WILLIE CALHOUN JR ET AL v. NANCY LANDRY (2025)

On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge

PER CURIAM

Writ granted. In November of 2024 the Louisiana Legislature by Joint Resolution, with overwhelming majorities in both houses, proposed an amendment to revise Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution. A Joint Resolution of the Legislature is not law; the law will change only if the voters approve the proposed amendment. The measure is scheduled to appear on the March 29th ballot as proposed Amendment No. 2.

The wisdom of the proposed changes is not before the court. That will be decided after investigation, debate, and a vote of the people. The issue is whether the question has been legally presented to the voters.

Plaintiffs have filed a petition raising constitutional and statutory challenges to the proposed amendment, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Time is of the essence given that early voting commenced March 15 and is ongoing.

Considering the interests of judicial economy, the need to provide a definitive resolution of the issue, to prevent confusion or concern about infringement of the right to vote, or the effect of electoral choice, we elect to exercise our plenary supervisory authority under La. Const. Art. V, § 5(a). See Unwired Telecom Corp. v Parish of Calcasieu, 2003-0732, p. 8 (La. 1/19/05), 903 So. 2d 392, 400 (explaining “the constitutional grant of supervisory authority to this court is plenary, unfettered by jurisdictional requirements, and exercisable at the complete discretion of the court”); see also Mellor v. Parish of Jefferson, 2022-01713 (La. 9/1/23), 370 So. 3d 388, 391 (explaining this court may exercise its plenary authority “based on the possibility of constitutional infringement”).

The text of the enactment and constitutional and statutory provisions are clear, and the questions are all purely legal, therefore they are reviewed by the court de novo. There is no evidence to adduce and no reason to delay resolution of this important matter.

Constitutional Objections

Plaintiffs argue that the title to the amendment is inadequate. Article XIII, Section 1(B) provides that a “proposed amendment shall have a title containing a brief summary of the changes proposed”. This constitutional requirement differs from the statutory requirements for the language on the ballot. The title to the proposed amendment is “To provide with respect to the power of taxation including limitations thereon”. The title to Article VII is simply, “Revenue and Finance”. It is well-settled that the title of a legislative act is not dispositive, rather the substance controls. “[T]he provisions in the body of a law, which are germane to the object of the legislation need not be expressed in the title and the title is not required to be a complete index to every section of the statute. It is sufficient if the title in general terms directs attention to the purpose of the enactment. ․ The title of an act is not to be strictly or technically construed. ․ All that is required is that the title of a statute should be indicative of its object. The constitutional provision must be construed broadly with the view of effectuating not frustrating the legislative purpose.” State v. Sliger, 261 La. 999, 1006-07, 261 So. 2d 643, 646 (1972). We believe the same principle applies here. We find the title is adequate and therefore find no merit in this argument.

Plaintiffs also raise a “one object” argument. Article XIII, 1(B) of the constitution provides that a proposed amendment “shall be confined to one object”. It further provides, however, that “the legislature may propose, as one amendment, a revision of an entire article of this constitution which may contain multiple objects or changes”. That is clearly the case here. The proposed amendment provides a robust overhaul of Article VII. The fact that Sections 12, 13, and 17 and some parts of other sections remain as they were is of no moment in the larger legislative objective. This argument also has no merit.

Statutory Objections

Plaintiffs claims that the language appearing on the ballot violates La. R.S. 18:1299.1, which provides in full:

A. The preparation of a question or proposition to be submitted to the voters at an election shall be the responsibility of the governing authority or other entity calling the election or submitting the question or proposition. The proposition shall be comprised of simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood language and be in the form of a question. The proposition shall not exceed two hundred words in length and shall not include words that are struck through, underscored, or in boldface type.

B. The secretary of state shall be responsible for ensuring that the proposition complies with the requirements of this Section.

