An election reform bill that would prohibit the party affiliation of Louisiana judicial candidates from being listed on voters’ ballots is advancing toward a floor vote in the state’s House of Representatives.
House Bill 206, authored by Rep. Kyle Green (D-Marrero), passed the Committee on House and Governmental Affairs April 6 on a 9-3 vote. The bill would change the current practice of placing the political party designations of candidates running for judicial seats before voters.
Green and those who support the bill say the partisan leanings of judicial candidates should not be the main focus in such elections. Instead, such campaigns should emphasize candidates’ judicial qualifications, intelligence and demeanor, supporters say.
But the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) doesn’t see the bill as a helpful reform.
“Both the judiciary and the Legislature have made strides to increase judicial transparency, and we worry that HB 206 would be a step back in the wrong direction,” LABI President and CEO Stephen Waguespack told the Louisiana Record in an email. “If we want voters to make informed decisions at the polls, we should strive to provide them more information on election day, not less."
LABI has advocated for judicial reforms and the modernization of the state’s court system while cautioning about the corrosive impact civil litigation costs have had on Louisiana businesses and the economy as a whole.
“Over the last several years, LABI has worked to bring more transparency to the judicial branch,” Waguespack said. “The judiciary is a critical branch of government that should be held to the same standards of transparency and accountability to the public as the other two branches.”
A fiscal analysis of HB 206 that was conducted by the Legislature’s professional staff indicates that it would have a minimal fiscal impact on the state if passed. The bill would require the state Secretary of State’s Office to pay out $68,000 in information-technology costs to make the required changes to voters’ ballots.
“There is no anticipated direct material effect on governmental revenues as a result of this measure,” the analysis states.