The Louisiana Federation of Teachers and School Employees (LFT) has carefully reviewed the four constitutional amendments that will appear on the March 29, 2025, statewide ballot. These amendments will have significant impacts on our state's education system, judicial processes, and budget. We encourage all Louisiana voters to become informed about these important issues before heading to the polls.
Amendment 1: Specialty Trial Courts and Discipline of Lawyers
Louisiana Federation of Teachers has not taken a position on Constitutional Amendment 1 but would like to provide a summary of the positions for and against the amendment to help voters understand the key considerations.
Pros of Constitutional Amendment 1:
Constitutional Amendment 1 would grant the Louisiana Supreme Court explicit authority to discipline out-of-state attorneys practicing in Louisiana, addressing concerns about potential unethical behavior from visiting lawyers. The amendment would allow the Legislature to create specialized courts that could operate regionally or statewide, potentially bringing more specialized judicial expertise to handle complex legal matters like business disputes. Rural areas with limited judicial resources could benefit from regional specialty courts that allow shared resources and trained judges across parish lines. The amendment would maintain the constitutional requirement for judges to be elected rather than appointed, preserving voter control while allowing more flexibility in court structure. The two-thirds legislative vote requirement for creating new specialty courts would ensure broad support before any new judicial bodies are established.
Cons of Constitutional Amendment 1:
The amendment could lead to an expansion of the court system at taxpayer expense when Louisiana already has more judges per capita than many other states. Critics argue the proposal lacks specificity about which types of specialty courts might be created, leaving too much discretion to legislators without clear constitutional guardrails. There are concerns that lawmakers could potentially create specialty courts to circumvent local judicial authority and unintended judicial overreach. The judicial branch itself did not request these changes, raising questions about whether the amendment is addressing a genuine problem identified by legal professionals. Legal experts disagree on whether the amendment language is sufficiently clear regarding what types of cases these new specialty courts could handle, particularly with respect to felony crimes.
Amendment 2: Overhaul of Budget and Tax Allowance and Limitations
The Louisiana Federation of Teachers (LFT) supports Constitutional Amendment 2 (CA2), which would ensure that one-time teacher and support staff stipends become a permanent part of their salary. If CA2 fails to pass, teachers could face a $2,000 reduction in take-home pay and support staff could see a $1,000 reduction in take-home pay, further worsening Louisiana's shortage of qualified educators. LFT's statewide surveys consistently show that increased compensation is the number one issue for teachers and support staff. Making the stipends a permanent part of educators’ base pay replaces what had previously been uncertain annual payments, giving educators more financial stability and predictability in their compensation.
Louisiana already struggles with teacher vacancies, often filling teaching positions with unqualified individuals, some coming directly from fast-food jobs. Despite receiving stipends in 2022, Louisiana's ranking remains low at 13th out of 16 in the Southern Regional Education Board's data, as other states provided higher salary increases on top of already better pay.
Teachers in Louisiana earn 28% less than other college-educated workers. This is worse than both the SREB average of 23% and the national average of 26%. When combined with skyrocketing costs for groceries, insurance, and healthcare (Louisiana educators have the second-highest monthly individual healthcare premiums in the Southern Region), it's clear why the state cannot recruit or retain qualified educators. Louisiana teacher pay has only reached the Southern Regional Average once, back in 2007, nearly two decades ago.
Constitutional Amendment 2 dissolves three education trust funds (nearly $2 billion) to pay down the state's debt to the teacher retirement system and requires school districts to use their retirement payment savings to provide permanent salary increases for teachers and support staff. The proposed elimination of education trust funds would remove a constitutionally protected revenue stream that currently provides $68 million annually for education programs, including $20 million for higher education. Governor Landry and legislators have expressed their intent to continue funding for important education programs currently supported by these trust funds, including K-12 initiatives, early childhood education, student remediation, college research, and endowed professorships.
Constitutional Amendment 2 also completely overhauls Article VII of the Louisiana Constitution by rewriting the sections dealing with revenue collection, taxation, and budget rules, including lowering income tax caps and changing how trust funds operate.