The legislature adopted the following ballot language, which is set to appear on the March 29 ballot:

Do you support an amendment to revise Article VII of the Constitution of Louisiana including revisions to lower the maximum rate of income tax, increase income tax deductions for citizens over sixty-five, provide for a government growth limit, modify operation of certain constitutional funds, provide for property tax exemptions retaining the homestead exemption and exemption for religious organizations, provide a permanent teacher salary increase by requiring a surplus payment to teacher retirement debt, and make other modifications? (Amends Article VII, Sections 1 through 28; Adds Article VII, Sections 29 through 42)

Plaintiffs argue that the word “modify” is misleading, because the funds in question are being deleted, not modified; that “retaining” tax exemptions for religious organizations is misleading because they are potentially more restrictive; and that providing a “permanent” teacher salary increase is misleading because the year to year salary stipends teachers have been receiving provide the same dollars.

The full text of the amendment is available to the public on the Louisiana Legislature's website: htps://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocment.aspx?d= 1390004. We find the ballot language for the proposition at issue is framed in “simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood language.” There is no requirement that every detail of the proposition be stated on the ballot. The state's voters have access to the entire legislative bill giving all the details of the proposed constitutional amendments on the state legislature's website. The effect of the proposed changes is a subject for debate beyond the purview of this court.

This court has long recognized that: The publication gives voters information as to the contents or provisions of a proposed constitutional amendment. All that is required to be printed on the ballot is sufficient information to identify which proposed amendment the voters are voting for or against. Hotard v. City of New Orleans, 35 So.2d 752, 756 (La. 1948). Amendment 2 has been published on the legislature's website for over three months. The public is able to make itself aware of all contents of Amendment 2.

Plaintiffs also argue that the ballot language is biased; that it's “all dessert and no vegetables.” Yet vegetables may be healthier than dessert. This too is a matter of opinion and for debate, beyond this court's analysis, and for the voters to decide. We do not find the ballot proposition misleading or biased in the manner the legislature sought to proscribe. Accordingly, we find no violation of La. R.S. 18:1299.1

Again, it is not the duty of this court to pass on the wisdom of the proposed changes to Article VII of the constitution. The voters rather than the courts should decide. We do find that the issue has been adequately and legally presented to the voters, and therefor dismiss the petition of Plaintiffs with prejudice.

JUDGEMENT RENDERED.

Some procedural background is appropriate. Plaintiffs filed a petition seeking declaratory and injunctive relief asserting the proposed constitutional amendment fails to comply with the requirements of the Louisiana Constitution and the Election Code. The Secretary of State and Attorney General (collectively, the “State”) filed various exceptions in response. Although the district court overruled most of the exceptions, the court did not order removal of the proposed amendment from the ballot or take any other action to interfere with the March 29, 2025 election. Thus, the election on the proposed amendment is going forward as scheduled. The district court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction for March 20, 2025.

The State has now filed a writ application in this court, bypassing the court of appeal, seeking to upend the normal judicial process by asking this court to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims, summarily, on the merits. The majority of this court does just that.

The orderly administration of justice demands that hearings before trial courts be open to the public and the media. See La. Const. art. I, § 22.¹ When this court rules without a hearing or trial at the district court level, without prior review by the court of appeal, and without oral arguments at this court, the public is largely left out of the process and remains in the dark, except as to any reasons given by this court in summarily ruling. Such a process erodes respect for the fairness and impartiality of the system of justice. I recently dissented in a case wherein the majority of this court chose to exercise its plenary authority to bypass the court of appeal's appellate review of the issues.² Louisiana has a system of justice that allows for public hearings, the right of review by a court of appeal, and then and only then, a request to this court by way of a writ of certiorari to hear the matter. As in that case, I find no compelling reason for this court to act summarily, and without the benefit of a record from a hearing in the district court, and without the court of appeal's considered review. This court does not have any mechanism for hearing evidence, and any evidence the parties intended to introduce will now be essentially swept under the rug.

Historically, this court has rarely taken up matters that bypassed the other courts and then only when there were significant issues needing immediate attention and the facts were stipulated or uncontested.³ Our system of justice provides for deliberation and a defined formal procedure and process, from which this court should rarely, if ever, depart. Once again, this court is being asked to depart from the constitutionally and statutorily established processes and does so without a full and complete record and without stipulated facts.

