6 hours Ago
Facebook Twitter WhatsApp SMS Email Print Copy article link Save Louisiana voters have become accustomed to being asked to make tweaks to the state's governing document, first adopted in 1974 and since amended many times. March 29 will be no different, with four new proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot. Chief among them is the lengthy and complicated Amendment 2, the second element of a sweeping tax reform passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov.
Jeff Landry. We will have a fuller explanation and recommendation in Sunday's newspaper. Below are our recommendations on the other three amendments on that March 29 ballot.
Early voting begins March 15 and runs through March 22. Amendment 1: Related to attorney discipline and specialty courts. No.
The first part of this two-part amendment would clarify and explain the Louisiana Supreme ourt's role in disciplining out-of-state attorneys who practice in state courts for specific proceedings. The second part would expand the Legislature's ability to create specialty courts that cross judicial district or parish boundaries. While we applaud the use of specialty courts, we do not think expanding the number of judges and courts is warranted.
It is likely just to create higher costs for Louisiana's taxpayers and increased fees for those seeking redress through the judicial system. Additionally, the Supreme Court already has power to discipline attorneys who practice in the state. We urge voters to reject this proposed amendment.
Amendment 3: Related to juvenile justice. No. This newspaper has consistently opposed proposals that would make it easier to try those under the age of 17 as adults in Louisiana's criminal justice system.
This proposal, if enacted, would remove the current list of 16 mostly violent felonies from the constitution and give the Legislature the ability to add and remove crimes to that list at will. We feel the current list of crimes for which juveniles can be tried as adults is sufficient. We recommend a no vote.
Amendment 4: Changing the timing requirements for filling judicial vacancies. Yes. This largely technical fix to the constitution is needed after the state adopted a closed primary system for some offices, including Supreme Court.
Currently, the state constitution requires that an election for judge be held and a seat filled within 12 months of a vacancy occurring. But the closed primary system could require an extra election to choose a new justice, making it impossible to fill the seat if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs at certain times of the year. This fix would require the governor to call the election to fill the role on the same date as a gubernatorial or congressional election if either of them is within 12 months of the vacancy.
If not, then the election would occur on the first already scheduled election date after the vacancy occurs. This fix is unlikely to have much of an impact — it does not apply to lower court judgeships. But nevertheless, in the interest of saving money due to extra elections, we recommend support.
.