If passed, the amendment would:
- Lower the maximum allowable individual income tax rate cap from 4.75% to 3.75% and double the standard income tax deduction for citizens over 65.
- Require a two-thirds legislative vote to create new tax exemptions and mandate that new sales tax exemptions apply to both state and local taxes.
- Remove limits on severance tax revenue that local governments can receive from mineral production on their lands.
- Establish new constraints on state general fund spending growth tied to population and inflation factors.
- Merge two state savings accounts by transferring funds from the Revenue Stabilization Trust Fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund (rainy day fund) and eliminating the Revenue Stabilization Fund by 2027.
- Remove several trust funds from the constitution, placing them instead in state law where they would be easier for legislators to modify.
- Create incentives for parishes to reduce or eliminate property taxes on business inventory and make it more difficult to enact new property tax exemptions.
This comprehensive amendment represents a significant restructuring of Louisiana's constitutional provisions governing fiscal matters, requiring only a single yes-or-no vote despite containing numerous complex changes. LFT recognizes the concerns that many groups have raised over the proposed changes. All voters should review the proposed changes carefully.
LFT has consistently advocated for paying Louisiana educators, both teachers and support staff, a wage that reflects what they are required and called to do—caring for and educating Louisiana's children. For this reason, we support CA 2.
Act 8 Replaces the One-Time Stipends
Louisiana House Bill No. 5 (Act 8) Act 8 is the companion legislation to Constitutional Amendment 2. It converts what was previously a one-time stipend into permanent part of teacher and support staff salaries. The bill requires public school systems to provide permanent salary increases of at least $2,000 for certificated personnel and at least $1,000 for non-certificated personnel beginning with the 2025-2026 school year.
Companion legislation serves to support and implement a proposed constitutional amendment by providing the necessary statutory framework for its application if ratified by voters. It clarifies complex provisions that may be too detailed for inclusion in the amendment itself and ensures alignment with existing state laws to maintain legal consistency. This legislation is typically contingent upon voter approval of the amendment, ensuring that all changes are cohesive and functional within Louisiana’s legal system.
LFT was the only organization that worked to add amendments to Act 8 to ensure teachers and support staff received the permanent increase. We worked closely with Rep. Bacala, Senator Edmonds, and Governor Landry to add measures guaranteeing these increases would become embedded in educators' base compensation.
The only amendment we were not able to add was to include educators in charter schools that do not participate in the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana. However, Governor Landry has gone on record stating his intent for all educators to receive the permanent pay increase of $2,000 for teachers and $1,000 for support staff.
Key Protections for Teachers and Support Staff in Act 8:
- Permanent Salary Schedule Placement: Each public school system must place the salary increases into their permanent salary schedules
- Associated Retirement Costs Covered: The bill requires that associated retirement costs for the salary increases be included
- Funding Mechanism: The increases are funded through savings realized from reduced employer contribution rates
- MFP Supplementation: If a school system's savings are insufficient, the remaining amount shall be provided through the minimum foundation program formula
- Non-Supplantation Clause: The salary increases cannot supplant or offset any salaries or salary supplements to which personnel were entitled prior to this legislation
- Leave Protection: Employees on approved leave remain eligible for the increases
- Compliance Reporting: School systems must certify and report implementation by December 31, 2025
- Superintendent Accountability: Superintendents of non-compliant school systems must appear before a hearing of the Senate and House Education Committees
These provisions closely mirror the Minimum Foundation Program (MFP), the constitutional funding mechanism that has been used to provide educator raises in the past.
Though LFT would have preferred that the permanent increase be provided in Level 4 of the MFP, current law does not allow teacher or school employee salaries to be reduced from the previous year.
Current Law RS 17:418 C(1) The amount of the annual salary paid to a teacher or other school employee in any school year shall not be reduced below the amount of such salary paid during the previous school year, nor shall the amount of the annual salary paid to such school personnel be reduced at any time during an academic year.
Amendment 3: Prosecution of Juveniles as Adults for Felony Crimes
The Louisiana Federation of Teachers (LFT) opposes Constitutional Amendment 3, which would remove important constitutional protections that currently limit when juveniles can be tried as adults in our state.