I find it particularly concerning that the majority does not simply review the district court's ruling, but also addresses and then dismisses all of plaintiffs’ claims on the merits. Neither the district court nor the court of appeal have ruled on the merits of plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory challenges. Plaintiffs are legally entitled to challenge the actions of the legislature in submitting a constitutional amendment to the people, and this matter was brought in a timely manner.⁴ Plaintiffs’ action does not attack the people's right to vote because voting is ongoing. Plaintiffs assert numerous issues with the amendment. The petition alleges the ballot language is misleading and biased, in violation of La. R.S. 18:1299.1, which requires that the ballot language be “simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood.” Moreover, plaintiffs assert the amendment does not comport with Louisiana Constitution Article XIII, § 1(B), which requires a “proposed amendment shall have a title containing a brief summary of the changes proposed” and be “confined to one object.”

“ ‘Provisions of a constitution regulating its own amendment, ․ are not merely directory but are mandatory; and a strict observance of every substantial requirement is essential to the validity of the proposed amendment.’ ․ Thus, in submitting an amendment to the people, the Legislature is bound by the provisions of our constitution mandating the procedural process for amending the constitution.” Forum for Equality PAC v. McKeithen, 04-2477, p. 11 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So.2d 715, 723 (internal citations removed). Even a cursory review of the proposed amendment in light of plaintiffs’ challenges demonstrates these challenges are not frivolous and should not be summarily dismissed. Whether the ballot language and proposed amendment comply with the statutory and constitutional requirements is indeed a matter of opinion and subject to debate, and is precisely the type of question that should be analyzed through the normal judicial process, allowing for evidence, public hearing, and publicly-viewed oral arguments prior to ruling on the request for injunction or declaratory judgment.

The optics of this court's ruling does not serve this court or the system of justice well. To the general public, the constraints established by the fundamental concept of separation of powers may well appear out of balance. Compliance with constitutional provisions requiring open-court hearings provides for full transparency, which is essential to our system of a representative government.

For these reasons, I would deny the writ application. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this matter.

“Provisions of a constitution regulating its own amendment, ․ are not merely directory but are mandatory; and a strict observance of every substantial requirement is essential to the validity of the proposed amendment.” Forum for Equality PAC v. McKeithen, 04-2477, p. 11 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So. 2d 715, 723 (quoting Graham v. Jones, 198 La. 507, 3 So. 2d 761, 782 (1941)). Thus, this Court has stated that, in submitting an amendment to the people, the Legislature is bound by the provisions of our constitution mandating the procedural process for amending the constitution. Forum for Equality PAC, 04-2477 at p. 11, 893 So. 2d at 723.

Louisiana Constitution article XIII, § 1(B), entitled “Form of Proposal” provides:

A proposed amendment shall have a title containing a brief summary of the changes proposed; shall be confined to one object; and shall set forth the entire article, or the sections or other subdivisions thereof, as proposed to be revised or only the article, sections, or other subdivisions proposed to be added. However, the legislature may propose, as one amendment, a revision of an entire article of this constitution which may contain multiple objects or changes. A section or other subdivision may be repealed by reference. When more than one amendment is submitted at the same election, each shall be submitted so as to enable the electors to vote on them separately. [Emphasis added.]

Plaintiffs contend that Amendment 2 violates the title and the “one object” requirement of La. Const. art. XIII, § 1(B). First, with respect to the title requirement, the majority relies on State v. Sliger, 261 La. 999, 1006-08, 261 So. 2d 643, 646 (1972) as support for finding that the title in the instant case is adequate. However, Sliger addressed the title requirement for a statute found in Article III, § 16(A) of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, which required that every law enacted by the Legislature shall embrace one object and shall have a title indicative of such object. This is a much different standard than what is found in La. Const. art. XIII, § 1(B).

As stated above, La. Const. art. XIII, § 1(B) requires that the proposed amendment shall have a title containing a brief summary of the changes proposed. The majority defines the title by arbitrarily referring to the first clause of the first paragraph of House Bill No. 7; however, this clause is but one part of a paragraph that spans the length of two pages, which contains a multitude of subsequent, similar clauses relating to a myriad of issues. Accordingly, from the plain language of the proposed amendment, and as argued by plaintiffs, it is not clear what the title of the proposed amendment is nor that it can be considered brief. As such, this requirement is clearly not met.

