Here we go again, Louisiana. Another election day, another round of constitutional amendments to vote on. Make no mistake—this isn’t going away anytime soon. Some of these changes are necessary because our state constitution is old and needs updating to keep pace with modern issues. But let’s be clear: these amendments also reflect who’s holding power. Changing Louisiana’s constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the legislature and, ultimately, your approval at the ballot box. Normally that two-thirds threshold is tough to hit—unless you’re in the current position of the Republican Party, which now holds a supermajority in both houses.

With that kind of control, they’re advancing their agenda with ease. Even more telling, they’ve placed these changes on an off-election ballot, where voter turnout is expected to be low. History shows that voters often reject constitutional amendments, but these low-turnout elections bring out chronic voters who tend to be more informed and open to change. Our Think504 audience is among the most informed in the electorate. To keep you that way, here’s a breakdown of the proposed amendments and what’s really at stake when you geaux to vote on December 7, 2024.

Amendment 1 (December 7): Judicial Oversight Gets a Boost

What you’ll see on the ballot:

“Do you support an amendment to allow the supreme court to sanction a judge upon an investigation by the judiciary commission, and provide that the recommended sanction shall be instituted by the judiciary commission or by a majority of the supreme court, and to provide for the appointment of five members of the judiciary commission?”

Judges are supposed to uphold the law, but who’s keeping an eye on them? This amendment would expand the Judiciary Commission from nine to fourteen members and give the Louisiana Supreme Court more authority to investigate judges accused of misconduct.

The case for it: Supporters say more commission members mean more perspectives and less risk of bias. Plus, giving the Supreme Court more oversight could help address issues faster when judges cross the line.

The case against it: Others see potential red flags. Adding more political appointments to the commission could muddy the waters, and having the Supreme Court act as investigator and judge might raise fairness concerns.

Amendment 2 (December 7): Slow Down and Read the Fine Print

What you’ll see on the ballot:

“Do you support an amendment to require that the legislature wait for at least forty-eight hours prior to concurring in a conference committee report or amendments to a bill appropriating money?”

Ever feel like politicians are making decisions faster than you can say “gumbo”? This amendment requires a mandatory 48-hour waiting period before lawmakers can take a final vote on budget bills. The idea is to give everyone time to review any last-minute changes.

The case for it: Transparency and accountability. Voters and even some lawmakers have grown tired of rushed decisions that leave them scrambling to figure out what just passed.

The case against it: Opponents argue this could bog down the legislative process, especially when quick action is needed. They think the Legislature should fix this internally without changing the constitution.

Amendment 3 (December 7): Extra Time for Budget Talks

What you’ll see on the ballot:

“Do you support an amendment to allow the legislature to extend a regular session in increments of two days up to a maximum of six days if necessary to pass a bill appropriating money?”

This proposal would let lawmakers extend their regular session by up to six extra days to hash out budget bills. Right now, when time runs out, they often call costly special sessions.

The case for it: More time equals better decisions—or at least fewer rushed ones. This could save taxpayers money by avoiding unnecessary special sessions.

The case against it: Opponents think lawmakers should manage their time better. Giving them more days might just lead to more procrastination.

Get Election Information Here

Amendment 4 (December 7): A Kinder, Gentler Property Tax Process

What you’ll see on the ballot:

“Do you support an amendment to eliminate mandatory tax sales for nonpayment of property taxes and require the legislature to provide for such procedures by law; to limit the amount of penalty and interest on delinquent property taxes; and to provide for the postponement of property tax payments under certain circumstances?“

Nobody likes property taxes, but losing your home over them is worse. This amendment would eliminate the requirement for mandatory tax sales of properties with unpaid taxes. Instead, lawmakers would get more say in setting rules for dealing with delinquencies.

The case for it: Supporters say this change gives the Legislature flexibility to create fairer systems for struggling homeowners. Why force people out of their homes when there could be better solutions?

The case against it: Critics worry that this could lead to less revenue for local governments. If there’s no hard deadline for paying taxes, what’s stopping people from putting it off?

A Look at Voting in a Southern State

These amendments touch on issues that will shape Louisiana’s future. Coastal restoration is critical for our survival. Judicial oversight matters for fairness. Legislative processes impact how we spend our money. And property tax rules determine whether people stay in their homes.

As always, the devil’s in the details. Voters need to weigh the pros and cons carefully because once these changes are made, they’re hard to undo. Let’s make sure we’re not just checking boxes in the voting booth but thinking about the bigger picture.

When you head to the polls, don’t just skim the ballot like it’s a menu. Dive into the details, and vote like the future of Louisiana depends on it—because it does.