The Louisiana Constitution already authorizes a person under the age of 17 to be removed from juvenile court and charged as an adult in the criminal court system only if they are accused of one of 16 specific felony crimes:
- First-degree murder
- Second-degree murder
- Manslaughter
- Aggravated rape
- Armed robbery
- Aggravated burglary
- Aggravated kidnapping
- Attempted first-degree murder
- Attempted second-degree murder
- Forcible rape
- Simple rape
- Second-degree kidnapping
- A second or subsequent aggravated battery
- A second or subsequent aggravated burglary
- A second or subsequent offense of burglary of an inhabited dwelling
- A second or subsequent felony-grade violation involving the manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances
This carefully defined list was established to ensure that only the most serious violent offenses could trigger adult prosecution for youth. The specificity is intentional and reflects Louisiana's recognition that trying children as adults should be limited to extraordinary circumstances.
Constitutional protections are fundamentally different from statutory provisions. By placing these limitations in our constitution rather than ordinary law, the framers created a higher threshold for changing these provisions—requiring both legislative approval and voter consent. This higher bar reflects the gravity of decisions about treating children as adults in our criminal justice system.
By shifting this authority from the Constitution to state law, future changes could be made without requiring voter approval, leaving the prosecution of juveniles more vulnerable to shifting political priorities. The current constitutional framework ensures that any expansion of this list must be approved by the people of Louisiana.
If lawmakers believe additional specific offenses should be added to the list, the appropriate approach is to propose those specific additions to voters, not to remove all constitutional constraints. The amendment as proposed would eliminate an important layer of protection, potentially leading to more youth facing adult prosecution for less serious offenses.
The constitutional limitations currently in place ensure that only juveniles accused of the most serious violent offenses can be tried as adults. This recognizes both the need to address truly serious crimes and the developmental differences between youth and adults. By preserving these constitutional guardrails, the state ensures decisions about trying children as adults maintain the gravity and careful consideration such life-altering policies deserve.
For these reasons, the Louisiana Federation of Teachers is opposed to Amendment 3.
Amendment 4: Special Elections for Judicial Vacancies
Louisiana Federation of Teachers has not taken a position on Constitutional Amendment 4 but would like to provide a summary of the positions for and against the amendment to help voters understand the key considerations.
Pros of Constitutional Amendment 4:
Constitutional Amendment 4 would resolve a timing issue created by the state's recent shift to closed primaries for certain elections, including Louisiana Supreme Court races, by aligning special judicial elections with the regular election calendar. Supporters argue that this amendment aligns special judicial elections with the regular election cycle, preventing unnecessary standalone elections and reducing costs that might otherwise be required to meet the current constitutional mandate to fill judicial vacancies within 12 months. By requiring these special elections to occur on the next gubernatorial or congressional election date (or the first available election date if neither is within 12 months), the amendment promotes efficiency in the electoral process. The change would not affect the Supreme Court's authority to appoint an interim judge while the election process unfolds, maintaining judicial continuity. This technical fix would ensure compliance with both the closed primary law and the constitutional timeline for filling vacant judgeships, particularly for the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Cons of Constitutional Amendment 4:
Critics argue that the amendment is unnecessary since the potential for a Supreme Court vacancy requiring special elections under the new closed primary system is rare and doesn't justify changing the constitution. The amendment could result in extending the period an appointed (rather than elected) judge serves before facing an election, potentially diminishing voter representation in the judiciary. Some argue that adjusting the closed primary law would be more appropriate than amending the constitution, especially for addressing an issue that affects only seven Supreme Court positions rather than hundreds of judgeships statewide. The amendment could result in longer vacancies before a permanent elected judge takes office, if the next regular election date is many months away. Opponents suggest that lawmakers should have anticipated and addressed these timing conflicts when they created the closed primary system rather than requiring voters to fix the problem through a constitutional amendment.
For More Information
For more detailed, non-partisan analysis of all proposed amendments on the March 29 ballot, we encourage voters to review the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana's Guide to the 2025 Constitutional Amendments.