Additionally, in addressing plaintiffs’ “one object” argument, the majority applies the alternative to this requirement, which provides that “the legislature may propose, as one amendment, a revision of an entire article of this constitution which may contain multiple objects or changes.” However, despite the majority's admission that the proposed amendment does not revise the entirety of Article VII, as “Sections 12, 13, and 17, and some parts of other sections remain as they were,” it inexplicably reaches the erroneous conclusion that the exception nonetheless applies. A “robust overhaul” or a “larger legislative objective” does not constitute “a revision of an entire article” and certainly does not justify disregarding the plain language of La. Const. art. XIII, § 1(B). Accordingly, because the exception does not apply, and the proposed amendment clearly is not confined to one object, as it spans a multitude of unrelated issues, this constitutional requirement also is not met.

With regard to plaintiffs’ statutory objections, La. R.S. 18:1299.1 provides:

A. The preparation of a question or proposition to be submitted to the voters at an election shall be the responsibility of the governing authority or other entity calling the election or submitting the question or proposition. The proposition shall be comprised of simple, unbiased, concise, and easily understood language and be in the form of a question. The proposition shall not exceed two hundred words in length and shall not include words that are struck through, underscored, or in boldface type.

B. The secretary of state shall be responsible for ensuring that the proposition complies with the requirements of this Section.

The plaintiffs assert that the ballot violates La. R.S. 18:1299.1 because it is biased and actively misrepresents the proposed amendments. I strongly disagree with the majority that the proposed ballot language is sufficient and transparent to accurately summarize and put voters on notice concerning what they are being asked to vote for or against. While there may be no requirement that every detail of the proposition be stated on the ballot, neither the Constitution nor La. R.S. 18:1299.1 provide for cherry picking and informing voters of items which voters may find favorable and hiding the ball regarding items voters may disfavor. Furthermore, I find the majority's statement that Amendment 2 has been published on the Legislature's website for over three months, and that the public is able to make itself aware of the entirety of the contents of Amendment 2, is disingenuous. The Constitution requires that a voter be able to walk into the voting booth, and within the limited time they are there, be able to read the ballot language and be accurately informed as to what the proposed amendment will do without having to consult, either prior to or on the spot, the voluminous pages of the actual legislative instrument on the Legislature's website.

Finally, I agree with the majority that it is not the duty, and I would add, not the role of this court or any court to pass on the wisdom of the proposed changes to Article VII, and I likewise agree with the concurrence that we serve as the guardian of our constitution. However, I also strongly believe that in our system of separation of powers and checks and balances, it is the judicial branch and ultimately this Court, as the guardian of our Constitution, that has a sworn duty and constitutionally prescribed role to protect the voters by ensuring that the language of the legislatively proposed constitutional amendment preserves the rule of law and is accurate, which is a requirement that the voters have decided at the polls and placed in their Constitution. In fact, courts have no higher duty or responsibility to the citizens of this State than to vindicate their constitutionally imposed will.

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to deny plaintiffs’ petition with prejudice.

The Louisiana Legislature met in extraordinary session November 6, 2024 to November 22, 2024. At that special session, House Bill No. 7 passed by bi-partisan and overwhelming majorities. This measure passed the Senate 39-0 and House 87-11 and proposes a comprehensive revision of Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution. Act 1 of the 2024 3rd Ex. Session (“Act 1”).

I agree with the analysis, reasoning, and result of our Per Curiam opinion. I write separately to observe that this action attacks Act 1 at this late hour, in the middle of voting, after waiting over three months from the enactment of Act 1. La. C.C.P. art. 855.1. expressly provides that “[a]ll civil actions alleging that a law is unconstitutional shall be in writing and be brought in an ordinary proceeding.” (Emphasis added.) The use of this injunction proceeding to attack both Act 1 and the people's right to vote is procedurally deficient.

This Court serves as the final arbiter of the authority of the Legislature under our Constitution and as the guardian of that Constitution. If the ballot language were inaccurate this Court would act to protect the voters. That is not the case here. I agree that Act 1 was constitutionally adopted, and Amendment 2 is therefore properly before the people.

