December 7 Constitutional Amendment Explainer

Here is an explainer for the constitutional amendments that will appear on the December 7, 2024, ballot. It is produced by The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana (PAR)

Dec. 7 election AMENDMENT 1 

Expansion of Judiciary Commission and Reworked Judicial Investigation Process

PROPOSED CHANGE

The amendment would increase the number of people on the state Judiciary Commission and rework the way the commission operates, giving the Supreme Court more input into the investigatory process. 

The commission would grow from nine to 14 members, with the addition of two appointees from the state House speaker, two appointees from the state Senate president and one appointee from the governor. The appointees would not have to be lawyers or judges. The amendment does not specify qualifications required of the five new members.

Beyond the addition of new members, the state Supreme Court would receive new authority to direct the commission to start an investigation into allegations of improper judicial behavior. The high court also could temporarily disqualify a judge from judicial tasks without needing a commission recommendation, though the judge still would receive a salary. 

Additionally, the list of improper behavior for which judges can be disciplined would be expanded under the amendment to specifically include malfeasance while in office. 

ARGUMENT FOR

The Judiciary Commission moves too slowly to consider allegations of judicial misconduct, taking years in some instances to review complaints. The commission is too protective of judges because it is packed with their own colleagues and the lawyers who appear before judges in court. The potential to add more non-lawyers to the commission could bring a fresh perspective and make the panel more aggressive in holding judges accountable. The Louisiana Supreme Court should have more authority over judicial ethics and discipline because the court’s justices oversee the judicial system.

ARGUMENT AGAINST

Increasing the commission size doesn’t make anything more transparent or efficient and could slow the overall process. Complaints take a long time to investigate properly, so providing the commission with more staff and resources to do the work is the way to speed up disciplinary action. Adding appointees of legislative leaders and the governor to the commission could insert improper political influence into the judicial ethics and discipline process. Giving the Louisiana Supreme Court more authority to initiate investigations raises due process concerns since the court could decide discipline after an investigation.

Dec. 7 election AMENDMENT 2 

Waiting Period for Final Vote on Budget Bills

PROPOSED CHANGE

The amendment would mandate a 48-hour waiting period before lawmakers could take a final vote on any appropriations bill and send it to the governor, without the ability to waive that waiting period. 

The delay would apply to any vote in the House that would give concurrence to the Senate’s version of a bill appropriating money and to any vote in the House and Senate to approve a conference committee report for a bill appropriating money. 

Before any such vote could occur, lawmakers also would have to receive a summary document at least 48 hours in advance that explains proposed changes to the bill. 

The amendment is considered a companion to Amendment 3, which would allow legislators to extend a regular legislative session for a limited time if needed to pass the package of appropriations bills and meet the 48-hour delay requirements.

ARGUMENT FOR

Requiring more time before lawmakers can take a final vote on bills appropriating money ensures that legislative leaders can’t quickly jam bills through the process before rank-and-file lawmakers can review them and assess their impact. The bills finance billions of dollars in state agencies and programs, and more care and attention should be given to their final passage. A required waiting period gives lawmakers and the public more transparency about which projects and programs receive financing. 

ARGUMENT AGAINST

Requiring a delay before lawmakers can take a final vote on bills appropriating money creates unnecessary roadblocks to passage of critical legislation that finances state agencies and programs. Lawmakers should be flexible to make their own decisions about how quickly they choose to pass appropriations bills, just as they can with other types of bills awaiting final votes. Adding such restrictions on legislative voting behavior should be left to House and Senate rules rather than placed in the Louisiana Constitution. 

Dec. 7 election AMENDMENT 3 

Extension of Regular Session to Pass Budget Bills

PROPOSED CHANGE

The amendment would give lawmakers the ability to add up to six days to a regular session if they cannot complete their work on a bill appropriating money during the original time allocated for the regular session. 

To extend the session would require a two-thirds vote from members of both the House and the Senate. Extensions would be allowed in two-day increments, for up to six days. Lawmakers could not consider any other legislation beyond bills appropriating money during the additional days of the regular session. 

The extension proposal is considered a companion to Amendment 2, which would require a 48-hour waiting period between the development of the last version of an appropriations bill and lawmakers’ final vote before sending the bill to the governor. 

