Gov. Jeff Landry was definitely not on the same page as most Louisiana voters back in the spring of 2025, when they his call to pass four constitutional amendments, including a massive overhaul of the section dealing with taxes and the budget.
He might be today, though, as voters try to decipher a whopping list of on the Nov. 3 ballot.
Asked by the if he had any thoughts to share, Landry had this to say: βOh Lord, Iβve given up on the amendments.β
Judging by the crowded ballot, the same canβt be said of the Legislature, even though to amend the constitution fell to defeat this past spring.
Both times, there was significant, organized opposition to some of the questions. And both times, that opposition morphed seamlessly into a βvote no on allβ vibe.
Chalk it up to fatigue over being asked to make too many nuts-and-bolts decisions. And to distrust in the motives of the people putting the questions before voters. And to a bloated constitution that delves far too much into the weeds, hamstringing state and in some cases local government officials β an intractable problem that could theoretically be addressed by the type of overhaul Landry had proposed if not for the aforementioned lack of trust.
Columnist Stephanie Grace
As for the fatigue, well, the current slate of questions is unlikely to solve that one.
Probably the most this time around would limit governors to two terms in office over their lifetimes; currently they can serve two consecutive terms, sit one or more out and then run again, as former Gov. Edwin Edwards once did.
Is this actually a pressing problem?
Well, a lot of Democrats believe Republicans think so, because one person it would theoretically prohibit from a future ballot is John Bel Edwards, the still-in-his-prime former governor who managed to leave office with his popularity intact, despite being a Democrat in a Republican state.
Edwards himself seems to buy into that theory. When the Legislature placed it on the ballot, he tweeted: βI think this is what the kids call βliving in somebodyβs head rent free.ββ
To be fair, the amendmentβs author, state Rep. Mike Bayham, R-Chalmette, says the measure is not aimed at anyone in particular. But then why, and why now? Itβs not even clear that the new restriction would legally apply to Edwards, Bobby Jindal or eventually Landry β which makes this question even less necessary.
Thatβs not the only proposed amendment that seems to be aimed at particular political constituencies. One would remove judicial discretion over post-conviction bail for certain heinous crimes β which sounds tough on crime but would likely do little other than preclude full consideration of the specific cases. Another would prevent a far-fetched scenario in which Louisiana politicians help foreign adversaries acquire land through expropriation.
Elsewhere on the list are several attempts to offer for specific constituencies β or at least let localities do so β although voters must consider the flip side of who pays more if the beneficiaries of the amendment pay less.
Some of the proposals appear pretty commonsense.
One would give local governments more flexibility to adjust the property taxes they collect between assessments, which could allow them to more nimbly react to circumstances and avoid rolling millage collections forward to cover unknown future costs.
Another would allow governments to use one-time windfalls to pay down their most expensive debt rather than their oldest, which would benefit everybody. Yet another would make it clear that federal money slated for lead remediation can be used on pipes that run to homes on private property, a condition of the funding in the first place.
If voters were only asked to approve fixes like these, maybe theyβd be inclined to vote yes.
Facing 10 questions, some of which donβt seem remotely urgent, Iβm wondering how many will make like Landry and just wash their hands of the whole thing.