The claims in this petition lack merit, therefore any extension of these proceedings only serves to distract or confuse voters. The final decision on Amendment 2 rests solely and squarely with the people of Louisiana who will vote and decide its fate between now and March 29, 2025.

FOOTNOTES

1.   “All courts shall be open, and every person shall have an adequate remedy by due process of law and justice, administered without denial, partiality, or unreasonable delay, for injury to him in his person, property, reputation, or other rights.” La. Const. art. I, § 22.

2.   See Scott v. Louisiana State Police, 24-01591, p. 1 (La. 1/9/25), 398 So.3d 634, 635 (Weimer, C.J., dissenting) (involving the State's sweep of the homeless population in New Orleans immediately prior to the Super Bowl).

3.   In Marionneaux v. Hines, 05-1191, pp. 4-5 (La. 5/12/05), 902 So.2d 373, 376-77, this court stated:The Supreme Court of Louisiana has been granted supervisory powers since the Louisiana Constitution of 1879. Albert Tate, Jr., Supervisory Powers of the Louisiana Courts of Appeal, 38 Tul. L. Rev. 429, 430 (1964). Supervisory authority of this court is plenary, unfettered by jurisdictional requirements, and exercisable at the complete discretion of the court. Progressive Security Insurance Company v. Foster, 97-2985 (La.4/23/98), 711 So.2d 675, 678 n.3. This court can intervene under its own plenary supervisory powers, whether or not an intermediate court has properly acted on the matter. Tate, supra, at 430.Although this court does not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction lightly, there are instances in which writs are granted even though the relator has not exhausted available remedies in the lower court. Comment, Supervisory Powers of the Supreme Court of Louisiana Over Inferior Courts, 34 Tul. L. Rev. 165, 171 (1959); see also Hainkel v. Henry, 313 So.2d 577, 578 (La.1975). Due in part to proper deference to the lower courts, this court must remain reluctant to exercise its authority to hear a matter prior to a lower court determination. However, this matter presents itself in a particularly uncommon fashion in that the parties stipulated to all facts and the matter presents only a question of law which affects presently pending legislation and the conduct of the legislature during this session, as well as future legislative sessions. Id. Absent a prompt response by this court, legislative actions now in progress may be invalid, thus spawning future litigation. The ultimate issue of the meaning of “elected members” as used in the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 (see Footnote 2, supra ) is an issue that affects a fundamental political process in our representative form of government. The issue affects the entire state, not merely the legislature; it affects the validity of the actions taken by the Senate on bills pending before it that relate to all of the citizens of Louisiana. Further, judicial economy is best served by this court's exercising its supervisory jurisdiction. A matter as heavily impressed with public interest as the debate over the voting requirements for legislative action requires an immediate answer. [Emphasis added.]The need to resolve this matter expeditiously was pointed out by all parties in their briefs to this court. Indeed, the parties stipulated in the district court that “[o]ver one thousand bills and joint resolutions have been introduced or will be considered by the Legislature, including over three hundred bills and joint resolutions currently in the Senate awaiting action by that house.” Additionally, “[a]ppropriations for the operating expenses of state government enacted in the 2004 Regular Session expire on June 30, 2005. House bills appropriating money for the operating expenses of state government for the upcoming fiscal year must be enacted.” [Emphasis added.]Unlike the Marionneaux case quoted above, this matter is being dismissed without a stipulation as to all the facts and without a request by all parties that this court use its plenary power to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction immediately.

4.   See La. R.S. 18:1405(C) (“An action contesting an election on a proposed constitutional amendment shall be instituted not later than 4:30 p.m. of the tenth day after promulgation of the results of the election by the secretary of state.”). The instant suit, filed prior to the March 29, 2025 election date, seems to comply with the statutory requirement that “[a]n action contesting an election on a proposed constitutional amendment” be filed “not later than” 10 days after the election.

Weimer, C.J., dissents and assigns reasons. Griffin, J., dissents for reasons assigned by Weimer, C.J. and Guidry, J. Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons. Cole, J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.