The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Office estimates a six-day extension of a regular session could cost about $155,000 for lawmakers’ per diem, along with additional costs for security, staff expenses, travel allowances and other supplies as needed for each extra day of session. 

ARGUMENT FOR

Offering lawmakers more time in a regular legislative session to make sure they understand what is contained in an appropriations bill is a wise use of state time and resources. Allowing a short, maximum six-day extension is a better option than requiring lawmakers to restart the budget debate process in a special session. The cost associated with an extension is minor in a multibillion-dollar budget and likely cheaper than a special session.

ARGUMENT AGAINST

Lawmakers should have more than enough time to handle their work during the regular legislative session without needing extensions. The House and Senate should prioritize the financing of state government operations to ensure they can complete the task in the time allotted, as they have done in most years across recent decades. The cost of adding extra days to the session is an unnecessary expense in a state with many needs. 

Dec. 7 election AMENDMENT 4 

Revised System for Responding to Delinquent Property Taxes 

PROPOSED CHANGE

The amendment would rework Louisiana’s process for handling property on which tax payments are delinquent, moving from a tax sale process to a tax lien auction process. The changes would take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, if adopted by voters. 

A tax lien is a government entity’s legal claim to a piece of property for unpaid taxes. If the property owner doesn’t pay the owed debt to satisfy the tax obligation, the government can sell the tax lien at a public auction. 

The holder of the tax lien would then be able to sell the property to pay off the lien. The tax lien operates like a mortgage, with a foreclosure process on the property if the delinquent taxpayer doesn’t pay off the debts.

If a tax lien certificate against the property is sold and the delinquent taxpayer wants to cancel the lien, the same penalties and interest limits in the current constitutional provision would largely apply. A penalty of up to 5% could be charged, along with interest on the debt of up to 1% per month, though the interest rate could be reduced. 

The amendment would require lawmakers to establish a procedure for handling the surplus proceeds from a property sale if the sale generates more money than the back-owed property taxes and related costs. 

The Louisiana Legislature would be able to postpone the property tax payment deadline only if the governor or parish president declares an emergency as allowed under state law.

Many of the details and mechanics for the system for handling property tax debts would be removed from the constitution and placed in state law instead, making it easier for lawmakers to tweak the system in the future without returning to the voters. The separate bill outlining more specifics for administration of the tax lien process also would take effect in January 2026 if voters adopt the constitutional amendment. 

That companion legislation establishes a longer process for foreclosing on and selling the property. The law would require a three year-delay from the filing of a tax lien to the allowed sale of the property, giving a delinquent taxpayer more time to pay the debts associated with the property and reclaim it. 

The law attached to the constitutional amendment would prohibit an auction to collect the delinquent taxes or enforce the tax lien more than seven years after a tax lien certificate is legally recorded, limiting the time for taking action on the debt. It also would outline the process for contesting and attempting to nullify a tax lien and property sale, removing the provisions from the constitution. 

ARGUMENT FOR

Louisiana’s current system for handling delinquent property taxes has led to years of litigation to ensure taxpayer rights aren’t being violated, and the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes the entire process. The current tax sale system was enacted when Louisiana was more agricultural and hasn’t smoothly transitioned to the subdivisions of today. Shifting to the tax lien auction system will better protect people who own the property and give them more options to address their debts rather than see their property sold. Supporters of the amendment say if property is sold to satisfy a lien, the process involved is more attractive for investors. Removing the details of the procedure from the constitution and placing them in law will make it easier for legislators to respond to future court rulings and litigation. 

ARGUMENT AGAINST

Rewriting the entire process for handling property tax debts is unnecessary since years of lawsuits and court rulings have clarified many areas of the law. Protecting owner equity does not require this amendment. Louisiana has not been judged in violation of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling so it’s too soon to shift to a new system in response. Opponents of the amendment say the tax lien auction system and its longer timelines could discourage some property investors from wanting to participate and, therefore, could make it tougher for the government to collect delinquent taxes. The amendment continues to place too much detail in the Louisiana Constitution that is better left to state law. The constitution shouldn’t require a specific system for handling property tax debts, and that level of detail could result in new litigation.