One of its basic tenets is, 'I don't really care what your motivations are, as long as you do the right thing.' To that end, whether it was genuinely in his heart or whether it was due to the political pressure of our members, whatever reason it was that got that outcome, the outcome is what was important. As far as our members trusting him, obviously, folks are going to be a little bit hesitant. This isn't just the governor. This is any elected official where we have to continue to make it known that we're paying attention, that we'll show up and that we have expectations of our elected officials. When we do that in large enough crowds, they listen and they do the right thing. In the end, did Ferguson do the right thing enough to secure the union's backing for reelection? That's three-and-a-half years away. In sports terms, there's going to be a lot more game film to review by the time that decision comes up. Enough time for a reconciliation? As far as he and I, personally, I can't say. My door is always open, even if it's to say I don't like you, right? I don't care if it's me. I believe the narrative got a little bit into a personal thing between me and Bob. I need to know that there are people in the governor's office that he will listen to, who can make sure that our main issues are being heard and addressed. Do you feel that way today? I feel that now more than I did two months ago. Would I like to have a better relationship with the governor? I don't want to be in a feud with our governor. You're probably not going to call him a 'ratfink' again. Probably not.

What Is a Constitutional Crisis and Are We in One Under the Second Trump Administration?
What Is a Constitutional Crisis and Are We in One Under the Second Trump Administration?

Yahoo

time43 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What Is a Constitutional Crisis and Are We in One Under the Second Trump Administration?

Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take You might have heard the term 'constitutional crisis' thrown around on social media or in the news lately. What used to be a relatively obscure concept you might learn about in civics class is now suddenly being talked about everywhere. Some say we're in a full-blown constitutional crisis, others claim we're veering toward one, and others believe the panic is overblown. Here's what the data says: Today, a majority of Democrats and Independents agree that the United States is experiencing a constitutional crisis, while just 3 in 10 Republicans say the same, according to surveys conducted by the States United Democracy Center and YouGov. As the leader of an organization that works to protect our democracy, and as a lawyer who served at the highest levels of state government, it's hard to disagree with the majority of my fellow Americans as I look at what's happening in our country right now — it feels like we are in a constitutional crisis. But what is a constitutional crisis? Is there an on-off switch, or is it a spectrum? And, more importantly, why should you care and what can you do about it? To answer that big question, we have to look at the source material: The United States Constitution. Our Constitution lays out a system of government that divides certain powers between the Congress, the courts, and the president, while giving states the authority to govern their people and to check the federal government. After a series of debates and compromises, the framers of the Constitution created that system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from exercising too much power. Our democracy is built to withstand our differences while safeguarding our freedoms. You were likely taught how it's supposed to work: The president can veto Congress's bills. Congress can refuse to fund the president's priorities or reject their nominees. The courts can strike down laws they deem unconstitutional. And states can defend against federal overreach. In short, the Constitution is like a democracy rulebook. But it also relies heavily on the idea that people in power will respect those rules. An attempt to undermine or go around the system is an attack on our democracy. That's a constitutional crisis. The Constitution puts guardrails on the president's power — whether he likes it or not. But since President Donald Trump took office again in January 2025, the executive branch has repeatedly gone beyond its constitutional authority, testing the bounds of federal power like never before. Most recently, in response to protests in California, Trump moved thousands of National Guard units from state control to federal service. The action came without authorization from the governor, who is typically in command. When governors need federal assistance, they ask. It should not be forced on them. Trump has attempted to freeze federal funding for everything from disaster relief to child care. One problem: He doesn't have that power. The Constitution gives Congress the 'power of the purse' — the right to decide when and how our federal tax dollars are spent. And Congress has already promised those funds for essential services for everyday Americans. Federal judges have repeatedly ordered the administration to cease its attempts to stop funding for essential services. But as these lawsuits wind through the courts, real people are being hurt. State and local health departments can't pay staff, college students are having trouble accessing federal financial assistance, and job training programs are being canceled — all because of an unconstitutional power grab. Our system is set up so that when there are constitutional disputes between the branches of government, we look to the courts to resolve them. And an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that the law should be applied equally to everyone, including those in power, according to March polling from States United and YouGov. When a court issues a ruling, it's not a suggestion — it's the law. Even the president must comply. Imagine if a regular person, after being convicted of a violent crime in court, could decide to ignore the jury and walk free? Americans would never stand for that. Yet, the Trump administration continues to defy court orders across the country. They reportedly didn't turn around planes carrying people being deported to El Salvador. They spent weeks refusing to comply with an order from the Supreme Court to 'facilitate' the return of a Maryland resident who was wrongfully deported. And they refused to let Associated Press journalists into Oval Office events, even after a judge found that was a violation of the First Amendment. Administration officials have also made a series of concerning statements calling into question the judicial system's check on executive power. When it comes to the Trump administration disregarding our system of checks and balances, the list goes on. You've probably heard about how the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk until his recent departure, gutted federal agencies that were created by Congress. But did you know that Trump also tried to use an executive order to change key aspects of how we run elections? The Constitution is very clear that states have authority over our elections. That helps ensure that elections work for the people, not the party in power in Washington, DC. It's how we keep our elections free, fair, and secure. Trump tried to grab that state power. Once again, a judge stopped him, blocking parts of his order. By the way, many of Trump's executive orders haven't just been deemed illegal in the courts — they're also unpopular. Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe policy changes should happen through the passage of a bill in Congress, not an executive order by the president, according to our March poll with YouGov. No one person gets to declare a constitutional crisis, just like no one person gets to break our democracy. And even if there were a 'constitutional crisis' switch we could flip, there would be no cavalry riding to the defense of American democracy. We are the cavalry. We can debate the wording. We can argue over what really tips us into crisis, but at the end of the day, that's a distraction meant to divide us further. Because here's what I'll tell you is really important: President Trump continues to violate our constitutional system. Plain as day. He's breaking the law and ignoring the people who are meant to keep him in check. Despite all that, I firmly believe it's not too late. The Trump administration has done a lot of damage in these first five months, but we can still preserve American democracy. Enforcing and upholding the Constitution is the way forward. And we need to use every power that our country's founders gave us to do so. Because this is our democracy — our future. And the Constitution is our rulebook. It begins, 'We the People,' after all. Many of our state leaders — governors, attorneys general, and secretaries of state — are standing up for the Constitution and our freedoms, and our team at States United is committed to supporting them. Judges across the country are interpreting the law without fear or favor. But we also need citizens — especially young people — who are informed, engaged, and unafraid to speak out. You've already taken the first step, which is educating yourself on how the system works. What's next? You can vote, organize, protest, and lead. You can express your views online and challenge disinformation. You can work or volunteer for an organization that's fighting back. You can support elected officials who defend the rule of law, hold accountable those who don't, and one day run for office yourself. We can't take our democracy for granted. The Constitution doesn't enforce itself. It relies on each of us to uphold it. The question isn't whether we are in a constitutional crisis. It's what we're going to do about it. Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue Want more U.S. government coverage? The Current Supreme Court Is Illegitimate What It's Like to Live In a State Run By Politicians You Can't Stand Mass Incarceration Is Cruel, Expensive, and Ineffective The True Story of a White Supremacist Insurrection in the U.S.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store