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

“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 A section or other subdivision may be repealed by reference.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.

GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.